Utility and uncorrected refractive error

Purpose: To investigate utility (a preference-based quality of life [QoL] measure) associated with uncorrected refractive error (URE). Design: Cross-sectional study. Participants: A cohort of 341 consecutive patients 40 to 65 years of age with refractive error and no ocular disease impairing vision worse than 20/25 (0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] units) in the better eye. Without vision correction, 30 had no vision impairment, 65 had only distance vision impairment (DVI), 97 had only near vision impairment (NVI), 112 had moderate amounts of both distance and near vision impairment (DNVI), and 37 had severe impairment (distance or near worse than 20/200 [>1.0 logMAR]) in the better eye. Methods: All participants underwent a comprehensive eye examination with refraction, aided and unaided visual acuity (VA) at 6 m and 40 cm, and ocular health assessment. Utilities were elicited for a number of scenarios using a standardized, face-to-face time trade-off (TTO) interview method. Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measure was TTO utility for the participant's own uncorrected vision state. Utilities ranged from 0 to 1, where 0 = death and 1 = perfect vision, and were scaled to account for comorbidities so that 1 = perfect health (adjusted utility). Results: Unaided VA was 0.50±0.24 logMAR at distance in the DVI group, 0.43±0.17 logMAR at near in the NVI group, and 0.72±0.36 and 0.56±0.29 at distance and near, respectively, in the DNVI group. Adjusted utilities for the 3 groups were 0.82±0.16 in the DVI group, 0.81±0.17 in the NVI group, and 0.68±0.25 in the DNVI group. The DVI and NVI group utilities (adjusted and unadjusted) did not differ significantly (P = 0.73 and P = 0.77, respectively). The DNVI utility was significantly worse than that of the DVI and NVI groups (adjusted and unadjusted, P<0.01). Conclusions: The URE is associated with measurable reductions in utility (and therefore QoL). Reductions are similar regardless of whether near or distance vision is impaired, but worse when both are impaired. The results underscore the significance of the effect of URE on QoL, particularly with respect to uncorrected presbyopia, which has been a relatively neglected area in research and policy. The utility figures in this study can be used as inputs for cost-effectiveness studies relating to URE to assist resource allocation decisions. Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article. © 2013 American Academy of Ophthalmology

Prevalence and Causes of Vision Loss in High-Income Countries and in Eastern and Central Europe in 2015: Magnitude, Temporal Trends, and Projections

Background: Within a surveillance of the prevalence and causes of vision impairment in high-income regions and Central/Eastern Europe, we update figures through 2015 and forecast expected values in 2020. Methods: Based on a systematic review of medical literature, prevalence of blindness, moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI), mild vision impairment and presbyopia were estimated for 1990, 2010, 2015, and 2020. Results: Age-standardized prevalence of blindness and MSVI for all ages decreased from 1990 to 2015 from 0.26% (0.10-0.46) to 0.15% (0.06-0.26), and from 1.74% (0.76-2.94) to 1.27% (0.55-2.17), respectively. In 2015, the number of individuals affected by blindness, MSVI and mild vision impairment ranged from 70,000, 630,000 and 610,000, respectively, in Australasia to 980,000, 7.46 million and 7.25 million, respectively, in North America and 1.16 million, 9.61 million and 9.47 million in Western Europe. In 2015, cataract was the most common cause for blindness, followed by age-related macular degeneration (AMD), glaucoma, uncorrected refractive error, diabetic retinopathy, and cornea-related disorders, with declining burden from cataract and AMD over time. Uncorrected refractive error was the leading cause of MSVI. Conclusions: While continuing to advance control of cataract and AMD as the leading causes of blindness remains a high priority, overcoming barriers to uptake of refractive error services would address approximately half of the MSVI burden. New data on burden of presbyopia identify this entity as an important public health problem in this population. Additional research on better treatments, better implementation with existing tools and ongoing surveillance of the problem are needed

Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Global and regional prevalence estimates for blindness and vision impairment are important for the development of public health policies. We aimed to provide global estimates, trends, and projections of global blindness and vision impairment. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based datasets relevant to global vision impairment and blindness that were published between 1980 and 2015. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate the prevalence (by age, country, and sex), in 2015, of mild visual impairment (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 to 6/18 inclusive), moderate to severe visual impairment (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/18 to 3/60 inclusive), blindness (presenting visual acuity worse than 3/60), and functional presbyopia (defined as presenting near vision worse than N6 or N8 at 40 cm when best-corrected distance visual acuity was better than 6/12). Findings: Globally, of the 7·33 billion people alive in 2015, an estimated 36·0 million (80% uncertainty interval [UI] 12·9–65·4) were blind (crude prevalence 0·48%; 80% UI 0·17–0·87; 56% female), 216·6 million (80% UI 98·5–359·1) people had moderate to severe visual impairment (2·95%, 80% UI 1·34–4·89; 55% female), and 188·5 million (80% UI 64·5–350·2) had mild visual impairment (2·57%, 80% UI 0·88–4·77; 54% female). Functional presbyopia affected an estimated 1094·7 million (80% UI 581·1–1686·5) people aged 35 years and older, with 666·7 million (80% UI 364·9–997·6) being aged 50 years or older. The estimated number of blind people increased by 17·6%, from 30·6 million (80% UI 9·9–57·3) in 1990 to 36·0 million (80% UI 12·9–65·4) in 2015. This change was attributable to three factors, namely an increase because of population growth (38·4%), population ageing after accounting for population growth (34·6%), and reduction in age-specific prevalence (–36·7%). The number of people with moderate and severe visual impairment also increased, from 159·9 million (80% UI 68·3–270·0) in 1990 to 216·6 million (80% UI 98·5–359·1) in 2015. Interpretation: There is an ongoing reduction in the age-standardised prevalence of blindness and visual impairment, yet the growth and ageing of the world’s population is causing a substantial increase in number of people affected. These observations, plus a very large contribution from uncorrected presbyopia, highlight the need to scale up vision impairment alleviation efforts at all levels

Global causes of blindness and distance vision impairment 1990–2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Contemporary data on causes of vision impairment and blindness form an important basis for recommendations in public health policies. Refreshment of the Global Vision Database with recently published data sources permitted modeling of cause of vision loss data from 1990 to 2015, further disaggregation by cause, and forecasts to 2020. Methods: Published and unpublished population-based data on the causes of vision impairment and blindness from 1980 to 2015 were systematically analysed. A series of regression models were fit to estimate the proportion of moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI; defined as presenting visual acuity <6/18 but ≥3/60 in the better eye) and blindness (presenting visual acuity <3/60 in the better eye) by cause by age, region, and year. Findings: Among the projected global population with MSVI (216.6 million; 80% uncertainty intervals [UI] 98.5-359.1), in 2015 the leading causes thereof are uncorrected refractive error (116.3 million; UI 49.4-202.1), cataract (52.6 million; UI 18.2-109.6), age-related macular degeneration (AMD; 8.4 million; UI 0.9-29.5), glaucoma (4.0 million; UI 0.6-13.3) and diabetic retinopathy (2.6 million; UI 0.2-9.9). In 2015, the leading global causes of blindness were cataract (12.6 million; UI 3.4-28.7) followed by uncorrected refractive error (7.4 million; UI 2.4-14.8) and glaucoma (2.9 million; UI 0.4-9.9), while by 2020, these numbers affected are anticipated to rise to 13.4 million, 8.0 million and 3.2 million, respectively. Cataract and uncorrected refractive error combined contributed to 55% of blindness and 77% of MSVI in adults aged 50 years and older in 2015. World regions varied markedly in the causes of blindness, with a relatively low prevalence of cataract and a relatively high prevalence of AMD as causes for vision loss in the High-income subregions. Blindness due to cataract and diabetic retinopathy was more common among women, while blindness due to glaucoma and corneal opacity was more common among men, with no gender difference related to AMD. Conclusions: The numbers of people affected by the common causes of vision loss have increased substantially as the population increases and ages. Preventable vision loss due to cataract and refractive error (reversible with surgery and spectacle correction respectively), continue to cause the majority of blindness and MSVI in adults aged 50+ years. A massive scale up of eye care provision to cope with the increasing numbers is needed if one is to address avoidable vision loss

Trends in prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment over 30 years: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study

Background: To contribute to the WHO initiative, VISION 2020: The Right to Sight, an assessment of global vision impairment in 2020 and temporal change is needed. We aimed to extensively update estimates of global vision loss burden, presenting estimates for 2020, temporal change over three decades between 1990–2020, and forecasts for 2050. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys of eye disease from January, 1980, to October, 2018. Only studies with samples representative of the population and with clearly defined visual acuity testing protocols were included. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate 2020 prevalence (with 95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) of mild vision impairment (presenting visual acuity ≥6/18 and <6/12), moderate and severe vision impairment (<6/18 to 3/60), and blindness (<3/60 or less than 10° visual field around central fixation); and vision impairment from uncorrected presbyopia (presenting near vision <N6 or <N8 at 40 cm where best-corrected distance visual acuity is ≥6/12). We forecast estimates of vision loss up to 2050. Findings: In 2020, an estimated 43·3 million (95% UI 37·6–48·4) people were blind, of whom 23·9 million (55%; 20·8–26·8) were estimated to be female. We estimated 295 million (267–325) people to have moderate and severe vision impairment, of whom 163 million (55%; 147–179) were female; 258 million (233–285) to have mild vision impairment, of whom 142 million (55%; 128–157) were female; and 510 million (371–667) to have visual impairment from uncorrected presbyopia, of whom 280 million (55%; 205–365) were female. Globally, between 1990 and 2020, among adults aged 50 years or older, age-standardised prevalence of blindness decreased by 28·5% (–29·4 to −27·7) and prevalence of mild vision impairment decreased slightly (–0·3%, −0·8 to −0·2), whereas prevalence of moderate and severe vision impairment increased slightly (2·5%, 1·9 to 3·2; insufficient data were available to calculate this statistic for vision impairment from uncorrected presbyopia). In this period, the number of people who were blind increased by 50·6% (47·8 to 53·4) and the number with moderate and severe vision impairment increased by 91·7% (87·6 to 95·8). By 2050, we predict 61·0 million (52·9 to 69·3) people will be blind, 474 million (428 to 518) will have moderate and severe vision impairment, 360 million (322 to 400) will have mild vision impairment, and 866 million (629 to 1150) will have uncorrected presbyopia. Interpretation: Age-adjusted prevalence of blindness has reduced over the past three decades, yet due to population growth, progress is not keeping pace with needs. We face enormous challenges in avoiding vision impairment as the global population grows and ages

Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study

Background: Many causes of vision impairment can be prevented or treated. With an ageing global population, the demands for eye health services are increasing. We estimated the prevalence and relative contribution of avoidable causes of blindness and vision impairment globally from 1990 to 2020. We aimed to compare the results with the World Health Assembly Global Action Plan (WHA GAP) target of a 25% global reduction from 2010 to 2019 in avoidable vision impairment, defined as cataract and undercorrected refractive error. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys of eye disease from January, 1980, to October, 2018. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate prevalence (with 95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) of moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI; presenting visual acuity from <6/18 to 3/60) and blindness (<3/60 or less than 10° visual field around central fixation) by cause, age, region, and year. Because of data sparsity at younger ages, our analysis focused on adults aged 50 years and older. Findings: Global crude prevalence of avoidable vision impairment and blindness in adults aged 50 years and older did not change between 2010 and 2019 (percentage change −0·2% [95% UI −1·5 to 1·0]; 2019 prevalence 9·58 cases per 1000 people [95% IU 8·51 to 10·8], 2010 prevalence 96·0 cases per 1000 people [86·0 to 107·0]). Age-standardised prevalence of avoidable blindness decreased by −15·4% [–16·8 to −14·3], while avoidable MSVI showed no change (0·5% [–0·8 to 1·6]). However, the number of cases increased for both avoidable blindness (10·8% [8·9 to 12·4]) and MSVI (31·5% [30·0 to 33·1]). The leading global causes of blindness in those aged 50 years and older in 2020 were cataract (15·2 million cases [9% IU 12·7–18·0]), followed by glaucoma (3·6 million cases [2·8–4·4]), undercorrected refractive error (2·3 million cases [1·8–2·8]), age-related macular degeneration (1·8 million cases [1·3–2·4]), and diabetic retinopathy (0·86 million cases [0·59–1·23]). Leading causes of MSVI were undercorrected refractive error (86·1 million cases [74·2–101·0]) and cataract (78·8 million cases [67·2–91·4]). Interpretation: Results suggest eye care services contributed to the observed reduction of age-standardised rates of avoidable blindness but not of MSVI, and that the target in an ageing global population was not reached. Funding: Brien Holden Vision Institute, Fondation Théa, The Fred Hollows Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lions Clubs International Foundation, Sightsavers International, and University of Heidelberg

Utility and uncorrected refractive error

Uncorrected refractive error (URE) is the leading cause of vision impairment globally. URE, particularly uncorrected presbyopia (resulting in near vision impairment), has been a poorly recognised, poorly researched and a poorly prioritised area. This thesis explores the impact and cost-effectiveness of URE correction. In the health sector, cost-utility analysis is a form of cost-effectiveness evaluation that considers a person&#146;s Quality of Life (QoL) outcomes. These types of evaluations assist governmental resource allocation decisions. A utility value is an indirect measure of a person&#146;s QoL. Utilities have been derived for a variety of ocular and medical conditions but not previously reported for URE.Cross-sectional research involving 406 refractive error participants was conducted at a university based eye clinic in Sydney. Eye examinations and utility interviews and questionnaires were administered on all participants. Utilities were elicited using the Time-Trade-Off (TTO), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and AQol-7D methods. URE was found to be associated with measurable reductions in QoL using utility analysis. Unaided visual acuity (VA) was found to be a strong predictor of utility with little influence of socio-demographic and lifestyle factors. This suggests results may be generalised to other populations based on the level of VA loss. Reductions were similar irrespective of whether near or distance vision was impaired but worse when both aspects of vision were affected. This thesis therefore argues for the inclusion of near vision impairment to current global definitions of vision impairment. Until now, cataract surgery was believed to be one of the most cost-effective interventions globally. Data estimates from this study suggest that intervention aimed at alleviating URE is 40 times more cost-effective than cataract surgery. Given that URE is the leading cause of vision impairment, the utility values reported here will assist and improve current vision and eye health care prioritisation. These measures provide a basis to more accurately estimate the relative impact and economic consequences of this condition, determine how this compares to other conditions (medical and ocular) and determine the most cost-effective ways to alleviate the unnecessary blindness and impaired vision that results from avoidable causes

Towards better estimates of uncorrected presbyopia

Normal vision depends upon the ability of the ocular lens to change shape, ensuring that light is focused on the most sensitive part of the retina. Anyone living beyond middle age is inevitably affected by presbyopia, an inability to focus on near objects, due to the loss of flexibility of the ocular lens. It is estimated that over half of the one billion people affected globally cannot afford the spectacles needed to correct their eyesight. Most of the people with uncorrected visual impairment live in low- and middle-income countrie