Vision-related quality of life, photoaversion, and optical rehabilitation in achromatopsia
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Vision-related quality of life, photoaversion, and optical rehabilitation in achromatopsia. / Andersen, Mette Kjøbæk Gundestrup; Jordana, Joaquim Torner; Nielsen, Hanne; Gundestrup, Svend; Kessel, Line.
I: Optometry and Vision Science, Bind 101, Nr. 6, 2024, s. 336-341.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Vision-related quality of life, photoaversion, and optical rehabilitation in achromatopsia
AU - Andersen, Mette Kjøbæk Gundestrup
AU - Jordana, Joaquim Torner
AU - Nielsen, Hanne
AU - Gundestrup, Svend
AU - Kessel, Line
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - SIGNIFICANCE We report on photoaversion and patient-reported quality of life in Danish patients with achromatopsia and evaluate the best optical rehabilitation. Our results contribute to the evaluation of outcome measures in therapy trials and aid in providing the best optical rehabilitation for patients with this and clinically similar conditions. PURPOSE This study aimed to investigate the vision-related quality of life, the impact of photoaversion on daily living, and the best optical rehabilitation in a cohort of achromatopsia patients, including testing the hypothesis that red light-attenuating filters are generally preferred. METHODS Patients with genetically verified achromatopsia were recruited. Investigations included the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire and supplementary questions regarding photoaversion and visual aids. Patients were evaluated by a low vision optometrist and given the choice between different light-attenuating filters. First, two specially designed red and gray filters both transmitting 6% light, and then a pre-defined broader selection of filters. Best-corrected visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were measured without filters and with the two trial filters. RESULTS Twenty-seven patients participated. Median 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire composite score was 73, with the lowest median score in the subscale near vision (58) and the highest in ocular pain (100). The majority of patients (88%) reported that light caused them discomfort, and 92% used aid(s) to reduce light. Ninety-six percent (26 of 27) preferred the gray filter to the red indoors; 74% (20 of 27) preferred the gray filter. Contrast sensitivity was significantly better with the gray filter compared with no filter (p=0.003) and the red filter (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS Our cohort has a relatively high vision-related quality of life compared with other inherited retinal diseases, but photoaversion has a large impact on visual function. Despite what could be expected from a theoretical point of view, red filters are not generally preferred.
AB - SIGNIFICANCE We report on photoaversion and patient-reported quality of life in Danish patients with achromatopsia and evaluate the best optical rehabilitation. Our results contribute to the evaluation of outcome measures in therapy trials and aid in providing the best optical rehabilitation for patients with this and clinically similar conditions. PURPOSE This study aimed to investigate the vision-related quality of life, the impact of photoaversion on daily living, and the best optical rehabilitation in a cohort of achromatopsia patients, including testing the hypothesis that red light-attenuating filters are generally preferred. METHODS Patients with genetically verified achromatopsia were recruited. Investigations included the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire and supplementary questions regarding photoaversion and visual aids. Patients were evaluated by a low vision optometrist and given the choice between different light-attenuating filters. First, two specially designed red and gray filters both transmitting 6% light, and then a pre-defined broader selection of filters. Best-corrected visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were measured without filters and with the two trial filters. RESULTS Twenty-seven patients participated. Median 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire composite score was 73, with the lowest median score in the subscale near vision (58) and the highest in ocular pain (100). The majority of patients (88%) reported that light caused them discomfort, and 92% used aid(s) to reduce light. Ninety-six percent (26 of 27) preferred the gray filter to the red indoors; 74% (20 of 27) preferred the gray filter. Contrast sensitivity was significantly better with the gray filter compared with no filter (p=0.003) and the red filter (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS Our cohort has a relatively high vision-related quality of life compared with other inherited retinal diseases, but photoaversion has a large impact on visual function. Despite what could be expected from a theoretical point of view, red filters are not generally preferred.
U2 - 10.1097/OPX.0000000000002143
DO - 10.1097/OPX.0000000000002143
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 38913502
AN - SCOPUS:85198633370
VL - 101
SP - 336
EP - 341
JO - Optometry and Vision Science
JF - Optometry and Vision Science
SN - 1040-5488
IS - 6
ER -
ID: 399068530