Cargando…

Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin?

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Conway, Miriam L, Hosking, Sarah L, Zhu, Haogang, Cubbidge, Robert P
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4391113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25539569
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-14-166
_version_ 1782365764465983488
author Conway, Miriam L
Hosking, Sarah L
Zhu, Haogang
Cubbidge, Robert P
author_facet Conway, Miriam L
Hosking, Sarah L
Zhu, Haogang
Cubbidge, Robert P
author_sort Conway, Miriam L
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4391113
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43911132015-04-10 Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin? Conway, Miriam L Hosking, Sarah L Zhu, Haogang Cubbidge, Robert P BMC Ophthalmol Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2014-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4391113/ /pubmed/25539569 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-14-166 Text en © Conway et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Conway, Miriam L
Hosking, Sarah L
Zhu, Haogang
Cubbidge, Robert P
Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin?
title Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin?
title_full Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin?
title_fullStr Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin?
title_full_unstemmed Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin?
title_short Does the Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin?
title_sort does the swedish interactive threshold algorithm (sita) accurately map visual field loss attributed to vigabatrin?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4391113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25539569
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-14-166
work_keys_str_mv AT conwaymiriaml doestheswedishinteractivethresholdalgorithmsitaaccuratelymapvisualfieldlossattributedtovigabatrin
AT hoskingsarahl doestheswedishinteractivethresholdalgorithmsitaaccuratelymapvisualfieldlossattributedtovigabatrin
AT zhuhaogang doestheswedishinteractivethresholdalgorithmsitaaccuratelymapvisualfieldlossattributedtovigabatrin
AT cubbidgerobertp doestheswedishinteractivethresholdalgorithmsitaaccuratelymapvisualfieldlossattributedtovigabatrin