The VEPRO trial: a cross-over randomised controlled trial comparing 2 progressive lenses for patients with presbyopia

Isabelle Boutron, Caroline Touizer, Isabelle Pitrou, Carine Roy, Philippe Ravaud, Isabelle Boutron, Caroline Touizer, Isabelle Pitrou, Carine Roy, Philippe Ravaud

Abstract

The aim of this trial was to compare the effectiveness of two generations of progressive lenses for presbyopia.

Methods: A multicenter cross-over randomized controlled trial performed in a primary care setting (5 optical dispensaries) was planned. Two categories of progressive lenses were compared: 1) a new-generation lens (i.e., VARILUX PANAMIC ORMA CRIZAL), which is expensive but a supposed improvement in comfort, and 2) an older-generation lens (i.e., VARILUX CONFORT ORMA CRIZAL), which is less expensive and is considered the reference lens. Patients were randomized to wear one generation of progressive lens for 4 weeks, then cross over to wear the other lens for 4 weeks, without knowing the sequence of lenses. Inclusion criteria were 1) age 43-60 years; 2) outpatients already wearing progressive lenses and referred to an optician ophthalmologist for optical correction prescription within the last 6 months; 3) receiving a correction of </=3 dioptres in cases of associated myopia, hyperopia or astigmatism; 4) understanding and speaking French and able to answer a questionnaire; and 5) giving written consent to participate in the study.The primary outcome was patient preference for one progressive lens at week 8. Secondary outcomes were subjective measures of bifocal visual performance, including a) near visual acuity, b) visual field, c) kinetic visual skills, d) visual adaptability, e) visual comfort, and f) rapidity of adaptation.

Results: 127 patients were randomized to one of the lens groups. Two patients withdrew prematurely; 98.4% and 97.6% patients who wore the new versus older lenses, respectively, wore their progressive lenses every day during the 4-week period 1 and period 2. The number of participants in each of 5 centres varied from 16 (12.6%) to 35 (27.6%).57.9% patients preferred the new-generation lenses, 36.5% the older-generation lenses, and 5.6% had no preference (p = 0.01). The two groups did not differ in any of the measures of bifocal visual performance except near visual acuity.

Conclusion: Patients with presbyopia had slightly higher preference for the new-generation than older-generation lens, with no difference in lens groups for most of the visual outcomes assessed.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00635115.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of patients through the trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean scores of bifocal visual performance (0–10 numeric scale).

References

    1. Hermans EA, Dubbelman M, Heijde GL van der, Heethaar RM. Change in the accommodative force on the lens of the human eye with age. Vision Res. 2008;48:119–126. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2007.10.017.
    1. Weale RA. Epidemiology of refractive errors and presbyopia. Surv Ophthalmol. 2003;48:515–543. doi: 10.1016/S0039-6257(03)00086-9.
    1. Nirmalan PK, Krishnaiah S, Shamanna BR, Rao GN, Thomas R. A population-based assessment of presbyopia in the state of Andhra Pradesh, south India: the Andhra Pradesh Eye Disease Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:2324–2328. doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-1192.
    1. Ramke J, du Toit R, Palagyi A, Brian G, Naduvilath T. Correction of refractive error and presbyopia in Timor-Leste. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:860–866. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2006.110502.
    1. Luo BP, Brown GC, Luo SC, Brown MM. The Quality of Life Associated with Presbyopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145:618–622. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.12.011.
    1. Callina T, Reynolds TP. Traditional methods for the treatment of presbyopia: spectacles, contact lenses, bifocal contact lenses. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2006;19:25–33. v.
    1. Hersh PS. Optics of conductive keratoplasty: implications for presbyopia management. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2005;103:412–456.
    1. Meister DJ, Fisher SW. Progress in the spectacle correction of presbyopia. Part 1: Design and development of progressive lenses. Clin Exp Optom. 2008;91:240–250. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2007.00245.x.
    1. Meister DJ, Fisher SW. Progress in the spectacle correction of presbyopia. Part 2: Modern progressive lens technologies. Clin Exp Optom. 2008;91:251–264. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00246.x.
    1. Sibbald B, Roberts C. Understanding controlled trials. Crossover trials. Bmj. 1998;316:1719.
    1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gotzsche PC, Lang T. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–694.
    1. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:295–309.
    1. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P. Methods and processes of the CONSORT Group: example of an extension for trials assessing nonpharmacologic treatments. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:W60–66.
    1. Nijkamp MD, Dolders MG, de Brabander J, Borne B van den, Hendrikse F, Nuijts RM. Effectiveness of multifocal intraocular lenses to correct presbyopia after cataract surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1832–1839. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.05.023.
    1. du Toit R. How to prescribe spectacles for presbyopia. Community Eye Health. 2006;19:12–13.
    1. Richdale K, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. Comparison of multifocal and monovision soft contact lens corrections in patients with low-astigmatic presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83:266–273. doi: 10.1097/01.opx.0000216098.62165.34.
    1. Boutron I, Moher D, Tugwell P, Giraudeau B, Poiraudeau S, Nizard R, Ravaud P. A checklist to evaluate a report of a nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:1233–1240. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.05.004.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit