Dilated Versus Non-Dilated Wavefront Corrections for Patients With Down Syndrome

Sponsor
Ohio State University (Other)
Overall Status
Recruiting
CT.gov ID
NCT05059041
Collaborator
University of Houston (Other)
40
2
2
7.9
20
2.5

Study Details

Study Description

Brief Summary

Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) live with visual deficits due, in part, to elevated levels of higher-order optical aberrations (HOA). HOAs are distortions/abnormalities in the structure of the refractive components of the eye (i.e. the cornea and the lens) that, if present, can result in poor quality focus on the retina, thus negatively impacting vision. HOAs in the general population are overall low, and thus not ordinarily considered during the eye examination and determination of refractive correction. However, for some populations, such as individuals with DS, HOAs are elevated, and thus the commonly used clinical techniques to determine refractive corrections may fall short. The most common clinical technique for refractive correction determination is subjective refraction whereby a clinician asks the patient to compare different lens options and select the lens that provides the best visual outcome. Given the cognitive demands of the standard subjective refraction technique, clinicians rely on objective clinical techniques to prescribe optical corrections for individuals with DS. This is problematic, because it may result in errors for eyes with elevated HOA given that these techniques do not include measurement of the HOAs. The proposed research evaluates the use of objective wavefront measurements that quantify the HOAs of the eye as a basis for refractive correction determination for patients with DS. The specific aim is to determine whether dilation of the eyes is needed prior to objective wavefront measurements. Dilation of the eyes increases the ability to measure the optical quality of the eye and paralyzes accommodation (the natural focusing mechanism of the eye), which could be beneficial in determining refractions. However, the use of dilation lengthens the process for determining prescriptions and may be less desirable for patients.

Condition or Disease Intervention/Treatment Phase
  • Device: Dilated Refraction
  • Device: Non-Dilated Refraction
Phase 2

Study Design

Study Type:
Interventional
Anticipated Enrollment :
40 participants
Allocation:
Randomized
Intervention Model:
Crossover Assignment
Masking:
Double (Participant, Outcomes Assessor)
Primary Purpose:
Treatment
Official Title:
Dilated Wavefront Versus Non-Dilated Wavefront for Metric-Optimized Refraction Procedure for Individuals With Down Syndrome
Actual Study Start Date :
May 6, 2022
Anticipated Primary Completion Date :
Jan 1, 2023
Anticipated Study Completion Date :
Jan 1, 2023

Arms and Interventions

Arm Intervention/Treatment
Experimental: Dilated first, non-dilated second

Each participant will perform vision testing first through a prescription determined from wavefront measurements obtained after dilation. Second, each participation will perform vision testing through a prescription determined from wavefront measurements obtained before dilation.

Device: Dilated Refraction
The dilated refraction will be a trial spectacle frame composed of lenses based upon a spectacle prescription determined from dilated measures of the eye using a wavefront aberrometer.

Device: Non-Dilated Refraction
The non-dilated refraction will be a trial spectacle frame composed of lenses based upon a spectacle prescription determined from non-dilated measures of the eye using a wavefront aberrometer.

Experimental: Non-dilated first, dilated second

Each participant will perform vision testing first through a prescription determined from wavefront measurements obtained before dilation. Second, each participation will perform vision testing through a prescription determined from wavefront measurements obtained after dilation.

Device: Dilated Refraction
The dilated refraction will be a trial spectacle frame composed of lenses based upon a spectacle prescription determined from dilated measures of the eye using a wavefront aberrometer.

Device: Non-Dilated Refraction
The non-dilated refraction will be a trial spectacle frame composed of lenses based upon a spectacle prescription determined from non-dilated measures of the eye using a wavefront aberrometer.

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

  1. Distance Visual Acuity [1 day]

    Distance LogMAR visual acuity will be measured with the British Standard Letter set or HOTV Matching for participants unable to name letters

Secondary Outcome Measures

  1. Near Visual Acuity [1 day]

    Near LogMAR visual acuity will be measured with a Bailey-Lovie style HOTV card.

  2. Participant distance vision ranking [1 day]

    Participants will be asked rate quality of vision at distance on a five point scale for each prescription. 1 will correspond to poorest vision and 5 will correspond to best vision.

  3. Participant near vision ranking [1 day]

    Participants will be asked rate quality of vision at near on a five point scale for each prescription. 1 will correspond to poorest vision and 5 will correspond to best vision.

  4. Participant overall preference for prescriptions [1 day]

    Participants will be asked to select which of two prescriptions are preferred overall.

Eligibility Criteria

Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study:
5 Years and Older
Sexes Eligible for Study:
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:
No
Inclusion Criteria:
  • Diagnosis of Down syndrome

  • Able to be dilated

  • Able to fixate for study measures

  • Able to respond for visual acuity testing

Exclusion Criteria:
  • Ocular nystagmus

  • History of ocular or refractive surgery (strabismus surgery is okay)

  • Corneal or lenticular opacities

  • Ocular disease

Contacts and Locations

Locations

Site City State Country Postal Code
1 Ohio State University Columbus Ohio United States 43210
2 University of Houston Houston Texas United States 77004

Sponsors and Collaborators

  • Ohio State University
  • University of Houston

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Heather Anderson, OD, PhD, Ohio State University

Study Documents (Full-Text)

None provided.

More Information

Publications

None provided.
Responsible Party:
Heather Anderson OD, PhD, Associate Professor, Ohio State University
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT05059041
Other Study ID Numbers:
  • EY024590
First Posted:
Sep 28, 2021
Last Update Posted:
May 17, 2022
Last Verified:
May 1, 2022
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
Undecided
Plan to Share IPD:
Undecided
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product:
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product:
No
Additional relevant MeSH terms:

Study Results

No Results Posted as of May 17, 2022