Dataset Information

Impact of Demographics on Regional Visual Field Loss and Deterioration in Glaucoma.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To elucidate the impact of demographics, including gender, race, ethnicity, and preferred language, on regional visual field (VF) loss and progression in glaucoma.

Methods

Multivariable linear mixed regressions were performed to determine the impact of race, ethnicity, and preferred language on regional VF loss with adjustment for age and gender. Regional VF loss was defined by pointwise total deviation values and VF loss patterns quantified by an unsupervised machine learning method termed archetypal analysis. All cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were performed both without and with adjustment for VF mean deviation, which represented overall VF loss severity. P values were corrected for multiple comparisons.

Results

All results mentioned had corrected P values less than 0.05. Asian and Black patients showed worse pointwise VF loss than White patients with superior hemifield more affected. Patients with a preferred language other than English demonstrated worse pointwise VF loss than patients with English as their preferred language. Longitudinal analyses revealed Black patients showed worse VF loss/year compared to White patients. Patients with a preferred language other than English demonstrated worse VF loss/year compared to patients preferring English.

Conclusions

Blacks and non-English speakers have more severe VF loss, with superior hemifield being more affected and faster VF worsening.

Translational relevance

This study furthered our understanding of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in glaucoma outcomes. Understanding the VF loss burden in different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups may guide more effective glaucoma screening and community outreach efforts. This research could help reduce vision loss and improve quality of life in disproportionately affected populations by guiding public health efforts to promote glaucoma awareness and access to care.

SUBMITTER: Pang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11323995 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of Demographics on Regional Visual Field Loss and Deterioration in Glaucoma.

Pang Yueyin Y Tang Melody M Shi Min M Tian Yu Y Luo Yan Y Elze Tobias T Pasquale Louis R LR Zebardast Nazlee N Boland Michael V MV Friedman David S DS Shen Lucy Q LQ Lokhande Anagha A Wang Mengyu M

Translational vision science & technology 20240801 8

<h4>Purpose</h4>To elucidate the impact of demographics, including gender, race, ethnicity, and preferred language, on regional visual field (VF) loss and progression in glaucoma.<h4>Methods</h4>Multivariable linear mixed regressions were performed to determine the impact of race, ethnicity, and preferred language on regional VF loss with adjustment for age and gender. Regional VF loss was defined by pointwise total deviation values and VF loss patterns quantified by an unsupervised machine lear ...[more]

PMID: 39136958

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrimary angle-closure glaucoma is a type of glaucoma associated with a physically obstructed anterior chamber angle. Obstruction of the anterior chamber angle blocks drainage of fluids (aqueous humor) within the eye and may raise intraocular pressure (IOP). Elevated IOP is associated with glaucomatous optic nerve damage and visual field loss. Laser peripheral iridotomy (often just called 'iridotomy') is a procedure to eliminate pupillary block by allowing aqueous humor to pass directly from the posterior to anterior chamber through use of a laser to create a hole in the iris. It is commonly used to treat patients with primary angle-closure glaucoma, patients with primary angle closure (narrow angles and no signs of glaucomatous optic neuropathy), and patients who are primary angle-closure suspects (patients with reversible obstruction). The effectiveness of iridotomy on slowing progression of visual field loss, however, is uncertain.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of iridotomy compared with no iridotomy for primary angle-closure glaucoma, primary angle closure, and primary angle-closure suspects.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 9) which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; PubMed; LILACS; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 18 October 2017.Selection criteriaRandomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared iridotomy to no iridotomy in primary angle-closure suspects, patients with primary angle closure, or patients with primary angle-closure glaucoma in one or both eyes were eligible.Data collection and analysisTwo authors worked independently to extract data on study characteristics, outcomes for the review, and risk of bias in the included studies. We resolved differences through discussion.Main resultsWe identified two trials (2502 eyes of 1251 participants) that compared iridotomy to no iridotomy. Both trials recruited primary angle suspects from Asia and randomized one eye of each participant to iridotomy and the other to no iridotomy. Because the full trial reports are not yet available for both trials, no data are available to assess the effectiveness of iridotomy on slowing progression of visual field loss, change in IOP, need for additional surgeries, number of medications needed to control IOP, mean change in best-corrected visual acuity, and quality of life. Based on currently reported data, one trial showed evidence that iridotomy increases angle width at 18 months (by 12.70°, 95% confidence interval (CI) 12.06° to 13.34°, involving 1550 eyes, moderate-certainty evidence) and may be associated with IOP spikes at one hour after treatment (risk ratio 24.00 (95% CI 7.60 to 75.83), involving 1468 eyes, low-certainty evidence). The risk of bias of the two studies was overall unclear due to lack of availability of a full trial report.Authors' conclusionsThe available studies that directly compared iridotomy to no iridotomy have not yet published full trial reports. At present, we cannot draw reliable conclusions based on randomized controlled trials as to whether iridotomy slows progression of visual field loss at one year compared to no iridotomy. Full publication of the results from the studies may clarify the benefits of iridotomy.

Project description:ImportanceRapid vessel density loss during an initial follow-up period may be associated with the rates of visual field loss over time.ObjectivesTo evaluate the association between the rate of vessel density loss during initial follow-up and the rate of visual field loss during an extended follow-up period in patients suspected of having glaucoma and patients with primary open-angle glaucoma.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study assessed 124 eyes (86 with primary open-angle glaucoma and 38 suspected of having glaucoma) of 82 patients who were followed up at a tertiary glaucoma center for a mean of 4.0 years (95% CI, 3.9-4.1 years) from January 1, 2015, to February 29, 2020. Data analysis for the current study was undertaken in March 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe rate of vessel density loss was derived from macular whole-image vessel density values from 3 optical coherence tomography angiography scans early during the study. The rate of visual field loss was calculated from visual field mean deviation during the entire follow-up period after the first optical coherence tomography angiography visit. Linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate rates of change.ResultsA total of 124 eyes from 82 patients (mean [SD] age, 69.2 [10.9] years; 41 female [50.0%] and 41 male [50.0%]; and 20 African American [24.4%], 10 Asian [12.2%], 50 White [61.0%], and 2 other race or ethnicity [2.4%]) were assessed. The annual rate of vessel density change was -0.80% (95% CI, -0.88% to -0.72%) during a mean initial follow-up of 2.1 years (95% CI, 1.9-2.3 years). Eyes with annual rates of vessel density loss of -0.75% or greater (n = 62) were categorized as fast progressors, and eyes with annual rates of less than -0.75% (n = 62) were categorized as slow progressors. The annual rate of visual field loss was -0.15 dB (95% CI, -0.29 to -0.01 dB) for the slow optical coherence tomography angiography progressors and -0.43 dB (95% CI, -0.58 to -0.29 dB) for the fast optical coherence tomography angiography progressors (difference, -0.28 dB; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.08 dB; P = .006). The fast optical coherence tomography angiography progressor group was associated with the faster overall rate of visual field loss in a multivariable model after adjusting to include concurrent visual field mean deviation rate (-0.17 dB; 95% CI, -0.33 to -0.01 dB; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cohort study suggest that faster vessel density loss during an initial follow-up period was associated with faster concurrent and subsequent rates of visual field loss during an extended period.

Dataset Information

Impact of Demographics on Regional Visual Field Loss and Deterioration in Glaucoma.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Translational relevance

Publications

Impact of Demographics on Regional Visual Field Loss and Deterioration in Glaucoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets