Skip to content

Visual Telerehabilitation in AMD Patients

Visual Rehabilitation in Macular Degeneration: a Pilot Study on Biofeedback Training and Home-based Mobile Virtual-reality Stimulation

Status
Terminated
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04685824
Enrollment
16
Registered
2020-12-28
Start date
2021-09-15
Completion date
2023-10-06
Last updated
2023-11-30

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Macular Degeneration

Keywords

Visual rehabilitation, Oculus Go, Virtual-reality, Biofeedback

Brief summary

Following the degeneration of the macula and the loss of central vision, the patients naturally relocate the fixation point for high visual acuity peripherally, in an eccentric and healthy part of the retina (PRL), to compensate for visual impairments. However, in many cases, the PRL lands on a sub-optimal retinal area and becomes useless. Modern low-vision rehabilitation procedures for AMD patients include biofeedback training (BFT) to relocate the PRL to a healthy retinal patch and acquire better fixation skills. This study seeks to combine BFT with home-based immersive virtual-reality audiovisual stimulation and measure feasibility and potential effectiveness on oculomotor control and visual perception.

Interventions

DEVICEBiofeedback Training

Audiovisual stimulation

DEVICEImmersive Virtual-Reality

Audiovisual stimulation

Sponsors

Michael Reber
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
DOUBLE (Caregiver, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Dry-AMD. * BCVA \> 20/160. * Ability to follow the visual and auditory stimuli and training instructions. * Auditory test positive at 50Hz 25-60dBHL. * Home Wi-Fi access.

Exclusion criteria

* Wet AMD. * Both eyes with media opacity that impairs microperimetry testing. * Inability to perform during testing and training. * Psychoactive drugs consumption. * 3 consecutive VRISE scores \< 25 at inclusion. * History of vertigo or dizziness * Prior vision rehabilitation interventions.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Feasibility of home-based IVR audiovisual stimulation18 monthsFeasibility objectives for our pilot study to be considered successful: 1. Number of patients completing the stimulation protocol: ≥ 13 out of 16 patients (81%) per group. 2. Number of IVR sessions performed by the patients to consider the stimulation protocol complete: ≥ 13 sessions out of 16 (81%). 3. Number of consecutive virtual-reality induced symptoms and effects (VRISE) scores \< 25: ≤ 3 per patient during the treatment period. 4. Number of patient drop-outs due to cybersickness (discomfort symptoms experienced in VR): ≤ 3 (19%) during the treatment period. 5. Number of randomized patients per week: ≥ 3 patients.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Visual Acuityfrom baseline to end of follow-up at 7 monthsChange from baseline at 4 weeks, 1 month and 6 months: \- Best Corrected Visual Acuity, distance and near vision (range 20/12.5 to \<20/1000, higher score = better outcome)
Retinal Sensitivityfrom baseline to end of follow-up at 7 monthsChange from baseline at 4 weeks,1 month and 6 months: \- Mean retinal sensitivity (Macular Integrity Assessment, MAIA microperimetry - score: 0 dB to 36 dB, higher score = better outcome)
Quality of Life Scoresfrom baseline to end of follow-up at 7 monthsChange from baseline at 4 weeks,1 month and 6 months: \- Quality of life scores (Veteran's Affairs Low Vision Questionnaire, VA-LVQ 48 - range -31.5 to +26.6, higher score = better outcome)
Contrast Sensitivityfrom baseline to end of follow-up at 7 monthsChange from baseline at 4 weeks, 1 month and 6 months: \- Mean contrast sensitivity (Functional Acuity Contrast Test, FACT - range 0.48 cyc./deg. to 2.41 cyc./deg., higher score = better outcome)
Reading Speedfrom baseline to end of follow-up at 7 monthsChange from baseline at 4 weeks,1 month and 6 months: \- Mean reading speed (Minnesota Low Vision Reading test, MNREAD - range 0 word/minute to 280 word/minute, higher score = better outcome)
Fixation stabilityfrom baseline to end of follow-up at 7 monthsChange from baseline at 4 weeks,1 month and 6 months: \- Mean fixation stability (Macular Integrity Assessment, MAIA microperimetry - range 0.02 sq.deg. to 40.0 sq.deg., lowest score = better outcome)

Countries

Canada

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026