Elizabeth Ann Vanner

Précis: Monitoring visual fields (VFs) through virtual reality devices proved to have good inter-test and test-retest reliability, as well as easy usability, when self-administered by individuals with and without VF defects in a remote setting. Purpose: To assess the reliability of remote, self-administered VF monitoring using a virtual reality VF (VRVF) device in individuals without ocular disease and with stable VF defects. Materials and Methods: Individuals without ocular disease and with stable defects were recruited. All participants had a baseline standard automated perimetry (SAP) test. Participants tested remotely on a VRVF device for 4 weeks (examinations V₁, V₂, V₃, and V₄), with the last 3 unassisted. The mean sensitivities of VRVF results were compared with each other and to SAP results for reliability. Results: A total of 42 eyes from 21 participants were tested on the VRVF device. Participants tested consistently although external factors impacted outcomes. VRVF results were in reasonable agreement with the baseline SAP. Examinations performed by the cohort with stable defects evinced better agreement with SAP examinations (V2, P = 0.79; V3, P = 0.39; V4, P = 0.35) than those reported by the cohort without ocular disease (V2, P = 0.02; V3, P = 0.15; V4, P = 0.22), where the null hypothesis is that the instruments agree. Fixation losses were high and variable in VRVF examinations compared with those of SAP, particularly in certain test takers. Participants considered the device comfortable and easy to use. Conclusions: Self-administered, remote VF tests on a VRVF device showed satisfactory test-retest reliability, good inter-test agreement with SAP, and acceptability by its users. External factors may impact at-home testing and age and visual impairment may hinder fixation. Future studies to expand the sample size and understand inconsistencies in fixation losses are recommended.

Visual impairment (VI) negatively affects a child’s quality of life. The prevalence of VI in the Caribbean is nearly three times higher than in the United States, but the causes remain uncertain. This study leverages Barbados’ unique eye care system to survey the eye diseases and VI prevalence in Barbadian children. Medical records of all patients aged <19 years who received ophthalmic care in Barbados’ two public eye care centers between January and December 2019 were reviewed, capturing the entirety of public pediatric eye care within the study period. Age at the first visit to the clinic and at the final visit in 2019, sex, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), past medical history, and clinical diagnoses were extracted and analyzed. VI was defined as a BCVA of 6/12 or worse in the better-seeing eye. There were 3278 patient records with a mean age at the first visit of 7.8 ± 3.9 years. There were 80 (2.4%) children with VI, 62.5% of which were attributed to amblyopia. A total of 94% of VI was preventable or treatable. The most common diagnoses were refractive error (87.5%), strabismus (27.5%), and allergic eye disease (20.0%). Amblyopia is the major cause of pediatric VI in Barbados and is largely avoidable.

Purpose: To determine if intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections are associated with an increased risk of glaucoma drainage device (GDD) erosions. Patients and Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted including patients with diabetic retinopathy and had a GDD implanted at a large academic institution. The rate of GDD erosions was compared between eyes that did or did not receive intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. A subanalysis was also performed the relationship between diabetic macular edema (DME) and intravitreal steroid injections and GDD erosions. Results: A total of 677 eyes from 608 patients was included. A total of 447 eyes received at least one anti-VEGF injection; 230 eyes never received such therapy. Twenty eyes (4.5%) receiving anti-VEGF had at least one erosion event, compared to 7 eyes (3.0%) of patients not receiving anti-VEGF therapy (OR 1.49, p=0.37). Diabetic macular edema was associated with a significantly increased rate of erosion in eyes not receiving anti-VEGF (71.4% versus 31.4%, p=0.034), but not in eyes receiving anti-VEGF (30.0% versus 40.7%, p=0.34). Receiving more than one specific anti-VEGF agent, an increased frequency or total number of anti-VEGF injections, or receiving intravitreal steroids were not associated with an increased risk of erosion (p> 0.05). Conclusion: In patients with diabetic retinopathy, the use of anti-VEGF does not result in an increased rate of GDD erosions or recurrent erosions. Further research is needed over a longer follow-up period to determine if longer or more frequent anti-VEGF treatment is a risk factor for recurrent erosions.

Purpose. This study investigated the effect of interview format changes (in-person to virtual, one-to-one to multiple-to-one) necessitated by the COVID-19 travel restrictions on preliminary fellowship candidate ranking variabilities. Design. Cross-sectional observational study. Method. In 2018 and 2019, the glaucoma fellowship interviews were conducted in-person in a one-to-one format, whereas in 2020, interviews were virtual and in a multiple (interviewers)-to-one (candidate) format. We compared ranking ranges of interviewers within the same virtual room (WSR) and not within the same virtual room (NWSR) to assess the effect of WSR versus NWSR on ranking variabilities. We also compared ranking categories (accept, alternate, and pass) agreements between 2018, 2019, and 2020 to assess the effect of virtual versus in-person interviews on ranking variabilities. Results. NWSR and WSR mean rankings differed by 1.33 (95 confidence interval difference 0.61 to 2.04, p=0.0003), with WSR interviewers having less variability than NWSR pairs. The variability between 2018/2019 (in-person interviews) and 2020 (virtual interviews) showed no differences between in-person and virtual interviews (weighted Kappa statistic 0.086 for 2018, 0.158 for 2019, and 0.101 for 2020; pConclusion. Grouping interviewers WSR during the interview decreased ranking variabilities compared to NWSR, while a change from in-person to virtual interview format did not increase the ranking variabilities. This suggests that the decreased nonverbal interactions in virtual interviews do not decrease interviewers perceptions as applied to preliminary rankings.