-
Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 2020The objective of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to collate, report, and critique published evidence related to epidemiology and patient and economic burden... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The objective of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to collate, report, and critique published evidence related to epidemiology and patient and economic burden of presbyopia.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the time of inception through October 2018 using Cochrane methodology. Studies published in English language reporting on epidemiology and patient and economic burden of presbyopia were included.
RESULTS
Initial systematic literature search yielded 2,228 citations, of which 55 met the inclusion criteria (epidemiology, 44; patient burden, 14; economic burden, 1) and were included in this review. Globally, 1.09 billion people are estimated to be affected by presbyopia. The reported presbyopia prevalence varied across regions and by age groups, with the highest prevalence of 90% reported in the Latin America region in adults ≥35 years. Presbyopic patients report up to 22% decrease in quality-of-life (QoL) score, and up to 80% patients with uncorrected presbyopia report difficulty in performing near-vision related tasks. About 12% of presbyopes required help in performing routine activities, and these visual limitations reportedly induce distress and low self-esteem in presbyopia patients. Uncorrected presbyopia led to a 2-fold increased difficulty in near-vision-related tasks and a >8-fold increased difficulty in very demanding near-vision-related tasks. Further, uncorrected presbyopia leads to a decrement in patients' QoL, evident by the low utility values reported in the literature. Annual global productivity losses due to uncorrected and under-corrected presbyopia in working-age population (<50 years) were estimated at US$ 11 billion (0.016% of the global domestic product (GDP) in 2011, which increased to US$ 25.4 billion if all people aged <65 years were assumed to be productive.
CONCLUSION
Uncorrected presbyopia affects patients' vision-related quality of life due to difficulty in performing near-vision-related tasks. In addition, un-/under-corrected presbyopia could lead to productivity losses in working-age adults.
PubMed: 33116396
DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S269597 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020Presbyopia occurs when the lens of the eyes loses its elasticity leading to loss of accommodation. The lens may also progress to develop cataract, affecting visual... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Presbyopia occurs when the lens of the eyes loses its elasticity leading to loss of accommodation. The lens may also progress to develop cataract, affecting visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. One option of care for individuals with presbyopia and cataract is the use of multifocal or extended depth of focus intraocular lens (IOL) after cataract surgery. Although trifocal and bifocal IOLs are designed to restore three and two focal points respectively, trifocal lens may be preferable because it restores near, intermediate, and far vision, and may also provide a greater range of useful vision and allow for greater spectacle independence in individuals with presbyopia.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of implantation with trifocal versus bifocal IOLs during cataract surgery among participants with presbyopia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 26 September 2019. We searched the reference lists of the retrieved articles and the abstracts from the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) for the years 2005 to 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared trifocal and bifocal IOLs among participants 30 years or older with presbyopia undergoing cataract surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five studies conducted in Europe with a total of 175 participants. All five studies assessed uncorrected distance visual acuity (primary outcome of the review), while some also examined our secondary outcomes including uncorrected near, intermediate, and best-corrected distance visual acuity, as well as contrast sensitivity. Study characteristics All participants had bilateral cataracts with no pre-existing ocular pathologies or ocular surgery. Participants' mean age ranged from 58 to 64 years. Only one study reported on gender of participants, and they were mostly women. We assessed all the included studies as being at unclear risk of bias for most domains. Two studies received financial support from manufacturers of lenses evaluated in this review, and at least one author of another study reported receiving payments for delivering lectures with lens manufacturers. Findings All studies compared trifocal versus bifocal IOL implantation on visual acuity outcomes measured on a LogMAR scale. At one year, trifocal IOL showed no evidence of effect on uncorrected distance visual acuity (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.04; I = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and uncorrected near visual acuity (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; I = 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). Trifocal IOL implantation may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.10; I= 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence), but showed no evidence of effect on best-corrected distance visual acuity at one year (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; I= 0%; 2 studies, 107 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on contrast sensitivity or quality of life at one-year follow-up. Data from one study at three months suggest that contrast sensitivity did not differ between groups under photopic conditions, but may be worse in the trifocal group in one of the four frequencies under mesopic conditions (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.05; 1 study; I = 0%, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). In two studies, the investigators observed that participants' satisfaction or spectacle independence may be higher in the trifocal group at six months, although another study found no evidence of a difference in participant satisfaction or spectacle independence between groups. Adverse events Adverse events reporting varied among studies. Two studies reported information on adverse events at one year. One study reported that participants showed no intraoperative or postoperative complications, while the other study reported that four eyes (11.4%) in the bifocal and three eyes (7.5%) in the trifocal group developed significant posterior capsular opacification requiring YAG capsulotomy. The certainty of the evidence was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low-certainty of evidence that compared to bifocal IOL, implantation of trifocal IOL may improve uncorrected intermediate visual acuity at one year. However, there is no evidence of a difference between trifocal and bifocal IOL for uncorrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected near visual acuity, and best-corrected visual acuity at one year. Future research should include the comparison of both trifocal IOL and specific bifocal IOLs that correct intermediate visual acuity to evaluate important outcomes such as contrast sensitivity and quality of life.
Topics: Capsule Opacification; Cataract Extraction; Confidence Intervals; Contrast Sensitivity; Female; Humans; Lens Implantation, Intraocular; Male; Middle Aged; Multifocal Intraocular Lenses; Postoperative Complications; Presbyopia; Time Factors; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 32584432
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012648.pub2 -
The British Journal of Ophthalmology Dec 2020This study aimed to assess the prevalence and causes of vision loss in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) in 2015, compared with prior years, and to estimate expected values for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to assess the prevalence and causes of vision loss in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) in 2015, compared with prior years, and to estimate expected values for 2020.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the prevalence of blindness (presenting distance visual acuity <3/60 in the better eye), moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI; presenting distance visual acuity <6/18 but ≥3/60) and mild vision impairment (MVI; presenting distance visual acuity <6/12 and ≥6/18), and also near vision impairment (
presbyopia. Cataract was the most common cause of blindness (40.1%), whereas undercorrected refractive error (URE) (48.5%) was the most common cause of MSVI. Sub-Saharan West Africa had the highest proportion of blindness compared with the other SSA subregions. CONCLUSIONS
Cataract and URE, two of the major causes of blindness and vision impairment, are reversible with treatment and thus promising targets to alleviate vision impairment in SSA.
Topics: Africa South of the Sahara; Blindness; Cataract; Forecasting; Glaucoma; Humans; Macular Degeneration; Prevalence; Refractive Errors; Visual Acuity; Visually Impaired Persons
PubMed: 32229517
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315217 -
The British Journal of Ophthalmology May 2020To determine the prevalence and causes of blindness and vision impairment (VI) in East Asia in 2015 and to forecast the trend to 2020. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To determine the prevalence and causes of blindness and vision impairment (VI) in East Asia in 2015 and to forecast the trend to 2020.
METHODS
Through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, we estimated prevalence of blindness (presenting visual acuity <3/60 in the better eye), moderate-to-severe vision impairment (MSVI; 3/60≤presenting visual acuity <6/18), mild vision impairment (mild VI: 6/18≤presenting visual acuity <6/12) and uncorrected presbyopia for 1990, 2010, 2015 and 2020. A total of 44 population-based studies were included.
RESULTS
In 2015, age-standardised prevalence of blindness, MSVI, mild VI and uncorrected presbyopia was 0.37% (80% uncertainty interval (UI) 0.12%-0.68%), 3.06% (80% UI 1.35%-5.16%) and 2.65% (80% UI 0.92%-4.91%), 32.91% (80% UI 18.72%-48.47%), respectively, in East Asia. Cataract was the leading cause of blindness (43.6%), followed by uncorrected refractive error (12.9%), glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration, corneal diseases, trachoma and diabetic retinopathy (DR). The leading cause for MSVI was uncorrected refractive error, followed by cataract, age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, corneal disease, trachoma and DR. The burden of VI due to uncorrected refractive error, cataracts, glaucoma and DR has continued to rise over the decades reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Addressing the public healthcare barriers for cataract and uncorrected refractive error can help eliminate almost 57% of all blindness cases in this region. Therefore, public healthcare efforts should be focused on effective screening and effective patient education, with access to high-quality healthcare.
Topics: Blindness; Asia, Eastern; Humans; Prevalence; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 31462416
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-313308 -
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology May 2019The objective of this review is to estimate the prevalence of refractive errors, uncorrected refractive error (URE), and uncorrected presbyopia in adults aged ≥30...
PURPOSE
The objective of this review is to estimate the prevalence of refractive errors, uncorrected refractive error (URE), and uncorrected presbyopia in adults aged ≥30 years in India.
METHODS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. A detailed literature search was performed to include all studies published from India from the year 1990 using the Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase. Refractive error was defined by >0.50 D ametropia. URE was defined by presenting visual acuity (PVA) worse than 6/18 improving with pinhole or spectacle correction, and uncorrected presbyopia by near vision
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were included from South India, one each from Western and Central India, and one study covered 15 states across India. The prevalence of RE of at least 0.50 D of spherical equivalent ametropia was 53.1% [(95% confidence interval (CI): 37.2-68.5), of which myopia and hyperopia was 27.7% and 22.9%, respectively. The prevalence of URE was 10.2% (95% CI: 6.9-14.8), but heterogeneity in these estimates was very high. The prevalence of uncorrected presbyopia was 33% (95% CI: 19.1-51.0).
CONCLUSION
This review highlights the magnitude of refractive errors among adults in India. More studies are needed using standard methods in regions where there is a lack of information on UREs. Programs delivering spectacles for adults in India will need to primarily focus on reading glasses to correct presbyopia along with spectacles for hyperopia and myopia.
Topics: Adult; Humans; India; Presbyopia; Prevalence; Refraction, Ocular; Refractive Errors
PubMed: 31007213
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1235_18 -
Ophthalmology Oct 2018Presbyopia prevalence and spectacle-correction coverage were estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic evidence, then modeled to expand to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
TOPIC
Presbyopia prevalence and spectacle-correction coverage were estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic evidence, then modeled to expand to country, region, and global estimates.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Understanding presbyopia epidemiologic factors and correction coverage is critical to overcoming the burden of vision impairment (VI) from uncorrected presbyopia.
METHODS
We performed systematic reviews of presbyopia prevalence and spectacle-correction coverage. Accepted presbyopia prevalence data were gathered into 5-year age groups from 0 to 90 years or older and meta-analyzed within World Health Organization global burden of disease regions. We developed a model based on amplitude of accommodation adjusted for myopia rates to match the regionally meta-analyzed presbyopia prevalence. Presbyopia spectacle-correction coverage was analyzed against country-level variables from the year of data collection; variation in correction coverage was described best by a model based on the Human Development Index, Gini coefficient, and health expenditure, with adjustments for age and urbanization. We used the models to estimate presbyopia prevalence and spectacle-correction coverage in each age group in urban and rural areas of every country in the world, and combined with population data to estimate the number of people with near VI.
RESULTS
We estimate there were 1.8 billion people (prevalence, 25%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-2.0 billion [23%-27%]) globally with presbyopia in 2015, 826 million (95% CI, 686-960 million) of whom had near VI because they had no, or inadequate, vision correction. Global unmet need for presbyopia correction in 2015 is estimated to be 45% (95% CI, 41%-49%). People with presbyopia are more likely to have adequate optical correction if they live in an urban area of a more developed country with higher health expenditure and lower inequality.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a significant burden of VI from uncorrected presbyopia, with the greatest burden in rural areas of low-resource countries.
Topics: Eyeglasses; Global Health; Humans; Presbyopia; Prevalence; Vision Disorders; Visual Acuity; Visually Impaired Persons
PubMed: 29753495
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.04.013 -
The British Journal of Ophthalmology May 2018Within a surveillance of the prevalence and causes of vision impairment in high-income regions and Central/Eastern Europe, we update figures through 2015 and forecast...
BACKGROUND
Within a surveillance of the prevalence and causes of vision impairment in high-income regions and Central/Eastern Europe, we update figures through 2015 and forecast expected values in 2020.
METHODS
Based on a systematic review of medical literature, prevalence of blindness, moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI), mild vision impairment and presbyopia was estimated for 1990, 2010, 2015, and 2020.
RESULTS
Age-standardised prevalence of blindness and MSVI for all ages decreased from 1990 to 2015 from 0.26% (0.10-0.46) to 0.15% (0.06-0.26) and from 1.74% (0.76-2.94) to 1.27% (0.55-2.17), respectively. In 2015, the number of individuals affected by blindness, MSVI and mild vision impairment ranged from 70 000, 630 000 and 610 000, respectively, in Australasia to 980 000, 7.46 million and 7.25 million, respectively, in North America and 1.16 million, 9.61 million and 9.47 million, respectively, in Western Europe. In 2015, cataract was the most common cause for blindness, followed by age-related macular degeneration (AMD), glaucoma, uncorrected refractive error, diabetic retinopathy and cornea-related disorders, with declining burden from cataract and AMD over time. Uncorrected refractive error was the leading cause of MSVI.
CONCLUSIONS
While continuing to advance control of cataract and AMD as the leading causes of blindness remains a high priority, overcoming barriers to uptake of refractive error services would address approximately half of the MSVI burden. New data on burden of presbyopia identify this entity as an important public health problem in this population. Additional research on better treatments, better implementation with existing tools and ongoing surveillance of the problem is needed.
Topics: Blindness; Cataract; Developed Countries; Diabetic Retinopathy; Europe; Female; Glaucoma; Humans; Macular Degeneration; Refractive Errors
PubMed: 29545417
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311258 -
The Lancet. Global Health Sep 2017Global and regional prevalence estimates for blindness and vision impairment are important for the development of public health policies. We aimed to provide global... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Global and regional prevalence estimates for blindness and vision impairment are important for the development of public health policies. We aimed to provide global estimates, trends, and projections of global blindness and vision impairment.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based datasets relevant to global vision impairment and blindness that were published between 1980 and 2015. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate the prevalence (by age, country, and sex), in 2015, of mild visual impairment (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 to 6/18 inclusive), moderate to severe visual impairment (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/18 to 3/60 inclusive), blindness (presenting visual acuity worse than 3/60), and functional presbyopia (defined as presenting near vision worse than N6 or N8 at 40 cm when best-corrected distance visual acuity was better than 6/12).
FINDINGS
Globally, of the 7·33 billion people alive in 2015, an estimated 36·0 million (80% uncertainty interval [UI] 12·9-65·4) were blind (crude prevalence 0·48%; 80% UI 0·17-0·87; 56% female), 216·6 million (80% UI 98·5-359·1) people had moderate to severe visual impairment (2·95%, 80% UI 1·34-4·89; 55% female), and 188·5 million (80% UI 64·5-350·2) had mild visual impairment (2·57%, 80% UI 0·88-4·77; 54% female). Functional presbyopia affected an estimated 1094·7 million (80% UI 581·1-1686·5) people aged 35 years and older, with 666·7 million (80% UI 364·9-997·6) being aged 50 years or older. The estimated number of blind people increased by 17·6%, from 30·6 million (80% UI 9·9-57·3) in 1990 to 36·0 million (80% UI 12·9-65·4) in 2015. This change was attributable to three factors, namely an increase because of population growth (38·4%), population ageing after accounting for population growth (34·6%), and reduction in age-specific prevalence (-36·7%). The number of people with moderate and severe visual impairment also increased, from 159·9 million (80% UI 68·3-270·0) in 1990 to 216·6 million (80% UI 98·5-359·1) in 2015.
INTERPRETATION
There is an ongoing reduction in the age-standardised prevalence of blindness and visual impairment, yet the growth and ageing of the world's population is causing a substantial increase in number of people affected. These observations, plus a very large contribution from uncorrected presbyopia, highlight the need to scale up vision impairment alleviation efforts at all levels.
FUNDING
Brien Holden Vision Institute.
Topics: Blindness; Global Health; Humans; Prevalence; Vision Disorders; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 28779882
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(17)30293-0 -
International Journal of Ophthalmology 2017A systematic review of the recent literature regarding pseudophakic monovision as a reliable methods for presbyopia correction was performed based on the PubMed,... (Review)
Review
A systematic review of the recent literature regarding pseudophakic monovision as a reliable methods for presbyopia correction was performed based on the PubMed, MEDLINE, Nature and the American Academy of Ophthalmology databases in July 2015 and data from 18 descriptive and 12 comparative studies were included in this narrative review. Pseudophakic monosvision seems to be an effective method for presbyopia with high rates of spectacles independence and minimal dysphotopsia side-effects, that should be considered by the modern cataract surgeons.
PubMed: 28730093
DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2017.06.24 -
Advances in Therapy Aug 2017Refractive surgery in presbyopia tends to achieve spectacle independence with minimal optical disturbances. We compared monovision to multifocality procedures regarding... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Refractive surgery in presbyopia tends to achieve spectacle independence with minimal optical disturbances. We compared monovision to multifocality procedures regarding these outcomes.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of published (till November 21, 2016) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any monovision to any multifocality method or comparing different monovision/multifocality methods to each other that enabled direct or indirect comparisons between particular monovision and particular multifocality procedures in presbyopic patients undergoing cataract-related or unrelated surgery in respect to spectacle independence, unaided binocular visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), and adverse events.
RESULTS
Three trials comparing monovision (monofocal lenses, LASIK) to multifocal intraocular lenses (MFIOLs; Isert refractive or Tecnis diffractive) and 6 comparing other MFIOLs to Tecnis were included (1-12 months duration). Spectacle independence. All reporting trials were of sufficient quality. Directly, pseudophakic monovision was inferior to Isert (1 trial, N = 75, RR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.80) and Tecnis (1 trial, N = 211, RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.52) in cataract patients, and LASIK was comparable to Tecnis (1 trial, N = 100, RR = 0.93, 0.78-1.10) in refractive surgery. In network meta-regression (6 trials, 14 arms) pseudophakic monovision in cataract patients was inferior to Tecnis. Indirect data suggest also that it is inferior (ReZoom refractive, TwinSet diffractive) or tends to be inferior (Array refractive) to other MFIOLs. LASIK was comparable to Tecnis in refractive surgery. Indirect data suggest also that it tends to superiority vs. ReZoom or Array refractive MFIOLs. Adverse events. No pooling was possible (heterogeneity of assessment and reporting). One quality direct RCT indicated less glare/dazzle with pseudophakic monovision vs. Tecnis in cataract patients. Unaided VA and CS data were burdened with heterogeneity (assessment, reporting) and insufficient quality.
CONCLUSIONS
Randomized comparisons of monovision to multifocality are scarce. Existing estimates regarding spectacle independence (imprecision, indirectness) and particularly regarding unaided VA and CS (assessment/reporting heterogeneity, bias, imprecision, indirectness) are burdened with uncertainty. Dysphotopsia is less common with monovision, but estimate uncertainty is high (bias, imprecision).
Topics: Cataract Extraction; Contrast Sensitivity; Eyeglasses; Humans; Lens Implantation, Intraocular; Male; Multifocal Intraocular Lenses; Postoperative Period; Presbyopia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 28674958
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-017-0579-7