Assessment of the Electronic Retinal Implant Alpha AMS in Restoring Vision to Blind Patients with End-Stage Retinitis Pigmentosa
Thomas L Edwards, Charles L Cottriall, Kanmin Xue, Matthew P Simunovic, James D Ramsden, Eberhart Zrenner, Robert E MacLaren, Thomas L Edwards, Charles L Cottriall, Kanmin Xue, Matthew P Simunovic, James D Ramsden, Eberhart Zrenner, Robert E MacLaren
Abstract
Purpose: To report the initial efficacy results of the Retina Implant Alpha AMS (Retina Implant AG, Reutlingen, Germany) for partial restoration of vision in end-stage retinitis pigmentosa (RP).
Design: Prospective, single-arm, investigator-sponsored interventional clinical trial. Within-participant control comprising residual vision with the retinal implant switched ON versus OFF in the implanted eye.
Participants: The Retina Implant Alpha AMS was implanted into the worse-seeing eye of 6 participants with end-stage RP and no useful perception of light vision. Eligibility criteria included previous normal vision for ≥12 years and no significant ocular or systemic comorbidity.
Methods: Vision assessments were scheduled at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postimplantation. They comprised tabletop object recognition tasks, a self-assessment mobility questionnaire, and screen-based tests including Basic Light and Motion (BaLM), grating acuity, and greyscale contrast discrimination. A full-field stimulus test (FST) was also performed.
Main outcome measures: Improvement in activities of daily living, recognition tasks, and assessments of light perception with the implant ON compared with OFF.
Results: All 6 participants underwent successful implantation. Light perception and temporal resolution with the implant ON were achieved in all participants. Light localization was achieved with the implant ON in all but 1 participant (P4) in whom the chip was not functioning optimally because of a combination of iatrogenic intraoperative implant damage and incorrect implantation. Implant ON correct grating detections (which were at chance level with implant OFF) were recorded in the other 5 participants, ranging from 0.1 to 3.33 cycles/degree on 1 occasion. The ability to locate high-contrast tabletop objects not seen with the implant OFF was partially restored with the implant ON in all but 1 participant (P4). There were 2 incidents of conjunctival erosion and 1 inferotemporal macula-on retinal detachment, which were successfully repaired, and 2 incidents of inadvertent damage to the implant during surgery (P3 and P4).
Conclusions: The Alpha AMS subretinal implant improved visual performance in 5 of 6 participants and has exhibited ongoing function for up to 24 months. Although implantation surgery remains challenging, new developments such as OCT microscope guidance added refinements to the surgical technique.
Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Figures
References
- Liew G., Michaelides M., Bunce C. A comparison of the causes of blindness certifications in England and Wales in working age adults (16-64 years), 1999-2000 with 2009-2010. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004015.
- Zrenner E. Fighting blindness with microelectronics. Sci Transl Med. 2013;5:210ps16.
- Schatz A., Pach J., Gosheva M. Transcorneal electrical stimulation for patients with retinitis pigmentosa: a prospective, randomized, sham-controlled follow-up study over 1 year. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58:257–269.
- Rothermel A., Liu L., Aryan N.P. A CMOS chip with active pixel array and specific test features for subretinal implantation. IEEE J Solid-State Circuits. 2017;44:290–300.
- Zrenner E. Will retinal implants restore vision? Science. 2002;295:1022–1025.
- Zrenner E., Bartz-Schmidt K.U., Benav H. Subretinal electronic chips allow blind patients to read letters and combine them to words. Proc Biol Sci. 2011;278:1489–1497.
- Stingl K., Bartz-Schmidt K.U., Besch D. Artificial vision with wirelessly powered subretinal electronic implant alpha-IMS. Proc Biol Sci. 2013;280:20130077.
- Bach M., Wilke M., Wilhelm B. Basic quantitative assessment of visual performance in patients with very low vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:1255–1260.
- Stingl K., Bartz-Schmidt K.U., Besch D. Subretinal visual implant Alpha IMS—clinical trial interim report. Vision Res. 2015;111:149–160.
- Turano K.A., Geruschat D.R., Stahl J.W., Massof R.W. Perceived visual ability for independent mobility in persons with retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:865–877.
- Messias K., Jagle H., Saran R. Psychophysically determined full-field stimulus thresholds (FST) in retinitis pigmentosa: relationships with electroretinography and visual field outcomes. Doc Ophthalmol. 2013;127:123–129.
- Collison F.T., Fishman G.A., McAnany J.J. Psychophysical measurement of rod and cone thresholds in Stargardt disease with full-field stimuli. Retina. 2014;34:1888–1895.
- Duncan J.L., Richards T.P., Arditi A. Improvements in vision-related quality of life in blind patients implanted with the Argus II Epiretinal Prosthesis. Clin Exp Optom. 2017;100:144–150.
- Dagnelie G., Christopher P., Arditi A. Performance of real-world functional vision tasks by blind subjects improves after implantation with the Argus® II retinal prosthesis system. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016:1–8.
- Finger R.P., McSweeney S.C., Deverell L. Developing an instrumental activities of daily living tool as part of the low vision assessment of daily activities protocol. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:8458–8466.
- Finger R.P., Tellis B., Crewe J. Developing the Impact of Vision Impairment-Very Low Vision (IVI-VLV) questionnaire as part of the LoVADA protocol. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:6150–6158.
- Horsager A., Greenwald S.H., Weiland J.D. Predicting visual sensitivity in retinal prosthesis patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:1483–1491.
- Gekeler F., Messias A., Ottinger M. Phosphenes electrically evoked with DTL electrodes: a study in patients with retinitis pigmentosa, glaucoma, and homonymous visual field loss and normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:4966–4969.
- Jones B.W., Pfeiffer R.L., Ferrell W.D. Retinal remodeling in human retinitis pigmentosa. Exp Eye Res. 2016;150:149–165.
- Daschner R., Greppmaier U., Kokelmann M. Laboratory and clinical reliability of conformally coated subretinal implants. Biomed Microdevices. 2017;19:7.
- Matet A., Amar N., Mohand-Said S. Argus II retinal prosthesis implantation with scleral flap and autogenous temporalis fascia as alternative patch graft material: a 4-year follow-up. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:1565–1571.
- da Cruz L., Dorn J.D., Humayun M.S. Five-year safety and performance results from the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System Clinical Trial. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:2248–2254.
- Humayun M.S., Dorn J.D., da Cruz L. Interim results from the international trial of Second Sight's visual prosthesis. Ophthalmology. 2012;119:779–788.
- Hauswirth W.W., Aleman T.S., Kaushal S. Treatment of Leber congenital amaurosis due to RPE65 mutations by ocular subretinal injection of adeno-associated virus gene vector: short-term results of a phase I trial. Hum Gene Ther. 2008;19:979–990.
- Maguire A.M., Simonelli F., Pierce E.A. Safety and efficacy of gene transfer for Leber's congenital amaurosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2240–2248.
- Ghazi N.G., Abboud E.B., Nowilaty S.R. Treatment of retinitis pigmentosa due to MERTK mutations by ocular subretinal injection of adeno-associated virus gene vector: results of a phase I trial. Hum Genet. 2016:1–17.
- Bainbridge J.W.B., Smith A.J., Barker S.S. Effect of gene therapy on visual function in Leber's congenital amaurosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2231–2239.
- Edwards T.L., Jolly J.K., Groppe M. Visual acuity after retinal gene therapy for choroideremia. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1996–1998.
- Rachitskaya A.V., Yuan A., Marino M.J. Intraoperative OCT imaging of the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2016;47:999–1003.
Source: PubMed