PurposeTo evaluate 3-year incidence of Nd:YAG capsulotomy and PCO and compare the effect of different IOL materials.MethodsData were retrospectively collected from seven UK ophthalmology clinics using Medisoft electronic medical records. Eyes from patients ≥65 years undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of acrylic monofocal IOLs during 2010–2013 and 3-year follow-up were analysed. Nd:YAG capsulotomy and PCO incidence proportions were reported for 3 IOL cohorts: AcrySof, other hydrophobic and hydrophilic acrylic IOLs. Unadjusted/adjusted odds ratios (OR) of Nd:YAG capsulotomy were calculated through logistic regression for non-AcrySof cohorts versus AcrySof. A sub-group analysis in single-piece IOLs (>90% of sample eyes) was also performed.ResultsThe AcrySof cohort included 13,329 eyes, non-AcrySof hydrophobic 19,025 and non-AcrySof hydrophilic 19,808. The 3-year Nd:YAG capsulotomy incidence (95% CI) for AcrySof (2.4%, 2.2–2.7%) was approximately two times lower than non-AcrySof hydrophobic IOLs (4.4%, 4.1–4.7%) and approximately fourfold lower than non-AcrySof hydrophilic IOLs (10.9%, 10.5–11.3%). Trends were similar in PCO incidence (AcrySof: 4.7%; non-AcrySof hydrophobic: 6.3%; non-AcrySof hydrophilic: 14.8%). Also in the analysis restricted to single-piece IOLs, the pattern remained (2.4% vs 5.1% vs. 10.9%, respectively). Adjusted regression analysis showed a approximately two and fivefold increased odds of Nd:YAG for non-AcrySof hydrophobic and hydrophilic acrylic IOLs respectively vs. AcrySof IOLs. Nd:YAG capsulotomy ORs were similar and remained statistically significant in the single-piece IOL sub-group.ConclusionsReal-world evidence shows that within 3 years following implantation, AcrySof IOLs are significantly superior in reducing Nd:YAG capsulotomy and PCO incidence compared to other hydrophilic and hydrophobic acrylic IOLs.

PurposeTo systematically review the published evidence on the prevalence and economic and humanistic burden of astigmatism in cataract patients.Materials and methodsFor this systematic literature review, the Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1996 to September 2015 for available scientific literature that met the inclusion criteria. Studies published in the English language reporting prevalence and humanistic and economic burden in patients diagnosed with cataract and astigmatism were included.ResultsOf 3,649 papers reviewed, 31 studies from 32 publications met the inclusion criteria of this review. Preexisting astigmatism ≥1 D was present in up to 47% of cataract eyes. The cost burden of residual uncorrected astigmatism after cataract surgery was driven by the cost of spectacles, which was estimated to range from $2,151 to $3,440 in the US and $1,786 to $4,629 in Europe over a lifetime. In cataract patients, both preexisting and postoperative residual astigmatism were associated with poor vision-related patient satisfaction and quality of life, as well as higher spectacle burden. Astigmatism correction during cataract surgery appears to improve visual outcomes and results in overall lifetime cost savings compared to astigmatism correction with postoperative vision correction.ConclusionThere is a high prevalence of preexisting astigmatism in cataract patients. Although published data are limited, both preoperative astigmatism and postoperative residual astigmatism affect visual function and vision-related quality of life, resulting in increased humanistic burden. Suboptimal correction of astigmatism during cataract surgery drives the continuous need for vision correction with spectacles in the postoperative period. Patients must bear the out-of-pocket expenses, since payers often do not reimburse the cost of spectacles. Greater access to astigmatism correction during cataract surgery could improve visual outcomes and quality of life in patients. More research is required to gain a better understanding of the disease burden of astigmatism in cataract patients.

No abstract

No abstract

IMPORTANCEThere is a need for validated clinical end points that are reliably able to quantify potential therapeutic effects of future treatments targeting age-related macular degeneration (AMD) before the onset of serious visual impairment. OBJECTIVE To assess the reliability and discriminatory power of 5 simple chart-based visual function (VF) tests as potential measures for clinical trial end points with regulatory and patient-access intention in intermediate AMD (iAMD). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This international noninterventional study took place at 18 tertiary ophthalmology departments across Europe. Participants were recruited between April 2018 and March 2020 and were identified during routine clinical review. Participants with no AMD and early AMD were recruited from hospital staff, friends, and family of participants with AMD and via referrals from community ophthalmologists and optometrists. The repeatability and discriminatory power of 5 simple chart-based assessments of VF (best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA], low-luminance visual acuity [LLVA], Moorfields Acuity Test [MAT], Pelli-Robson Contrast Sensitivity [CS], and International Reading Speed Test [IReST]) were assessed in a repeated-measures design. VF assessments were performed on day 0 and day 14. Participants with early AMD, iAMD, late AMD, and no AMD were recruited.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were computed to assess repeatability. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) determined the discriminatory ability of all measures to classify individuals as having no AMD or iAMD and to differentiate iAMD from its neighboring disease states.RESULTS A total of 301 participants (mean [SD] age, 71 [7] years; 187 female participants [62.1%]) were included in the study. Thirty-four participants (11.3%) had early AMD, 168 (55.8%) had iAMD, 43 (14.3%) had late AMD, and 56 (18.6%) had no AMD. ICCs for all VF measures ranged between 0.88 and 0.96 when all participants were considered, indicating good to excellent repeatability. All measures displayed excellent discrimination between iAMD and late AMD (AUC, 0.92-0.99). Early AMD was indistinguishable from iAMD on all measures (AUC, 0.54-0.64). CS afforded the best discrimination between no AMD and iAMD (AUC, 0.77). Under the same conditions, BCVA, LLVA, and MAT were fair discriminators (AUC, 0.69-0.71), and IReST had poor discrimination (AUC, 0.57-0.61).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE BCVA, LLVA, MAT, CS, and IReST had adequate repeatability in this multicenter, multiexaminer setting but limited power to discriminate between no AMD and iAMD. The prognostic power of these variables to predict conversion from iAMD to late AMD is being examined in the ongoing longitudinal part of the MACUSTAR study.