Traditional endpoints assessing visual function are limited by their responsiveness to interventions restoring or maintaining vision. An alternative concept is assessing instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). Herein, we review all available vision-specific IADL instruments relevant for vision restoration trials and report data for the most promising instrument. Six relevant instruments exist: The Low Vision Functional Status Evaluation (LVFSE), Timed IADL (TIADL), Melbourne Low-Vision Activities of Daily Living Index (MLVAI), Assessment of Disability Related to Vision (ADREV), Functional Low-Vision Observer Rated Assessment (FLORA), and Very Low Vision IADL (IADL-VLV). Both internal consistency and test-retest data were available for the LVFSE, MLVAI, and IADL-VLV. In a sample from a low-vision clinic (n = 51; age 57 ± 16 years), we report additional validation data on the IVI-VLV including test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.981 [0.961; 0.991]). The LVSFE was noticeably less reliable than the MLVAI and the IADL-VLV. Content and construct validity data were available for the LVFSE, TIADL, MLVAI, ADREV, and IADL-VLV, but only the MLVAI and IADL-VLV were developed for an ultra-low vision context. Ceiling effects were present across instruments. Thus, of all appropriate IADL instruments related to vision, the IADL-VLV and MLVAI best meet existing requirements for use in vision restoration trials, e.g., in gene therapies or visual prostheses in inherited retinal diseases, but require further validation.

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of visual function tests in intermediate age-related macular degeneration (iAMD). A total of 62 subjects (38 patients with iAMD and 24 controls) were included and underwent several functional assessments: Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), low luminance visual acuity (LLVA), visual acuity (VA) measured with the Moorfields Vanishing Optotypes Acuity Charts (MAC), contrast sensitivity with the Pelli-Robson test, reading speed using the International Reading Speed texts (IReST) and mesopic and dark-adapted microperimetry (S-MAIA, CenterVue, Padova, Italy). Groups were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests and ROC analyses. Linear regression was used to control for confounding. Results showed that all visual function test performances except the IReST were significantly reduced in iAMD patients compared to controls (p < 0.05). These effects did not alter after controlling for age and sex. Best discrimination between iAMD and controls yield the combination of LLVA and contrast sensitivity as well as MAC-VA and contrast sensitivity (ROC area under the curve 0.95 and 0.93, respectively). Our results suggest that LLVA, MAC-VA, contrast sensitivity and mesopic and dark-adapted microperimetry can capture visual impairment characteristic for iAMD. Best discrimination against iAMD is achieved with a combination of two tests.

Most patient-reported outcome measures used in ophthalmology show floor effects in a very low vision population, which limits their use in vision restoration trials. The Impact of Vision Impairment-Very Low Vision scale (IVI-VLV) was developed to specifically target a very low vision population, but its test-retest reliability has not been investigated yet.

To assess which visual function measures are most strongly associated with overall retinal drusen volume in age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

The purpose of this study was to design and evaluate an instrument for assessing vision-related quality of life appropriate for the specific visual impairment characteristic for all stages of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), with a focus on the low luminance deficit in early/intermediate stages.

To investigate sensitive outcome measures based exclusively on abnormal points in microperimetry testing of eyes with intermediate age-related macular degeneration (iAMD). 25 eyes of 25 subjects with iAMD had undergone 2 successive tests of mesopic microperimetry with the Macular Integrity Assessment Microperimeter (MAIA), using a custom grid of 33 points spanning the central 14 degrees of the macula. Each point was defined as abnormal if its threshold sensitivity was lower than 1.65 standard deviations (SD) (5%) or 2 SD (2.5%) than the expected threshold in healthy eyes according to the MAIA internal database. Among the 25 eyes there were 11.8 ± 9 and 8.4 ± 8.2 abnormal points at < 5% and < 2.5%, with mean deviation of thresholds from normal - 4.9 ± 1.2 dB and - 5.8 ± 1.5 dB, respectively. These deviations were greater, and their SD smaller, compared with the complete microperimetry grid, - 2.3 ± 2.0 dB. The 95% limits of agreement for average threshold between the 2 successive tests were smaller when only abnormal points were included. Analyzing only abnormal grid points yields an outcome parameter with a greater deviation from normal, a more homogenous dataset, and better test-retest variability, compared with analysis of all grid points. This parameter may thus be more sensitive to change, while moderately limiting the number of potential recruits. The proposed outcome measures should be further investigated as potential endpoints in clinical trials in iAMD.