Dataset Information

Pointwise Methods to Measure Long-term Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Rates of visual field (VF) progression vary among patients with glaucoma. Knowing the rate of progression of individual patients would allow appropriately aggressive therapy for patients with high rates of visual loss and protect those with low rates from unnecessary therapy.

Objective

To compare 3 pointwise methods of estimating the rate of VF progression in glaucoma.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective, observational cohort study included 729 eyes of 567 consecutive patients with primary open-angle glaucoma who had at least 6 reliable VFs and at least 3 years of follow-up. One hundred seventy-six patients (257 eyes) were treated at a tertiary glaucoma center; in addition, data were collected from 391 participants (472 eyes) in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Data were collected from May 1988 to November 2004 and analyzed from October 2018 to February 2019.

Exposures

Estimates of VF progression were measured with guided progression analysis (GPA), pointwise linear regression (PLR), and the glaucoma rate index (GRI). A subgroup analysis was performed in a subset of patients with likely VF progression and likely VF stability.

Main outcomes and measures

Proportion of VF series detected as progressing, estimates of false-positive proportions, time to detect progression, and agreement among measures.

Results

Among the 567 patients included in the analysis, mean (SD) age was 65.6 (9.7) years, 300 (52.9%) were female, and 295 (52.0%) were white. The median baseline mean deviation was -6.7 (interquartile range [IQR], -11.6 to -3.5) dB; the median follow-up time, 8.9 (IQR, 7.3-10.4) years. The proportion of eyes labeled as progressing was 27.7% according to the GPA, 33.5% according to the PLR, and 52.9% according to the GRI; pairwise differences for GRI vs PLR were 20% (95% CI, 17%-23%); for GRI vs GPA, 25% (95% CI, 22%-29%); and for PLR vs GPA, 6% (95% CI, 3%-9%; P < .001 for all comparisons, McNemar test). The shortest median time to progression was with the GRI (8.8 [IQR, 2.4-10.5 years), compared with the GPA and PLR (both >16 years). The hazard ratio of VF progression for GRI vs PLR (reference) was 11.3 (95% CI, 9.2-13.7); for GRI vs GPA (reference), 18.1 (95% CI, 14.5-22.6); and for PLR vs GPA (reference), 1.5 (95% CI, 1.3-1.9; P < .001 for all comparisons, Cox proportional hazards regression). These results held in the subgroup with likely progression; the proportions of progressing eyes were 73.7% (115 of 156) for GPA, 81.4% (127 of 156) for PLR, and 92.9% (145 of 156) for GRI. Pairwise difference for GRI vs PLR was 11.5% (95% CI, 7.4%-17.6%; P < .001, McNemar test); for GRI vs GPA, 19.2% (95% CI, 12.6%-26.4%; P < .001, McNemar test); and for PLR vs GPA, 7.7% (95% CI, 0.3%-15.7%; P = .08, McNemar test).

Conclusions and relevance

These results suggest GRI can detect long-term VF progression in glaucoma earlier than PLR or GPA. Validation with prospective designs may strengthen the generalizability and value of this method.

SUBMITTER: Salazar D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7118669 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo develop a structural metascore (SMS) that combines measurements from different devices and expresses them on a single scale to facilitate their long-term analysis.MethodsThree structural measurements (Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II [HRT] rim area, HD-Cirrus optical coherence tomography [OCT] average retinal nerve fiber layer [RNFL] thickness, Spectralis OCT RNFL global thickness) were normalized on a scale of 0 to 100 and converted to a reference value. The resultant metascores were plotted against time. SMS performance was evaluated to predict future values (internal validation), and correlations between the average grades assigned by three clinicians were compared with the SMS slopes (external validation).ResultsThe linear regression fit with the variance approach, and adjustment to a Spectralis equivalent was the best-performing approach; this was denominated metascore. Plots were created for 3416 eyes of 1824 patients. The average baseline age (± standard deviation) was 69.8 (±13.9), mean follow-up was 11.6 (±4.7) years, and mean number of structural scans per eye was 10.0 (±4.7). The mean numbers of scans per device were 3.8 (±2.5), 5.0 (±2.9), and 1.3 (±3.0) for HRT, Cirrus, and Spectralis, respectively. The metascore slopes' median was -0.3 (interquartile range 1.1). Correlations between the average grades assigned by the three clinicians and the metascore slopes were -0.51, -0.49, and -0.69 for the first (structural measurement printouts alone), second (metascore plots alone), and third (printouts + metascore plots) series of gradings, respectively. The average absolute predictive ability was 7.63/100 (whereas 100 = entire normalized scale).ConclusionsWe report a method that converts Cirrus global RNFL and HRT global rim area normalized measurements to Spectralis global RNFL equivalent values to facilitate long-term structural follow-up.Translational relevanceBecause glaucoma changes usually occur slowly, patients are often examined with different instruments during their follow-up, a method that "unifies" structural measurements provided by different devices, which could assist patients' longitudinal structural follow-up.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of measures of intraocular pressure (IOP) control on progression of visual field (VF) loss during long-term treatment for open-angle glaucoma (OAG).DesignLongitudinal, randomized clinical trial.ParticipantsWe included 607 participants with newly diagnosed OAG.MethodsStudy participants were randomly assigned to initial treatment with medications or trabeculectomy, and underwent examination at 6-month intervals. Standardized testing included Goldmann applanation tonometry and Humphrey 24-2 full threshold VFs. Summary measures of IOP control during follow-up included the maximum, mean, standard deviation (SD), range, proportion less than 16, 18, 20, or 22 mmHg, and whether all IOP values were less than each of these 4 cutpoints. Predictive models for VF outcomes were based on the mean deviation (MD) from VF testing, and were adjusted for age, gender, race, baseline VF loss, treatment, and time. Each summary IOP measure was included as a cumulative, time-dependent variable, and its association with subsequent VF loss was assessed from 3 to 9 years postrandomization. Both linear mixed models, to detect shifts in MD levels, and logistic models, to detect elevated odds of substantial worsening (?3 dB), were used.Main outcome measuresWe measured the MD from Humphrey 24-2 full threshold VF tests.ResultsThe effect of the summary IOP measures differed between the medicine and surgery groups in models that addressed the continuous MD outcome. After adjustment for baseline risk factors, in the medicine group larger values of 3 IOP control measures-maximum IOP (P = 0.0003), SD of IOP (P = 0.0056), and range of IOP (P<0.0001)-were significantly associated with lower (worse) MD over the 3- to 9-year period. No IOP summary measure was significantly associated with MD over time in the surgery group. The same 3 IOP summary measures were also significantly associated with substantial worsening of MD; however, the effects were similar in both treatment groups. In models predicting inadequate IOP control, consistently significant predictors of higher maximum, SD, and range of IOP included black race, higher baseline IOP, and clinical center.ConclusionsThese results support considering more aggressive treatment when undue elevation or variation in IOP measures is observed.

Project description:PurposeTo investigate the effect of smoking on rates of progressive visual field (VF) damage over time in glaucoma.DesignRetrospective cohort study.ParticipantsFive hundred eleven eyes of 354 patients with glaucoma followed up from multicenter glaucoma registries.MethodsIn this longitudinal study, 354 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma with a minimum of 3 years of follow-up and 5 VF tests were enrolled from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study and the African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study. Univariate and multivariate linear mixed models were used to investigate the effects of smoking on rates of 24-2 VF mean deviation loss. Visual field progression was defined using pointwise linear and significant negative VF mean deviation loss. Logistic regression was used to identify baseline factors and whether different levels of smoking intensity were associated with VF progression. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the log-rank test were used to compare the cumulative risk ratio of progression between smoker and never smoker groups.Main outcome measuresVisual field progression.ResultsFive hundred eleven eyes of 354 patients were included over the median follow-up of 12.5 years. Median baseline age was 64.8 years. Of the 354 patients, 124 (35%) were Black, and 149 (42.1%) and 168 (59.8%) had reported a history of smoking or alcohol consumption, respectively. In a multivariate model, higher smoking intensity was associated with faster VF loss (coefficient, -0.05 decibels (dB)/year per 10 pack-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.08 to -0.01 dB/year per 10 pack-years; P = 0.010). Developing VF progression in eyes of heavy smokers (≥ 20 pack-years) was 2.2 times more than in eyes of patients without smoking history (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.02-4.76; P = 0.044). Statistically significant differences were found between heavy smokers (≥ 20 pack-years) and never smokers by Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = 0.011, log-rank test).ConclusionsHeavy smokers are more likely to sustain VF loss in eyes with glaucoma. The prospective longitudinal design of this study supports the hypothesis that levels of smoking may be a significant predictor for glaucoma progression. Additionally, this information can be used for clinically relevant tobacco prevention and intervention messages.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary 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. OBJECTIVES:To assess the effects of iridotomy compared with no iridotomy for primary angle-closure glaucoma, primary angle closure, and primary angle-closure suspects. SEARCH METHODS:We 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 CRITERIA:Randomized 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 ANALYSIS:Two 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 RESULTS:We 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' CONCLUSIONS:The 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.