Sir, Caution needed when examining certificate of vision impairment rates: the new public health indicatorWe read with interest the paper by Rostron and McKibbin 1 suggesting a possible fall in certificate of vision impairment (CVI) due to age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) in Leeds. It demonstrates the potential value in exploring variation in CVI rates across the country. As readers are aware the CVI is a public health indicator for vision in the newly launched Public Health Outcomes Framework, 2 so there is added interest in these figures. We feel that it is important to highlight that while CVI figures accurately describe new registrations in social service departments, it is currently unclear how this relates to disease burden as not everyone eligible for certification is certified. 3 Bunce et al 4 found that patients who require treatment for their sight impairment are almost three times less likely to be certified than those in whom treatment is not indicated. The fact that there are now new treatments for wet ARMD may mean less certifications not because of less need for social care support, but because certification can be seen to be done when no further treatment is available. Caution is needed if comparing BD8 certifications with CVI certifications, which are why the recent report by the Chief Medical Officer included CVI figures for 2007/8 as baseline. 5 When the BD8 was replaced by the CVI between 2003 and 2006, new registrations for sight impairment fell by 4000 for reasons which remain unclear, but which pre-dated widespread use of anti-VEGF drugs. This makes temporal comparisons difficult, which is why we believe focus should be on data collected from 2007 and beyond. The data reported for the period 2008 and 2010 in the paper suggests a relatively stable number of CVI registrations due to ARMD with a rise in the numbers in 2010 at a time of widespread adoption of ranibizumab therapy in the NHS. Though the incidence is reported per million population per year in the paper, it may be better to report this as a rate per million population older than 65 years of age (i.e., the at-risk population rather than total population) as in the Public Health Outcome Framework.
Conflict of interestThe authors declare no conflict of interest.