Systematic Underestimation of Visual Sensitivity Loss on Microperimetry: Implications for Testing Protocols in Clinical Trials

Purpose To examine whether systematic changes in visual sensitivity measurements on microperimetry occur over tests within the same session and whether these changes vary according to the level of visual sensitivity loss. Methods Eighty individuals with glaucoma or atrophic age-related macular degeneration underwent three microperimetry tests in one eye during one session using the 4-2 staircase strategy. Changes in mean sensitivity (MS) and pointwise sensitivity (PWS) between the first and second test pairs were examined, with PWS was examined separately based on its average value across the three tests in 6-dB bins. The coefficient of repeatability (CoR) for MS between each sequential test pair was also calculated. Results There was a significant decline in MS from the first to second test (P = 0.001), but no significant difference in MS was seen between the second and third tests (P = 0.562). This significant decline in the first test pair was observed in locations with an average PWS of <6 dB or between 6 to 12 dB and between 12 to 18 dB (P < 0.001), but not for all other average PWS bins (P ≥ 0.337). The CoR of MS was significantly lower in the second compared to the first test pair (1.4 dB and 2.5 dB, respectively; P < 0.001). Conclusions The 4-2 staircase strategy conventionally used on microperimetry testing systematically underestimates visual sensitivity loss on the first test. Translational Relevance The consistency and accuracy of visual sensitivity measurements on microperimetry in clinical trials could be markedly improved by using estimates from an initial test to seed subsequent tests and excluding this first test from analyses.

[1]  A. Turpin,et al.  Patients' views of visual field testing and priorities for research development and translation into practice. , 2021, Ophthalmology. Glaucoma.

[2]  H. Dunbar,et al.  Clinical Perspectives and Trends: Microperimetry as a Trial Endpoint in Retinal Disease , 2021, Ophthalmologica.

[3]  R. Guymer,et al.  Fundus-controlled perimetry (microperimetry): Application as outcome measure in clinical trials , 2020, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research.

[4]  F. Holz,et al.  Retinal light sensitivity as outcome measure in recessive Stargardt disease , 2020, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[5]  R. MacLaren,et al.  Test‐retest repeatability of microperimetry in patients with retinitis pigmentosa caused by mutations in RPGR , 2020, Clinical & experimental ophthalmology.

[6]  C. Luu,et al.  Prospective Longitudinal Evaluation of Nascent Geographic Atrophy in Age-Related Macular Degeneration. , 2019, Ophthalmology. Retina.

[7]  F. Holz,et al.  Retest Reliability of Mesopic and Dark-Adapted Microperimetry in Patients With Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Age-Matched Controls. , 2018, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[8]  Michael V. Boland,et al.  Evidence-based Criteria for Assessment of Visual Field Reliability. , 2017, Ophthalmology.

[9]  I. Constable,et al.  Intersession Test–Retest Variability of Microperimetry in Type 2 Macular Telangiectasia , 2017, Translational vision science & technology.

[10]  F. Holz,et al.  Effective Dynamic Range and Retest Reliability of Dark-Adapted Two-Color Fundus-Controlled Perimetry in Patients With Macular Diseases. , 2017, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[11]  F. Chen,et al.  Intersession test–retest variability of 10-2 MAIA microperimetry in fixation-threatening glaucoma , 2017, Clinical ophthalmology.

[12]  I. MacDonald,et al.  Microperimetry as an Outcome Measure in Choroideremia Trials: Reproducibility and Beyond. , 2016, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[13]  J. Crowston,et al.  Test-Retest Variability of Fundus-Tracked Perimetry at the Peripapillary Region in Open Angle Glaucoma. , 2016, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[14]  L. Ayton,et al.  Test-Retest Repeatability of Microperimetry at the Border of Deep Scotomas. , 2015, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[15]  Lauren N Ayton,et al.  Optical coherence tomography-defined changes preceding the development of drusen-associated atrophy in age-related macular degeneration. , 2014, Ophthalmology.

[16]  L. Ayton,et al.  Intrasession test-retest variability of microperimetry in age-related macular degeneration. , 2013, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[17]  M. Gordijn,et al.  Factors that influence standard automated perimetry test results in glaucoma: test reliability, technician experience, time of day, and season. , 2012, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[18]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Properties of perimetric threshold estimates from full threshold, ZEST, and SITA-like strategies, as determined by computer simulation. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[19]  A M McKendrick,et al.  Measurement error of visual field tests in glaucoma , 2003, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[20]  E. Glass,et al.  Simulations for FASTPAC and the standard 4-2 dB full-threshold strategy of the Humphrey Field Analyzer. , 1995, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[21]  J. Caprioli,et al.  The influence of patient reliability on visual field outcome. , 1994, American journal of ophthalmology.