LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Conway, Miriam L; Hosking, Sarah L; Zhu, Haogang; Cubbidge, Robert P (2014)
Publisher: BioMed Central
Journal: BMC Ophthalmology
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: RE, Research Article, Vigabatrin, Visual field, Swedish interactive threshold algorithm

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: genetic structures, eye diseases
Background Vigabatrin (VGB) is an anti-epileptic medication which has been linked to peripheral constriction of the visual field. Documenting the natural history associated with continued VGB exposure is important when making decisions about the risk and benefits associated with the treatment. Due to its speed the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) has become the algorithm of choice when carrying out Full Threshold automated static perimetry. SITA uses prior distributions of normal and glaucomatous visual field behaviour to estimate threshold sensitivity. As the abnormal model is based on glaucomatous behaviour this algorithm has not been validated for VGB recipients. We aim to assess the clinical utility of the SITA algorithm for accurately mapping VGB attributed field loss. Methods The sample comprised one randomly selected eye of 16 patients diagnosed with epilepsy, exposed to VGB therapy. A clinical diagnosis of VGB attributed visual field loss was documented in 44% of the group. The mean age was 39.3?years???14.5?years and the mean deviation was -4.76?dB ?4.34?dB. Each patient was examined with the Full Threshold, SITA Standard and SITA Fast algorithm. Results SITA Standard was on average approximately twice as fast (7.6?minutes) and SITA Fast approximately 3 times as fast (4.7?minutes) as examinations completed using the Full Threshold algorithm (15.8?minutes). In the clinical environment, the visual field outcome with both SITA algorithms was equivalent to visual field examination using the Full Threshold algorithm in terms of visual inspection of the grey scale plots , defect area and defect severity. Conclusions Our research shows that both SITA algorithms are able to accurately map visual field loss attributed to VGB. As patients diagnosed with epilepsy are often vulnerable to fatigue, the time saving offered by SITA Fast means that this algorithm has a significant advantage for use with VGB recipients. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2415-14-166) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Aicardi J, Mumford J, Dumas C, Wood S: Vigabatrin as initial therapy for infantile spasms: a european retrospective survey. Epilepsia 1996, 37:638-642.
    • 2. Tolman JA, Faulkner MA: Vigabatrin: a comprehensive review of drug properties including clinical updates following recent FDA approval. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2009, 10:3077-3089.
    • 3. Hardus P, Verduin W, Postma G, Stilma J, Berendschot T, Van Veelen C: Long term changes in the visual fields of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy using vigabatrin. Br J Ophthalmol 2000, 84:788-790.
    • 4. Midelfart A, Midelfart E, Brodtkorb E: Visual field defects in patients taking vigabatrin. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2000, 78:580-584.
    • 5. Gaily E, Jonsson H, Lappi M: Visual fields at school-age in children treated with vigabatrin in infancy. Epilepsia 2009, 50(2):206-216.
    • 6. Wild JM, Chiron C, Ahn H, Baulac M, Bursztyn J, Gandolfo E, Goldberg I, Goñi FJ, Mercier F, Nordmann JP, Safran AB, Schiefer U, Perucca E: Visual field loss in patients with refractory partial epilepsy treated with vigabatrin: final results from an openlabel, observational, multicentre study. CNS Drugs 2009, 23:965-982.
    • 7. Schmidt T, Rüther K, Jokiel B, Pfeiffer S, Tiel-Wilck K, Schmitz B: Is visual field constriction in epilepsy patients treated with vigabatrin reversible? J Neurol 2002, 249:1066-1071.
    • 8. Nousiainen I, Mäntyjärvi M, Kälviäinen R: No reversion in vigabatrin-associated visual field defects. Neurology 2001, 57:1916-1917.
    • 9. Manuchehri K, Goodman S, Siviter L, Nightingale S: A controlled study of vigabatrin and visual abnormalities. Br J Ophthalmol 2000, 84:499-505.
    • 10. Miller N, Johnson M, Paul S, Girkin CC, Perry JD, Endres M, Krauss GL: Visual dysfunction in patients receiving vigabatrin: clinical and electrophysiologic findings. Neurology 1999, 53:2082-2087.
    • 11. Hardus P, Verduin W, Engelsman M, Edelbroek PM, Segers JP, Berendschot TT, Stilma JS: Visual field loss associated with vigabatrin: quantification and relation to dosage. Epilepsia 2001, 42:262-267.
    • 12. Conway M, Cubbidge RP, Hosking SL: Visual field severity indices demonstrate dosedependent visual loss from vigabatrin therapy. Epilepsia 2008, 49:108-116.
    • 13. Maguire M, Hemming K, Wild JM, Hutton JL, Marson AG: Prevalence of visual field loss following exposure to vigabatarin therapy: a systematic review. Epilepsia 2010, 51(12):2423-2431.
    • 14. Wild JM, Ahn HS, Baulac M, Bursztyn J, Chiron C, Gandolfo E, Safran AB, Schiefer U, Perucca E: Vigabatrin and epilepsy: lessons learned. Epilepsia 2007, 48(7):1318-1327.
    • 15. Wild JM, Flanagan JG, Barnes DA, Gilmartin BA, Good PA, Crews SJ: The qualitative comparative analysis of the visual field using computer-assisted, semi-automated and manual instrumentation. II. Statistical analysis. Doc Ophthalmol 1984, 58:319-324.
    • 16. Bengtsson B, Olsson J, Heijl A, Rootzén H: A new generation of algorithms for computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1997, 75:368-375.
    • 17. Bengtsson B, Heijl A: SITA fast, a new rapid perimetric threshold test. description of methods and evaluation in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998, 76:431-437.
    • 18. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Olsson J: Normal variability of static perimetric threshold values across the central visual field. Arch Ophthalmol 1987, 105:1544-1549.
    • 19. Wall M, Punke SG, Stickney TL, Brito CF, Withrow KR, Kardon RH: SITA standard in optic neuropathies and hemianopias: a comparison with full threshold testing. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001, 42:528-537.
    • 20. Wood JM, Wild JM, Hussey MK, Crews SJ: Serial examination of the normal visual field using octopus automated projection perimetry evidence for a learning effect. Acta Ophthalmol 1987, 65:326-333.
    • 21. Bengtsson B, Heijl A: False-negative responses in glaucoma perimetry: indicators of patient performance or test reliability? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000, 41(8):2201-2204.
    • 22. Wild JM, Martinez C, Reinshagenn G, Harding GFA: Characteristics of a unique visual field defect attributed to vigabatrin. Epilepsia 1999, 40:1784-1794.
    • 23. Zhu H, Crabb DP, Fredette MJ, Anderson DR, Garway-Heath DF: Quantifying discordance between structure and function measurements in the clinical assessment of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2011, 129(9):1167-1174.
    • 24. Russell RA, Garway-Heath DF, Crabb DP: New insights into measurement variability in glaucomatous visual fields from computer modelling. PLoS One 2013, 8(12):e83595.
    • 25. Bengtsson B, Heijl A, Olsson J: Evaluation of a new threshold visual field strategy, SITA, in normal subjects. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998, 76:165-169.
    • 26. Wild JM, Pacey IE, Hancock SA, Cunliffe IA: Between-algorithm, between-individual differences in normal perimetric sensitivity: Full threshold, FASTPAC, and SITA. swedish interactive threshold algorithm. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999, 40:1152-1161.
    • 27. Wild JM, Pacey IE, O'Neill EC, Cunliffe IA: The SITA perimetric threshold algorithms in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999, 40:1998-2009.
    • 28. Ring HA, Reynolds EH: From Vigabatrin. In Recent Advances in Epilepsy. Edited by Pedley T, Meldrum B. Edinburgh: Churchilll Livingstone; 1992:177-195.
    • 29. Wild JM, Robson CR, Jones AL, Cunliffe IA, Smith PE: Detecting vigabatrin toxicity by imaging of the retinal nerve fiber layer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006, 47(3):917- 924.
    • 30. Lawthom C, Smith PE, Wild JM: Nasal retinal nerve fiber layer attenuation: a biomarker for vigabatrin toxicity. Ophthalmology 2009, 116(3):565-571.
    • 31. Bengtsson B, Heijl A: Comparing significance and magnitude of glaucomatous visual field defects using the SITA and full threshold strategies. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999, 77:143-146.
    • 32. Bengtsson B, Heijl A: Evaluation of a new perimetric threshold strategy, SITA, in patients with manifest and suspect glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1998, 76:268-272.
    • 33. Clayton LM, Stern WM, Newman WD, Sander JW, Acheson J, Sisodiya SM: Evolution of visual field loss over ten years in individuals taking vigabatrin. Epilepsy Res 2013, 105(3):262-271.
    • 34. Hudson C, Wild JM, O'Neill EC: Fatigue effects during a single session of automated static threshold perimetry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994, 35:268-280.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article