Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2024 Jul;28(32):1–136. doi: 10.3310/CYRA9912

Home-monitoring for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in older adults within the UK: the MONARCH diagnostic accuracy study.

Ruth E Hogg, Robin Wickens, Sean O'Connor, Eleanor Gidman, Elizabeth Ward, Charlene Treanor, Tunde Peto, Ben Burton, Paul Knox, Andrew J Lotery, Sobha Sivaprasad, Michael Donnelly, Chris A Rogers, Barnaby C Reeves
PMCID: PMC11261425  PMID: 39023220

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Most neovascular age-related macular degeneration treatments involve long-term follow-up of disease activity. Home monitoring would reduce the burden on patients and those they depend on for transport, and release clinic appointments for other patients. The study aimed to evaluate three home-monitoring tests for patients to use to detect active neovascular age-related macular degeneration compared with diagnosing active neovascular age-related macular degeneration by hospital follow-up.

OBJECTIVES

There were five objectives: Estimate the accuracy of three home-monitoring tests to detect active neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Determine the acceptability of home monitoring to patients and carers and adherence to home monitoring. Explore whether inequalities exist in recruitment, participants' ability to self-test and their adherence to weekly testing during follow-up. Provide pilot data about the accuracy of home monitoring to detect conversion to neovascular age-related macular degeneration in fellow eyes of patients with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Describe challenges experienced when implementing home-monitoring tests.

DESIGN

Diagnostic test accuracy cohort study, stratified by time since starting treatment.

SETTING

Six United Kingdom Hospital Eye Service macular clinics (Belfast, Liverpool, Moorfields, James Paget, Southampton, Gloucester).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with at least one study eye being monitored by hospital follow-up.

REFERENCE STANDARD

Detection of active neovascular age-related macular degeneration by an ophthalmologist at hospital follow-up.

INDEX TESTS

KeepSight Journal: paper-based near-vision tests presented as word puzzles. MyVisionTrack®: electronic test, viewed on a tablet device. MultiBit: electronic test, viewed on a tablet device. Participants provided test scores weekly. Raw scores between hospital follow-ups were summarised as averages.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-seven patients (mean age 74.9 years) took part. At least one hospital follow-up was available for 317 study eyes, including 9 second eyes that became eligible during follow-up, in 261 participants (1549 complete visits). Median testing frequency was three times/month. Estimated areas under receiver operating curves were < 0.6 for all index tests, and only KeepSight Journal summary score was significantly associated with the lesion activity (odds ratio = 3.48, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 11.13, p = 0.036). Older age and worse deprivation for home address were associated with lower participation (χ2 = 50.5 and 24.3, respectively, p < 0.001) but not ability or adherence to self-testing. Areas under receiver operating curves appeared higher for conversion of fellow eyes to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (0.85 for KeepSight Journal) but were estimated with less precision. Almost half of participants called a study helpline, most often due to inability to test electronically.

LIMITATIONS

Pre-specified sample size not met; participants' difficulties using the devices; electronic tests not always available.

CONCLUSIONS

No index test provided adequate test accuracy to identify lesion diagnosed as active in follow-up clinics. If used to detect conversion, patients would still need to be monitored at hospital. Associations of older age and worse deprivation with study participation highlight the potential for inequities with such interventions. Provision of reliable electronic testing was challenging.

FUTURE WORK

Future studies evaluating similar technologies should consider: Independent monitoring with clear stopping rules based on test performance. Deployment of apps on patients' own devices since providing devices did not reduce inequalities in participation and complicated home testing. Alternative methods to summarise multiple scores over the period preceding a follow-up.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN79058224.

FUNDING

This award was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 15/97/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 32. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Plain language summary

Treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration, the most common cause of sight loss in those over 50 years, involves regular eye injections and frequent follow-up appointments. This is inconvenient for patients and causes capacity issues in the hospital eye service. Finding tests that could be undertaken at home that could detect if a further injection and hospital appointment was required or not would increase capacity to see those at highest risk of sight loss and also reduce the burden on patients and their carers. We investigated three different visual function tests, one paper-based and two applications on an iPod TouchTM tablet (Apple, Cupertino, CA, USA). We wanted to see if they could detect an increase in disease activity that would require treatment, compared to the decision by a retinal specialist at a traditional hospital eye outpatient visit based on clinical examination and retinal imaging. To encourage those without a smartphone or home internet to participate, we provided both an iPod Touch and Mobile Wireless-Fidelity device with a mobile contract. None of the tests performed well enough to safely monitor patients at home. Those who were willing to participate tended to be younger, had previous experience of using smartphones, sending e-mail and internet access and were more well-off than those who chose not to participate. Some participants also experienced difficulties with the devices provided and successfully uploading the data which were not related to the extent of previous information technology experience. There were also significant technical challenges for the research team. The study helpline was used heavily, considerably more than we anticipated. These tests are not ready to be used in this context. Future studies involving mobile health technology need to carefully consider how to reach those unlikely to participate and provide sufficient technical support to support long-term follow-up.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Li JQ, Welchowski T, Schmid M, et al. Prevalence and incidence of age-related macular degeneration in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Ophthalmol 2020;104(8):1077–84. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314422 doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314422. [DOI] [PubMed]
  2. Taylor DJ, Hobby AE, Binns AM, Crabb DP. How does age-related macular degeneration affect real-world visual ability and quality of life? A systematic review. BMJ Open 2016;6(12):e011504. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011504 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. Essex RW, Nguyen V, Walton R, Arnold JJ, McAllister IL, Guymer RH, et al., Fight Retinal Blindness Study Group. Treatment patterns and visual outcomes during the maintenance phase of treat-and-extend therapy for age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2016;123(11):2393–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.07.012 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.07.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Rosenfeld PJ, BrownDM, Heier JS, Boyer DS, Kaiser PK, Chung CY, Kim RY, MARINA Study Group. Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2006;355(14):1419–31. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa054481 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa054481. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, Rogers CA, Downes S, Lotery AJ, Dakin HA, et al. A randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments to Inhibit VEGF in Age-related choroidal Neovascularisation (IVAN). Health Technol Assess 2015;19(78):1–298. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19780 doi: 10.3310/hta19780. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  6. Gragoudas ES, Adamis AP, Cunningham ET Jr, Feinsod M, Guyer DR, VEGF Inhibition Study in Ocular Neovascularization Clinical Trial Group. Pegaptanib for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2004;351(27):2805–16. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa042760 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa042760. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Islam M, Sansome S, Das R, Lukic M, Chong Teo KY, Tan G, et al. Smartphone-based remote monitoring of vision in macular disease enables early detection of worsening pathology and need for intravitreal therapy. BMJ Health Care Inform 2021;28(1):e100310. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2020-100310 doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2020-100310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  8. Busquets MA, Sabbagh O. Current status of home monitoring technology for age-related macular degeneration. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2021;32(3):240–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000756 doi: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000756. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Banister K, Cook JA, Scotland G, Azuara-Blanco A, Goulão B, Heimann H, et al. Non-invasive testing for early detection of neovascular macular degeneration in unaffected second eyes of older adults: EDNA diagnostic accuracy study. Health Technol Assess 2022;26(8):1–142. https://doi.org/10.3310/VLFL1739 doi: 10.3310/VLFL1739. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Achard OA, Safran AB, Duret FC, Ragama E. Role of the completion phenomenon in the evaluation of Amsler grid results. Am J Ophthalmol 1995;120(3):322–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(14)72162-2 doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(14)72162-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Bittner AK, Torr-Brown S, Arnold E, Nwankwo A, Beaton P, Rampat R, et al. Improved adherence to vision self-monitoring with the Vision and Memory Stimulating (VMS) journal for non-neovascular age-related macular degeneration during a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2014;5(1):320. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9570.1000320 doi: 10.4172/2155-9570.1000320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  12. Alster Y, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Brimacombe JA, Crompton RM, Duh Y-J, et al., Preferential Hyperacuity Perimetry Research Group. Preferential Hyperacuity Perimeter (PreView PHP) for detecting choroidal neovascularization study. Ophthalmology 2005;112(10):1758–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.06.008 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.06.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Chew EY, Clemons TE, Bressler SB, Elman MJ, Danis RP, Domalpally A, et al., Appendix 1 for AREDS2-HOME Study Research Group. Randomized trial of the ForeseeHome monitoring device for early detection of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. The Home Monitoring of the Eye (HOME) study design: HOME Study report number 1. Contemp Clin Trials 2014;37(2):294–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2014.02.003 doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2014.02.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  14. Pitrelli Vazquez N, Knox PC. Assessment of visual distortions in age-related macular degeneration: emergence of new approaches. Br Ir Orthopt J 2015;12:9–15. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. Wang YZ, He YG, Mitzel G, Zhang S, Bartlett M. Handheld shape discrimination hyperacuity test on a mobile device for remote monitoring of visual function in maculopathy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54(8):5497–505. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.13-12037 doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-12037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. Wang YZ, Wilson E, Locke KG, Edwards AO. Shape discrimination in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43(6):2055–62. [PubMed]
  17. Bruender MC, Benjamin N, Agostini HT, Stahl A, Ehlken C. Subjective evaluation of visual acuity is not reliable to detect disease activity in different exudative maculopathies. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018;256(9):1565–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-4021-x doi: 10.1007/s00417-018-4021-x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Kaiser PK, Wang YZ, He YG, Weisberger A, Wolf S, Smith CH. Feasibility of a novel remote daily monitoring system for age-related macular degeneration using mobile handheld devices: results of a pilot study. Retina 2013;33(9):1863–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182899258 doi: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182899258. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Pitrelli Vazquez N, Harding SP, Heimann H, Czanner G, Knox PC. Radial shape discrimination testing for new-onset neovascular age-related macular degeneration in at-risk eyes. PLOS ONE 2018;13(11):e0207342. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207342 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  20. Ku JY, Milling AF, Pitrelli Vazquez N, Knox PC. Performance, usability and comparison of two versions of a new macular vision test: the handheld Radial Shape Discrimination test. PeerJ 2016;4:e2650. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2650 doi: 10.7717/peerj.2650. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  21. Winther C, Frisen L. Self-testing of vision in age-related macula degeneration: a longitudinal pilot study using a smartphone-based rarebit test. J Ophthalmol 2015;2015:285463. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/285463 doi: 10.1155/2015/285463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. Reeves BC, Scott LJ, Taylor J, Hogg R, Rogers CA, Wordsworth S, et al. The Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of Community versus Hospital Eye Service follow-up for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration with quiescent disease (ECHoES): a virtual randomised balanced incomplete block trial. Health Technol Assess 2016;20(80):1–120. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20800 doi: 10.3310/hta20800. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. Internet Use Amongst Older People Subject to North South Divide. 2015. URL: www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-press/archive/internet-use-amongst-older-people-subject-to-northsouth-divide/ (accessed 27 March 2022).
  24. OFCOM. Adults’ Media Use and Attitudes Report 2014. 2014. URL: www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/58223/2014_adults_report.pdf (accessed 27 March 2022).
  25. Kobayashi LC, Wardle J, von Wagner C. Internet use, social engagement and health literacy decline during ageing in a longitudinal cohort of older English adults. J Epidemiol Community Health 2015;69(3):278–83. doi: 10.1136/jech-2014-204733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Ward E, Wickens RA, O’Connell A, Culliford LA, Rogers CA, Gidman EA, et al. Monitoring for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) reactivation at home: the MONARCH study. Eye (Lond) 2021;35(2):592–600. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-0910-4 doi: 10.1038/s41433-020-0910-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  27. Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Sample size determination for diagnostic accuracy studies involving binormal ROC curve indices. Stat Med 1997;16(13):1529–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19970715)16:13<1529::aid-sim565>3.0.co;2-h doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19970715)16:13<1529::aid-sim565>3.0.co;2-h. [DOI] [PubMed]
  28. Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. Risk factors for choroidal neovascularization in the second eye of patients with juxtafoveal or subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 1997;115(6):741–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1997.01100150743009 doi: 10.1001/archopht.1997.01100150743009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Pieramici DJ, Bressler SB. Age-related macular degeneration and risk factors for the development of choroidal neovascularization in the fellow eye. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 1998;9(3):38–46. https://doi.org/10.1097/00055735-199806000-00007 doi: 10.1097/00055735-199806000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al., QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(8):529–36. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19(6):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Assarroudi A, Heshmati Nabavi F, Armat MR, Ebadi A, Vaismoradi M. Directed qualitative content analysis: the description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and data analysis process. J Res Nurs 2018;23(1):42–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987117741667 doi: 10.1177/1744987117741667. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  33. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 2003;27(3):425–78.
  34. Holden RJ, Karsh BT. The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inform 2010;43(1):159–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  35. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of health care interventions: a theoretical framework and proposed research agenda. Br J Health Psychol 2018;23(3):519–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12295 doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12295. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Ha J, Park HK. Factors affecting the acceptability of technology in health care among older Korean adults with multiple chronic conditions: a cross-sectional study adopting the senior technology acceptance model. Clin Interv Aging 2020;15:1873–81. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S268606 doi: 10.2147/CIA.S268606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  37. Lyles CR, Wachter RM, Sarkar U. Focusing on digital health equity. JAMA 2021;326(18):1795–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.18459 doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.18459. [DOI] [PubMed]
  38. Martins Van Jaarsveld G. The effects of COVID-19 among the elderly population: a case for closing the digital divide. Front Psychiatry 2020;11:577427. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.577427 doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.577427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  39. Silva R, Cachulo ML, Fonseca P, Bernardes R, Nunes S, Vilhena N, Faria de Abreu JR. Age-related macular degeneration and risk factors for the development of choroidal neovascularisation in the fellow eye: a 3-year follow-up study. Ophthalmologica 2011;226(3):110–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000329473 doi: 10.1159/000329473. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Ho CYD, Wu Z, Turpin A, Lawson DJ, Luu CD, McKendrick AM, Guymer RH. A tablet-based retinal function test in neovascular age-related macular degeneration eyes and at-risk fellow eye. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2018;7(2):2. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.7.2.2 doi: 10.1167/tvst.7.2.2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. Faes L, Islam M, Bachmann LM, Lienhard KR, Schmid MK, Sim DA. False alarms and the positive predictive value of smartphone-based hyperacuity home monitoring for the progression of macular disease: a prospective cohort study. Eye (Lond) 2021;35(11):3035–40. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-01356-2 doi: 10.1038/s41433-020-01356-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  42. Guigou S, Michel T, Merite PY, Coupier L, Meyer F. Home vision monitoring in patients with maculopathy: real-life study of the OdySight application. J Fr Ophtalmol 2021;44(6):873–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfo.2020.09.034 doi: 10.1016/j.jfo.2020.09.034. [DOI] [PubMed]
  43. Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898 doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. [DOI] [PubMed]
  44. Adaptive Platform Trials Coalition. Adaptive platform trials: definition, design, conduct and reporting considerations. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2019;18(10):797–807. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-019-0034-3 doi: 10.1038/s41573-019-0034-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  45. Nahen K, Benyamini G, Loewenstein A. Evaluation of a self-imaging SD-OCT system for remote monitoring of patients with neovascular age related macular degeneration. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2020;237(12):1410–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1271-6834 doi: 10.1055/a-1271-6834. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Maloca P, Hasler PW, Barthelmes D, et al. Safety and feasibility of a novel sparse optical coherence tomography device for patient-delivered retina home monitoring. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2018;7(4):8. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.7.4.8 doi: 10.1167/tvst.7.4.8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  47. Song G, Chu KK, Kim S, et al. First clinical application of low-cost OCT. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2019;8(3):61. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.8.3.61 doi: 10.1167/tvst.8.3.61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  48. Yim J, Chopra R, Spitz T, et al. Predicting conversion to wet age-related macular degeneration using deep learning. Nat Med 2020;26:892–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0867-7 doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0867-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis J. Application of a theoretical framework to assess intervention acceptability: A semi-structured interview study. Eur Health Psychol 2016;18:565.
  50. Al Aufa B, Renindra IS, Putri JS, Nurmansyah MI. An application of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model for understanding patient perceptions on using hospital mobile application. Enferm Clin 2020;30:110–3.
  51. Chao CM. Factors Determining the Behavioral Intention to Use Mobile Learning: An Application and Extension of the UTAUT Model. Front Psychol 2019;10:1652. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  52. Zhou M, Zhao L, Kong N, Campy KS, Qu S, Wang S. Factors influencing behavior intentions to telehealth by Chinese elderly: An extended TAM model. Int J Med Inform 2019;126:118–127. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  53. Liu H, Wu T. Estimating the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for repeated measures design. J Stat Softw 2003;8:1–18.
  54. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, et al. 54STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ 2015;351:h5527. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5527 doi: 10.1136/bmj.h5527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

RESOURCES