Landmark Glaucoma Studies

1. WHICH Patients ARE AT Risk for the PROGRESSION? TARIQ ALASBALI Landmark Glaucoma Studies

2. ``Doctor is my glaucoma likely to get worse?``

3. ``Doctor will my eye condition get worse?`` • What is the diagnosis (OHT vs NTG vs POAG early or late ?) • Does the patient have the published risk Factor for progression?

4. Risk of Progression

5. Ocular hypertension treatment study • Aim • To determine if glaucoma drops delays or prevents glaucoma in ocular hypertensives Arch Ophthalmol 120: 701-713, 2002.

6. OHTS - methods • RCT of 1600 patients • IOP 24-32mmHg in one eye and 21-32 in other eye • Normal discs and fields • Drops prescribed to achieve IOP of ≤24mmHg AND at least 20% drop from baseline

7. Results • At 5 years • 4.4% of treated group had progressed to POAG • 9.5% of untreated

8. Risk of Progression

10. What are the risk factors for progression with OHT? OHTS study

11. OHTS conclusions • Factors associated with progression • ``I treat if:`` • Older age • High CDR (vertical or horizontal) > 0.4 • High PSD • IOP • Thinner cornea

12. CCT and Glaucoma Risk

13. What are the risk factors for progression in NTG? NTGS study

14. Risk of Progression

15. Normal tension glaucoma study • Aim • To determine if IOP plays a part in NTG

16. NTGS - methods • 239 patients recruited • Uni or bilateral NTG as defined by • IOP <21 in 10 baseline measurements AND • Glaucomatous cupping • Defined type and severity of field loss

17. NTGS - methods • Randomised immediately if • VF defect threatening fixation • Previously documented disease progression • Others randomised when evidence of progression

18. NTGS • 145 (of 239) patients randomised • One eye randomised to • Treatment • Drops, ALT or surgery to achieve 30% reduction in IOP • No treatment until evidence of progression • Other eye could be treated in this group

19. NTGS results • 30% drop achieved in half without surgery • Once 30% drop achieved rate of progressive field loss was lower than group that did not receive treatment (after allowing for cataract effect which was higher in treated group)

20. NTGS results • Rate of progression in untreated NTG highly variable • Half did not progress on VF in 5 years • Factors associated with progression • Female • Migraine • Disc haemorrhages on presentation

21. NTGS conclusions • Overall, lowering IOP in NTG slows progression. • However, over half of patients did not progress without treatment at 5 years.

22. Risk of Progression

23. What are the risk factors for progression in NTG? NTGS study

24. Factors associated with progression • ``I am aggressive if:`` • Female • Migraine • Disc haemorrhages on presentation

25. What are the risk factors for progression in early glaucoma? EMGS study

26. Risk of Progression

27. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial • Compared immediate treatment versus no (or delayed) treatment for patients with newly diagnosed POAG • Diagnosis based on reproducible visual field defects • Included NTG

28. EMGT • 255 patients • Randomised to • ALT and betaxolol • No treatment • If IOP >25mmHg in treated (>35 untreated) → Latanoprost added • If remains high → individualised treatment

29. EMGT • End point • Progression of field and/or disc

30. EMGT - results • Over 6 years • 62% untreated versus 45% of treated group progressed • Median time to progression 66 months treated versus 48 months untreated

31. Risk of Progression

32. What are the risk factors for progression in early glaucoma? EMGS study

33. Early POAG risk factors (EMGS) • Baseline factors • Pseudoexfoliation • Older age • Higher IOP • Worse mean deviation • Follow up factors • IOP • Each 1mmHg reduction from baseline reduced risk of progression by 10% • Disc haemorrhages

34. Early POAG risk factors (EMGS) • Factors associated with progression • ``I am aggressive if:`` • Pseudo exfoliation • Bilateral disease • Older age • Higher IOP • Worse mean deviation • Disc hemorrhage

35. Risk of Progression-Advanced glaucoma

36. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study • Aim • To assess the outcome of sequences of laser and surgical interventions in eyes that have failed on medical treatment

37. AGIS • POAG, uncontrolled with drops • Randomised to 2 groups • Trab → ALT → Trab • ALT → Trab → ALT Medical treatment as required 789 patients followed up for at least 5 years

38. AGIS outcomes • Primary outcome • Decreased vision (substantial VA or VF decrease)

39. AGIS results • Vision better in blacks if had ALT first • In whites • Vision better in laser group for first 4 years • Then better in surgery group

40. AGIS results • Side arm looked at IOP and VF loss • Divided into 2 groups • IOP <18mmHg at 100% visits (mean = 12.3mmHg) = little VF deterioration • IOP <18mmHg at <50% of study visits (mean = 20.2mmHg) = significantly more VF deterioration

41. 0% of visits < 18mmHg 50-75% of visits < 18mmHg 75-100% of visits < 18mmHg 100% of visits < 18mmHg

42. AGIS conclusions (1992) • Blacks should have laser first • Whites should have trab first

43. AGIS conclusions • Relationship between low IOP and VF loss remains important finding • In advanced glaucoma, lowering IOP to low teens means most will not progress

44. Risk of Progression-Advanced glaucoma

45. AGIS conclusions • Factors associated with progression • ``I am aggressive if:`` • Older age • Lower education • Good VA • DM • High IOP > 18 • IOP fluctuation

46. Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS) • Does not provide direct evidence that IOP has an impact on glaucomatous progression, but you need to know about it… AIM: to assess the effect on early-diagnosed OAG of initial Tx with either topical meds or trab

47. CIGTS - Methods • Prospective RCT • OAG (POAG, Pigmentary, PEX) • N=607 • Randomized → Medical management ↘ Trabeculectomy • IOP target customized for each patient • Primary End Point: progression of VF loss

48. CIGTS – Results at 5yrs • Surgical group is at increased risk of visual loss initially but by 4yrs both groups are comparable

49. CIGTS summary • Surgery resulted in • Lower IOP • More cataract • More ocular side effects • Initial ↓ vision • Initial ↓ visual field

50. CIGTS conclusions • Results do not support altering current practice of medical treatment first