The utility of visual function questionnaire in the assessment of the impact of diabetic retinopathy on vision-related quality of life

Gabrielian, Anna; Jager, Rama D.; Green, J L; Mieler, William F.

doi:10.1038/eye.2009.56

Cited by 41 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, despite these limitations, the questionnaire was found superior to other tools in assessing vision related quality of life (19) and it was the visual functioning and socioemotional traits that came out as most relevant in this survey.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Quality of life, impaired vision and social role in people with diabetes: a multicenter observational study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Quality of life, impaired vision and social role in people with diabetes: a multicenter observational study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…11 The trial also included the NEI VFQ-25 questionnaire, one of the most frequently used tools to measure patient-reported, vision-related function in DME and other retinal diseases. [13][14][15][16] Detailed analysis of the patient-reported visual functioning data reveals that improvements in the NEI VFQ-25 composite score and in the near activities, distance activities, and general vision subscales were more likely for ranibizumab alone or combined with laser than with laser alone. These outcomes were similar, but of greater magnitude, to an analysis of randomized controlled trial data for pegaptanib treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-Reported Visual Function Outcomes Improve After Ranibizumab Treatment in Patients With Vision Impairment Due to Diabetic Macular Edema

Mitchell

2013

JAMA Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

for the RESTORE Study Group IMPORTANCE Few data are available on relative changes in vision-related function after treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME).OBJECTIVE To determine the impact of intravitreal ranibizumab, 0.5 mg, compared with laser on patient-reported visual function.DESIGN Phase 3, randomized, double-masked, 12-month study (RESTORE).SETTING Outpatient retina practices in Australia, Canada, and Europe.PARTICIPANTS Patients 18 years or older with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus and visual impairment due to DME.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to ranibizumab plus sham laser (n = 116), ranibizumab plus laser (n = 118), or sham injections plus laser (n = 111). Ranibizumab and sham injections were given for 3 consecutive months then as needed; laser or sham laser treatment was given at baseline then as needed.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire 25 (NEI VFQ-25) scores at 0, 3, and 12 months for patients receiving 1 or more study treatments with 1 or more postbaseline NEI VFQ-25 assessments and last observation carried forward for missing data.RESULTS Mean baseline NEI VFQ-25 composite scores were 72.8, 73.5, and 74.1 in the ranibizumab, laser, and ranibizumab plus laser groups, respectively. At 12 months, the mean composite scores (95% CIs) improved by 5.0 (ranibizumab vs laser, 2.6 to 7.4; P = .01 vs laser) and 5.4 (ranibizumab plus laser vs laser alone, 3.3 to 7.4; P = .004 vs laser) from baseline in the ranibizumab and ranibizumab plus laser groups, respectively, compared with 0.6 (−1.8 to 3.0) for the laser group. Near activities scores improved by 9.0 (ranibizumab vs laser, 5.0 to 13.0; P = .01) and 9.1 (ranibizumab plus laser vs laser, 5.6 to 12.6; P = .006) compared with 1.1 (−3.0 to 5.2) for the laser group, whereas distance activities scores improved by 5.3 (ranibizumab vs laser, 1.8 to 8.9; P = .04) and 5.6 (ranibizumab plus laser vs laser, 2.3 to 9.0; P = .03) compared with 0.4 (−3.1 to 3.8) for the laser group. Patients with better baseline visual acuity or lower central retinal thickness had greater improvements with ranibizumab treatment compared with laser in composite and some subscale scores compared with patients with worse visual acuity or higher central retinal thickness.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These data provide vision-related, patient-reported outcome evidence that mirrors visual acuity outcomes and supports benefits from ranibizumab or ranibizumab plus laser treatment for patients with DME and characteristics similar to those enrolled in this randomized clinical trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00687804

show abstract

“…Worth noting is the fact that NEI VFQ-25, although not the UAB-LLQ and WPAIQ, has been used previously to study the effects of diabetic retinopathy on vision-related quality of life. 15-17 However, as these data were generated from 55 community- and university-affiliated sites across the United States, we believe the patient-centered outcome responses are likely generalizable throughout the United States. Patients with the same clinical features from other countries may respond differently because of cultural influences on responses to these questionnaires.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Panretinal Photocoagulation Versus Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: Patient-Centered Outcomes From a Randomized Clinical Trial

Beaulieu

Bressler

Melia

et al. 2016

American Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Compare patient-centered outcomes in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) treated with ranibizumab versus panretinal photocoagulation (PRP). Design Randomized clinical trial. Methods Setting: Multicenter (55 US sites). Patient Population: 216 adults with one study eye out of 305 adults (excluding participants with two study eyes since each eye received a different treatment) with PDR, visual acuity 20/320 or better, no history of PRP. Intervention: Ranibizumab (0.5-mg/0.05mL) versus PRP. Main Outcome Measures: Change from baseline to 2 years in composite and pre-specified subscale scores from the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25), University of Alabama Low Luminance Questionnaire (UAB-LLQ), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAIQ). Results For the NEI VFQ-25 and UAB-LLQ composite scores, ranibizumab-PRP treatment group differences (95% CI) were +4.0 (−0.2, +8.3, P=0.06) and +1.8 (−3.5, +7.1, P=0.51) at 1 year, and +2.9 (−1.5, +7.2, P=0.20) and +2.3 (−2.9, +7.5, P=0.37) at 2 years, respectively. Work productivity loss measured with the WPAIQ was 15.6% less with ranibizumab (−26.3%, −4.8%, P=0.005) at 1 year and 2.9% (−12.2%, +6.4%, P=0.54) at 2 years. Eighty-three ranibizumab participants (97%) were 20/40 or better in at least one eye (visual acuity requirement to qualify for an unrestricted driver license in many states) at 2 years compared with 82 PRP participants (87%, adjusted risk ratio=1.1, 95% CI: 1.0, 1.2 P=0.005). Conclusions While differences in some work productivity and driving-related outcomes favored ranibizumab over PRP, no differences between treatment regimens for PDR were identified for most of the other patient-centered outcomes considered.

show abstract

The utility of visual function questionnaire in the assessment of the impact of diabetic retinopathy on vision-related quality of life

Cited by 41 publications

References 22 publications

Quality of life, impaired vision and social role in people with diabetes: a multicenter observational study

Quality of life, impaired vision and social role in people with diabetes: a multicenter observational study

Patient-Reported Visual Function Outcomes Improve After Ranibizumab Treatment in Patients With Vision Impairment Due to Diabetic Macular Edema

Panretinal Photocoagulation Versus Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: Patient-Centered Outcomes From a Randomized Clinical Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About