June 2020
Volume 61, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2020
OPA photosensitivity assessment and algorithm comparison in patients with achromatopsia
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Alex Gonzalez
    Ophthalmic Biophysics Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, United States
    Psychology, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, Miami, Florida, United States
  • Mariela Aguilar
    Ophthalmic Biophysics Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, United States
  • Cornelis Rowaan
    Ophthalmic Biophysics Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, United States
  • Potyra R. Rosa
    Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miami, Florida, United States
  • Victoria Graham
    Ophthalmic Biophysics Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, United States
  • Byron L Lam
    Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miami, Florida, United States
  • Barry E. Hurwitz
    Psychology, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, Miami, Florida, United States
  • Joseph Carroll
    Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
  • Matthew Feinsod
    Applied Genetic Technologies Corp, Alachua, Florida, United States
  • Jean-Marie A Parel
    Ophthalmic Biophysics Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, United States
    Brien Holden Vision Institute, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Alex Gonzalez, None; Mariela Aguilar, None; Cornelis Rowaan, None; Potyra Rosa, None; Victoria Graham, None; Byron Lam, None; Barry Hurwitz, None; Joseph Carroll, AGTC (F), MeiraGTx (C), MeiraGTx (F), OptoVue (F), Translation Imaging Innovations (I); Matthew Feinsod, Applied Genetic Technologies Corp (F); Jean-Marie Parel, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  Supported in part by National Eye Institute Grant R24EY022023, Florida Lions Eye Bank and the Beauty of Sight Foundation, Drs. KR Olsen, ME Hildebrandt, Raksha Urs and Aaron Furtado; NIH Center Grant P30EY14801, Research to Prevent Blindness, Henri and Flore Lesieur Foundation (JMP).
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2020, Vol.61, 4276. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Alex Gonzalez, Mariela Aguilar, Cornelis Rowaan, Potyra R. Rosa, Victoria Graham, Byron L Lam, Barry E. Hurwitz, Joseph Carroll, Matthew Feinsod, Jean-Marie A Parel; OPA photosensitivity assessment and algorithm comparison in patients with achromatopsia. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020;61(7):4276.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : The ocular photosensitivity analyzer (OPA, Fig 1, Aguilar et al. BOE 2018,9(11):5583-5596) is an automated instrument to quantify the visual photosensitivity threshold (VPT). The current study assesses visual photosensitivity in patients with achromatopsia using the OPA and compares the VPT results using different algorithms. Given achromatopsia is the target of gene therapy trials, photosensitivity may be a plausible outcome measure in achromatopsia patients who are often disabled by photosensitivity.

Methods : The OPA’s first-generation software, (GEN1) implements a stimuli adjustment algorithm incorporating a single unequal staircase, using an episodic stimulus, with reliability catch trials. The (GEN2) stimuli adjustment algorithm utilizes a randomized dual staircase, with pre-test VPT measure as a start point, and episodic stimuli adjustment using a successive approximation procedure. Lastly, the (RAMP) is repeated threshold assessment of five measures, using a continuous ramping light stimulus. Tests were conducted on 8 males with achromatopsia, aged 13 to 25 years. Each stimuli adjustment algorithm was assessed twice, binocularly, in random order, separated by a ten-minute rest period. Lighting in the exam room was adjusted to 4 lux. In all software versions, test instructions were delivered by a computer synthesized audio voice. Participants signal their discomfort (yes/no) via push-button. For GEN1 and GEN2, VPT is calculated as the mean of 10 response reversals, in the (RAMP), VPT is the mean of 5 repeated measures.

Results : Measured VPT (in log(lux) units) across algorithms was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, with means (± SD) of 0.71 ± 0.24 (GEN1), 1.02 ± 0.39(GEN2), and 1.25 ± 0.48 (RAMP). Pairwise comparison showed significant difference between GEN1 and GEN2 (p=0.006) and GEN1 & RAMP (p=0.007). Difference between GEN2 and RAMP was approaching significance (p=0.059). No significant difference (p=0.295), between TESTS 1 & 2 (1.02 ± 0.15 and 0.973 ± 0.11 log(lux) and no significant interactions between retests and algorithms (p=0.303). One subject’s data was not included due to missing timepoints.

Conclusions : In patients with achromatopsia, the underlying stimuli adjustment algorithm and stimuli style (ramp vs episodic) can lead to differences in the VPT measured (Fig 2). Our findings may have implications in the use of the OPA as an outcome measure in achromatopsia clinical trials.

This is a 2020 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

 

 

×
×

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.

×