Patient-reported outcome measures in presbyopia: a literature review

Garima Sharma, Sima Chiva-Razavi, Daniel Viriato, Christel Naujoks, Francesco Patalano, Sarah Bentley, Amy Findley, Chloe Johnson, Rob Arbuckle, James Wolffsohn, Garima Sharma, Sima Chiva-Razavi, Daniel Viriato, Christel Naujoks, Francesco Patalano, Sarah Bentley, Amy Findley, Chloe Johnson, Rob Arbuckle, James Wolffsohn

Abstract

Presbyopia is the age-related loss of near-distance focusing ability. The aim of this study was to identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in clinical trials and quality-of-life studies conducted in individuals with presbyopia and to assess their suitability for use in individuals with phakic presbyopia. Literature searches were performed in Medline and Embase up until October 2017. Specific search terms were used to identify presbyopia studies that included a PROM. All clinical trials with PROM-supported endpoints in presbyopia were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov. Further searches were conducted to retrieve articles documenting the development and psychometric evaluation of the PROMs identified. A total of 703 records were identified; 120 were selected for full-text review. Twenty-one clinical trials employed PROMs to support a primary or secondary endpoint. In total, 13 PROMs were identified; a further 23 publications pertaining to the development and validation of these measures were retrieved. Most PROMs were developed prior to release of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2009 patient-reported outcome guidance and did not satisfy regulatory standards. The Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) was identified as the most appropriate for assessing near-vision functioning in presbyopia. While the NAVQ was developed in line with the FDA guidance, the items do not reflect changes in technology that have occurred since the questionnaire was developed in 2008 (eg, the increase in smartphone use), and the measure was not validated in a purely phakic presbyopia sample. Further research is ongoing to refine the NAVQ to support trial endpoints related to changes in near-vision functioning associated with phakic presbyopia.

Keywords: eye (globe); field of vision.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: GS is an employee of Novartis Pharma. SC-R, DV, CN and FP are employees and shareholders of Novartis Pharma. SB, AF and RA are employees of Adelphi Values, which received funding from Novartis to conduct some aspects of the study. CJ was an employee of Adelphi Values during the conduct of this study. While JW was one of the developers of the NAVQ, he did not influence the conclusions and outcome of this review.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart illustrating the study selection process. PRO, patient-reported outcome.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Near Activity Visual Questionnaire.

References

    1. Glasser A, Campbell MC. Biometric, optical and physical changes in the isolated human crystalline lens with age in relation to presbyopia. Vision Res 1999;39:1991–2015. 10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00283-1
    1. Heys KR, Cram SL, Truscott RJW. Massive increase in the stiffness of the human lens nucleus with age: the basis for presbyopia? Mol Vis 2004;10:956–63.
    1. Garner WH, Garner MH. Protein disulfide levels and lens elasticity modulation: applications for presbyopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016;57:2851–63. 10.1167/iovs.15-18413
    1. Mathebula SD, Makunyane PS. Amplitude of accommodation is reduced in pre-presbyopic diabetic patients. Journal of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes of South Africa 2017;22:12–16. 10.1080/16089677.2017.1316955
    1. Holden BA, Fricke TR, Ho SM, et al. . Global vision impairment due to uncorrected presbyopia. Arch Ophthalmol 2008;126:1731–9. 10.1001/archopht.126.12.1731
    1. Patel I, West SK. Presbyopia: prevalence, impact, and interventions. Community Eye Health 2007;20:40–1.
    1. FDA Patient-Focused drug development draft guidance 1: collecting comprehensive and representative input, 2018. Available: [Accessed 04 May 2020].
    1. McDonnell PJ, Lee P, Spritzer K, et al. . Associations of presbyopia with vision-targeted health-related quality of life. Evidence-Based Eye Care 2004;5:100–1.
    1. Lu Q, Congdon N, He X, et al. . Quality of life and near vision impairment due to functional presbyopia among rural Chinese adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:4118–23. 10.1167/iovs.10-6353
    1. Williams S, Brian G, du Toit R. Measuring vision-specific quality of life among adults in Fiji. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2012;19:388–95. 10.3109/09286586.2012.716896
    1. Weldring T, Smith SMS. Patient-Reported outcomes (pros) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights 2013;6:61–8. 10.4137/HSI.S11093
    1. FDA Patient-Reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims, 2009. Available: [Accessed 06 Feb 2020].
    1. EMA Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products, 2005. Available: [Accessed 06 Feb 2020].
    1. Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Gupta N, et al. . Development of a questionnaire to assess the relative subjective benefits of presbyopia correction. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012;38:74–9. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.07.032
    1. Gupta N, Wolffsohn JS, Naroo SA, et al. . Development of a near activity visual questionnaire to assess accommodating intraocular lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2007;30:134–43. 10.1016/j.clae.2007.01.004
    1. Lévy P, Elies D, Dithmer O, et al. . Development of a new subjective questionnaire: the freedom from glasses value scale (FGVS). J Refract Surg 2010;26:438–46. 10.3928/1081597X-20090728-03
    1. Berry S, Mangione CM, Lindblad AS, et al. . Development of the National eye Institute refractive error correction quality of life questionnaire: focus groups. Ophthalmology 2003;110:2285–91. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.08.021
    1. Vitale S, Schein OD, Meinert CL, et al. . The refractive status and vision profile: a questionnaire to measure vision-related quality of life in persons with refractive error. Ophthalmology 2000;107:1529–39. 10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00171-8
    1. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, et al. . Development of the 25-item National eye Institute visual function questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:1050–8. 10.1001/archopht.119.7.1050
    1. Mangione CM, Berry S, Spritzer K, et al. . Identifying the content area for the 51-item National eye Institute visual function questionnaire: results from focus groups with visually impaired persons. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116:227–33. 10.1001/archopht.116.2.227
    1. McAlinden C, Pesudovs K, Moore JE. The development of an instrument to measure quality of vision: the quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:5537–45. 10.1167/iovs.10-5341
    1. Lundström M, Roos P, Jensen S, et al. . Catquest questionnaire for use in cataract surgery care: description, validity, and reliability. J Cataract Refract Surg 1997;23:1226–36. 10.1016/S0886-3350(97)80321-5
    1. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, et al. . The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:630–8. 10.1001/archopht.1994.01090170074026
    1. Javitt JC, Jacobson G, Schiffman RM. Validity and reliability of the cataract type spec: an instrument for measuring outcomes of cataract extraction. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;136:285–90. 10.1016/S0002-9394(03)00204-6
    1. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, et al. . Development of the 25-item National eye Institute visual function questionnaire. Evidence-Based Eye Care 2002;3:58–9.
    1. Hays RD, Mangione CM, Ellwein L, et al. . Psychometric properties of the National eye Institute-Refractive error quality of life instrument. Ophthalmology 2003;110:2292–301. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2002.07.001
    1. Berdeaux G, Meunier J, Arnould B, et al. . Measuring benefits and patients' satisfaction when glasses are not needed after cataract and presbyopia surgery: scoring and psychometric validation of the freedom from glasses value scale (FGVS©). BMC Ophthalmol 2010;10:15 10.1186/1471-2415-10-15
    1. Kodjebacheva G, Coleman AL, Ensrud KE, et al. . Reliability and validity of abbreviated surveys derived from the National eye Institute visual function questionnaire: the study of osteoporotic fractures. Am J Ophthalmol 2010;149:330–40. 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.09.008
    1. McAlinden C, Skiadaresi E, Gatinel D, et al. . The quality of vision questionnaire: subscale interchangeability. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:760–4. 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3182993856
    1. Berdeaux G, Meunier J, Arnould B, et al. . Measuring benefits and patients' satisfaction when glasses are not needed after cataract and presbyopia surgery: scoring and psychometric validation of the freedom from glasses value scale (FGVS). BMC Ophthalmol 2010;10:15. 10.1186/1471-2415-10-15
    1. Garamendi E, Pesudovs K, Stevens MJ, et al. . The refractive status and vision profile: evaluation of psychometric properties and comparison of Rasch and summated Likert-scaling. Vision Res 2006;46:1375–83. 10.1016/j.visres.2005.07.007
    1. Kowalski JW, Rentz AM, Walt JG, et al. . Rasch analysis in the development of a simplified version of the National eye Institute Visual-Function Questionnaire-25 for utility estimation. Qual Life Res 2012;21:323–34. 10.1007/s11136-011-9938-z
    1. Marella M, Pesudovs K, Keeffe JE, et al. . The psychometric validity of the Nei VFQ-25 for use in a low-vision population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:2878–84. 10.1167/iovs.09-4494
    1. Pesudovs K, Gothwal VK, Wright T, et al. . Remediating serious flaws in the National eye Institute visual function questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010;36:718–32. 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.11.019
    1. McAlinden C, Skiadaresi E, Moore J, et al. . Subscale assessment of the NEI-RQL-42 questionnaire with Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:5685–94. 10.1167/iovs.10-67951
    1. Sivardeen A, Laughton D, Wolffsohn JS. Investigating the utility of clinical assessments to predict success with presbyopic contact lens correction. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2016;39:322–30. 10.1016/j.clae.2016.05.002
    1. Gundersen KG, Potvin R. Comparative visual performance with monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses. Clin Ophthalmol 2013;7:1979–85. 10.2147/OPTH.S52922
    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;83:266–73. 10.1097/01.opx.0000216098.62165.34
    1. Gierek-Ciaciura S, Cwalina L, Bednarski L, et al. . A comparative clinical study of the visual results between three types of multifocal lenses. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2010;248:133–40. 10.1007/s00417-009-1177-4
    1. Hipsley A, Ma DH-K, Sun C-C, et al. . Visual outcomes 24 months after LaserACE. Eye Vis 2017;4:15. 10.1186/s40662-017-0081-y
    1. Andrich D. Rating scales and Rasch measurement. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011;11:571–85. 10.1586/erp.11.59
    1. Petrillo J, Cano SJ, McLeod LD, et al. . Using classical test theory, item response theory, and Rasch measurement theory to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures: a comparison of worked examples. Value Health 2015;18:25–34. 10.1016/j.jval.2014.10.005
    1. Kandel H, Khadka J, Lundström M, et al. . Questionnaires for measuring refractive surgery outcomes. J Refract Surg 2017;33:416–24. 10.3928/1081597X-20170310-01
    1. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297–334. 10.1007/BF02310555
    1. David L, Streiner GRN, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, 1995.
    1. Cohen EJ. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edn Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する