June 2017
Volume 58, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2017
VA Low-Vision Intervention Trial II (LOVIT II): One-Year Outcomes
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Joan Stelmack
    Hines VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois, United States
    Ophthalmology, Illinois Eye & Ear Infirmary, Chicago , Illinois, United States
  • Xiaoyin Tang
    Hines VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois, United States
  • Yongliang Wei
    Hines VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois, United States
  • Scott Sayers
    Hines VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois, United States
  • Robert W Massof
    Wilmer Eye Institute , Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Joan Stelmack, None; Xiaoyin Tang, None; Yongliang Wei, None; Scott Sayers, None; Robert Massof, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  VA Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Grant # C958R
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2017, Vol.58, 3268. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Joan Stelmack, Xiaoyin Tang, Yongliang Wei, Scott Sayers, Robert W Massof; VA Low-Vision Intervention Trial II (LOVIT II): One-Year Outcomes. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):3268.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose : To evaluate the effectiveness of low-vision rehabilitation in 2 cohorts derived from LOVIT II.

Methods : In a prospective study we observed all of the patients (134 in LV rehabilitation group and 121 in Basic LV group) who completed the one-year LOVIT II follow-up after the trial ended at 4 months. During the trial, the LV rehabilitation group received LV devices, homework and LV rehabilitation with a therapist. The Basic LV group received LV devices, initially without therapy, and usual care LV therapy after the 4 month follow-up. Overall visual ability and visual ability domain scores (reading, mobility, visual motor skill, visual information) were estimated using Rasch analysis of difficulty ratings on the 48-item Veterans Affairs Low-Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire. Mean changes (baseline to 4 months, 4 months to one-year, baseline to one-year) were compared.

Results : At baseline, there were no significant differences between groups. From baseline to 4 months, all domain scores and overall visual ability improved in both groups (p <0.01) except mobility in the Basic LV group. From baseline to one-year, both groups improved in overall visual ability and all visual ability domains (p<0.001). But, from 4 months to one-year, both groups lost visual reading ability (p<0.001) and the LV Rehabilitation group also lost overall visual ability (p<.005); mean changes in visual reading ability were - .64 (1.2) logit LV rehabilitation group and -.63 (1.4) logit Basic LV group; the loss of overall visual ability in the LV rehabilitation group was -.20(0.8) logit.

Conclusions : The LV rehabilitation protocol used in LOVIT II and usual care LV therapy are both effective in improving visual ability in veterans with macular diseases and best-corrected distance visual acuity (better-eye) from 20/50 to 20/200. As both groups lost visual ability from 4 months to one-year, patient follow-up for mild and moderate LV is recommended at one year.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.