METHODS: Assessment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration patients with or without PCV after 12 months of ranibizumab treatment during the LUMINOUS study. Outcome measures were visual acuity and central retinal thickness changes from baseline and the rate of ocular adverse events.
RESULTS: At baseline, 572 and 5,644 patients were diagnosed with and without PCV, respectively. The mean visual acuity gain from baseline at Month 12 in the PCV and non-PCV groups was +5.0 and +3.0 letters, respectively; these gains were achieved with a mean of 4.4 and 5.1 ranibizumab injections. Eighty percent of PCV patients and 72.2% of non-PCV patients who had baseline visual acuity ≥73 letters maintained this level of vision at Month 12; 20.6% and 17.9% of patients with baseline visual acuity <73 letters achieved visual acuity ≥73 letters in these groups. Greater reductions in central retinal thickness from baseline were also observed for the PCV group versus the non-PCV group. The rate of serious ocular adverse events was 0.7% (PCV group) and 0.9% (non-PCV group).
CONCLUSION: LUMINOUS confirms the effectiveness and safety of ranibizumab in treatment-naive patients with PCV.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare habitual visual acuity in a sample of young children using two versions of the single Lea symbols charts with different crowding features.
METHODS: Monocular habitual visual acuity was measured in a sample of 77 young children aged between 4 and 6 years using crowded Lea symbols charts with either flanking bars separated from the central symbol by 0.5 optotype width or flanking Lea optotypes separated from the central symbol by 1.0 optotype width.
RESULTS: Mean visual acuity was higher (i.e., lower logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) with the Lea symbols crowded using flanking optotypes, equivalent to about 1.5 optotype difference. Visual acuity measured with the two charts was significantly correlated; however, the 95% limits of agreement were larger than expected from repeatability studies using Lea symbols.
CONCLUSIONS: Lea symbols with flanking optotypes resulted in higher visual acuity than the Lea symbols with flanking bars, probably as a result of differences in the crowding effect. The two charts showed insufficient agreement, and we do not recommend their use interchangeably. We recommend using the Lea symbols with flanking bars because of the closer flanker-target separation.