TY - JOUR
T1 - Vision-related quality of life, photoaversion, and optical rehabilitation in achromatopsia
AU - Andersen, Mette Kjøbæk Gundestrup
AU - Jordana, Joaquim Torner
AU - Nielsen, Hanne
AU - Gundestrup, Svend
AU - Kessel, Line
N1 - Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Optometry.
PY - 2024/6/1
Y1 - 2024/6/1
N2 - SIGNIFICANCE: We report on photoaversion and patient-reported quality of life in Danish patients with achromatopsia and evaluate the best optical rehabilitation. Our results contribute to the evaluation of outcome measures in therapy trials and aid in providing the best optical rehabilitation for patients with this and clinically similar conditions.PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the vision-related quality of life, the impact of photoaversion on daily living, and the best optical rehabilitation in a cohort of achromatopsia patients, including testing the hypothesis that red light-attenuating filters are generally preferred.METHODS: Patients with genetically verified achromatopsia were recruited. Investigations included the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire and supplementary questions regarding photoaversion and visual aids. Patients were evaluated by a low vision optometrist and given the choice between different light-attenuating filters. First, two specially designed red and gray filters both transmitting 6% light, and then a pre-defined broader selection of filters. Best-corrected visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were measured without filters and with the two trial filters.RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients participated. Median 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire composite score was 73, with the lowest median score in the subscale near vision (58) and the highest in ocular pain (100). The majority of patients (88%) reported that light caused them discomfort, and 92% used aid(s) to reduce light. Ninety-six percent (26 of 27) preferred the gray filter to the red indoors; 74% (20 of 27) preferred the gray filter. Contrast sensitivity was significantly better with the gray filter compared with no filter (p=0.003) and the red filter (p=0.002).CONCLUSIONS: Our cohort has a relatively high vision-related quality of life compared with other inherited retinal diseases, but photoaversion has a large impact on visual function. Despite what could be expected from a theoretical point of view, red filters are not generally preferred.
AB - SIGNIFICANCE: We report on photoaversion and patient-reported quality of life in Danish patients with achromatopsia and evaluate the best optical rehabilitation. Our results contribute to the evaluation of outcome measures in therapy trials and aid in providing the best optical rehabilitation for patients with this and clinically similar conditions.PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the vision-related quality of life, the impact of photoaversion on daily living, and the best optical rehabilitation in a cohort of achromatopsia patients, including testing the hypothesis that red light-attenuating filters are generally preferred.METHODS: Patients with genetically verified achromatopsia were recruited. Investigations included the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire and supplementary questions regarding photoaversion and visual aids. Patients were evaluated by a low vision optometrist and given the choice between different light-attenuating filters. First, two specially designed red and gray filters both transmitting 6% light, and then a pre-defined broader selection of filters. Best-corrected visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were measured without filters and with the two trial filters.RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients participated. Median 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire composite score was 73, with the lowest median score in the subscale near vision (58) and the highest in ocular pain (100). The majority of patients (88%) reported that light caused them discomfort, and 92% used aid(s) to reduce light. Ninety-six percent (26 of 27) preferred the gray filter to the red indoors; 74% (20 of 27) preferred the gray filter. Contrast sensitivity was significantly better with the gray filter compared with no filter (p=0.003) and the red filter (p=0.002).CONCLUSIONS: Our cohort has a relatively high vision-related quality of life compared with other inherited retinal diseases, but photoaversion has a large impact on visual function. Despite what could be expected from a theoretical point of view, red filters are not generally preferred.
KW - Activities of Daily Living
KW - Adolescent
KW - Adult
KW - Aged
KW - Child
KW - Color Vision Defects/rehabilitation
KW - Contrast Sensitivity/physiology
KW - Eyeglasses
KW - Female
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Quality of Life
KW - Surveys and Questionnaires
KW - Visual Acuity/physiology
KW - Young Adult
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85198633370&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/OPX.0000000000002143
DO - 10.1097/OPX.0000000000002143
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 38913502
SN - 1040-5488
VL - 101
SP - 336
EP - 341
JO - Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry
JF - Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry
IS - 6
ER -