BLOG: Putting technology to work for you: Monitoring AMD patients

Joshua Mali, MD, focuses his blog on individualized patient care in a private retina practice setting.

Much of the emphasis in retinal diseases is on current drug treatment regimens, investigating new agents and evaluating potential drug delivery systems. Equally important, however, is maintaining a focus on risk reduction and early detection, especially when it comes to age-related macular degeneration.

As technology advances and becomes available to us for use in our clinics, it is our responsibility as physicians to make that new technology work for us and our patients. In order to provide the best possible care and visual outcomes for our patients, it is critical we continue to be the leaders of our field and explore cutting-edge technologies. The ForeseeHome monitoring device (FSH, Notal Vision) is, I believe, a “flagship” product for the use of telemedicine and artificial intelligence in the early detection of wet AMD. The device uses preferential hyperacuity perimetry, capable of detecting minute changes in the central visual field with a sensitivity of 80%; it was cleared by the FDA as a home monitoring device in 2009.


The AREDS2-HOME Study compared visual acuity at the time of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) detection between 1,520 at-risk dry AMD patients who were randomly assigned to the device plus standard of care (self-monitoring with Amsler grid and routine clinic visits) with a control group assigned to standard of care alone. Results showed that, among patients who tested with the device at least twice a week, 94% maintained 20/40 or better visual acuity at diagnosis of wet AMD compared with 62% of eyes that used standard of care alone (P = .014).

The HOME Study also found that patients who triggered an alert via the device between office visits lost a mean of three letters of vision compared with an average of nine letters of vision lost in the control group. The CNV lesion size in patients assigned to the standard of care group were approximately 300% larger than the study group…..

Read more:

Source: Healio