Open angle Glaucoma - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Open angle Glaucoma PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 8348-ZDEwZ



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Open angle Glaucoma

Description:

... demonstrated better IOP control compared with patients treated with eye drops. ... Local eye subscale higher with surgical group ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:1747
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 44
Provided by: loue
Category:
Tags: angle | eye | glaucoma | open

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Open angle Glaucoma


1
Open angle Glaucoma
  • Open angle glaucoma, one of the major causes of
    impaired vision worldwide, is a condition
    characterized by damage to and loss of optic
    nerve axons, resulting most commonly in loss of
    peripheral aspect of the visual field, which may
    progress to loss of central vision.
  • Ref Ophthalmology 1999 106 653 - 663

2
Open angle Glaucoma Treatment
  • Methods to reduce IOP include
  • Use of systemic or topical medications
  • Use of laser energy applied to the trabecular
    meshwork to improve aqueous outflow.
  • Use of filtration surgery to produce an alternate
    route for aqueous outflow.
  • Ref Ophthalmology 1999 106 653 - 663

3
Open angle Glaucoma Medical therapy
  • The expanded pharmacologic armamentarium in the
    last decade has greatly increased the efficacy
    and tolerability of medical therapy.
  • Medical treatment is costly, lifelong and is a
    daily reminder for patients that they have
    potentially vision threating disorder.
  • Ref Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2003 14 106 - 111

4
Open angle Glaucoma Surgical Option
  • European Ophthalmology community has advocated
    early incision surgery and demonstrated better
    IOP control compared with patients treated with
    eye drops.
  • Retrospective study demonstrated that 60 of eyes
    initially treated with medications required
    surgical interventions.
  • Surgery can be more cost-effective than a
    lifetime of medications.
  • Less inconvenience, patients do not have the
    daily psychological burden of treating the
    disease.
  • Surgical side effects ptosis, chronic
    dysesthesia, surgical related visual compromise
    and risk of blebitis.
  • Ref Current Opinion Ophthalmol, 2003 14 106 -
    111

5
BACKGROUND
  • Recent studies have challenged the
    conventional wisdom of treating all newly
    diagnosed open-angle glaucoma with eye drops
    rather, these studies suggest more effective
    control of glaucomatous damage can be obtained by
    immediate filtration surgery. In addition,
    increased attention to the impact of therapy on
    health-related quality of life has added another
    consideration in deciding upon appropriate
    treatment of such patients.
  • Ref http//www/net.nih-gov

6
  • Study Title
  • The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma treatment
    study (CIGTS)
  • Ref Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 14 106
    111, 2003

7
  • Objective
  • CIGTS is a randomized, controlled clinical trial

  • designed to determine whether patients with newly

  • diagnosed POAG are better treated by initial
    treatment
  • with medications or by immediate filtration
    surgery.

8
Study design and Methods
  • Organization
  • Randomized controlled clinical trial
  • Duration of the study 5 years
  • 14 clinical centers enrolled patients from
    October 1993 April 1997.
  • Studys protocol and informed consent were
    approved by humans studies review boards at all
    participating centers..

9
Study design and Methods
  • Inclusion criteria
  • Diagnosis of primary open-angle,
    pseudoexfoliative, or pigmentary glaucoma in one
    or both eyes.
  • One of three combinations of qualifying IOP,
    visual field changes, and optic disc findings as
    follows
  • IOP of 20 mm Hg or higher, Humphrey 24-2 visual
    field result with 3 contiguous points on the
    total deviation plot at the less than 2 level
    and glaucoma hemifield test result that is
    outside normal limits and optic disc compatible
    with glaucoma.

10
  • IOP between 20-26 mm Hg or higher, Humphrey 24-2
    visual field result with 2 contiguous points on
    the total deviation plot at the less than 2
    level and glaucomatous optic disc damage.
  • IOP greater than 26 mm Hg and glaucomatous optic
    disc damage
  • 3. Visual acuity equal to or better than 20/40 on
    ETDRS chart.
  • 4. Age between 25 and 75 years
  • 5. Ability to meet the follow-up requirements for
    a minimum of 5 years
  • 6. Written informed consent

11
Study design and Methods
  • Exclusion criteria
  • Use of glaucoma medication for more than 14 days

  • Use of glaucoma medication within 3 weeks of
    baseline visit (washout from permitted)
  • CIGTS visual field score 16
  • Ocular disease that might affect measurement of
    IOP, visual field testing
  • Diabetic retinopathy with more than 10 micro
    aneurysms
  • Previous ocular surgery
  • Significant cataract
  • Use of corticosteroids (oral or ophthalmic)

12
Study design and Methods (contd.)
  • Enrollment and Randomization
  • After two baseline visits (which measured visual
    field and IOP taken at each visit), other
    eligibility criteria confirmed ,patients were
    randomized.
  • Adaptive randomization used resulted in optimal
    balance across 5 strata
  • Age 25 to 54, 55 to 64, 65 to 75
  • Center (14 sites)
  • Gender (male, female)
  • Race (African-American, white, Asian and
    other)
  • Diagnosis (Primary, pigmentary and
    pseudoexfoliative forms of open angle glaucoma)
  • Patients were randomized into either the medical
    or surgical arm.

13
CIGTS Treatment Flow Sheet
14
CIGTS Criteria for intervention failure
  • Criteria for intervention failure had to be met
    each time that a further treatment step was
    initiated.
  • Criteria include
  • Failure to meet a target IOP that was established
    at the time of randomization
  • Evidence of progressive visual field loss
  • Or both

15
CIGTS Target IOP calculation
  • Based on the patients reference IOP (ie., the
    mean of six separate IOP measurements taken in
    the course of the 2 baseline visits)
  • Reference visual field score (ie., the mean of at
    least 2 visual fields taken during 2 baseline
    visits)
  • Formula for target IOP (1-reference IOP
    visual field scorexref.IOP)
  • 100
  • For eg. Ref. IOP 28 mm Hg then target IOP
    (1 285) x 28
  • 100
  • Ref. VF score 5 (1 0.33)
    x 28
  • 0.67 x 28 19 mm Hg

16
CIGTS Criteria for Intervention Failure
  • IOP related intervention failure If on a
    follow-up visit, the IOP was 1 mm Hg above the
    target IOP and this confirmed on another visit.
  • Visual field related intervention Visual field
    score failure was 3 or more units above the
    reference visual field score on 3 consecutive
    tests performed at separate clinic visits.

17
CIGTS Study Main outcome measures
  • Primary outcome variable Progression in visual
    field score
  • Secondary outcome variable
  • Health related quality of life
  • Visual acuity
  • Intraocular pressure

18
CIGTS Study Outcome Assessment Methods
  • Progression in VF score Increase in the VF
    score of 3 units or more from the patients
    reference VF score.
  • Visual field score Range from 0 (no defect) to
    20 (all points showing a defect at the plevel)
  • IOP measured before Gonioscopy/ dilating agent
    Goldmann Applanation tonometry
  • Visual acuity ETDRS protocol Patients are
    tested at 4 m

19
CIGTS Study Outcome Assessment Methods (contd.)
  • Health related quality of life An instrument
    was developed that incorporates designed
    questionnaire
  • 16 questions General health perceptions
  • 4 questions Adaptations and social support
  • 33 item visual activities questionnaire
  • 43 item symptom and health problem list
  • 8-item center for Epidemiologic studies
    depression questionnaire
  • Full 136 item sickness impact profile
  • Questions on a no of possible co-morbidities
  • Questions on compliance and satisfaction with
    their treatment

20
CIGTS Study Outcome Assessment Methods (contd.)
  • The instrument is administered by telephone
  • contact with the patient in his or her home at a
    pre
  • arranged time and requires approximately 45
  • minutes to administer.

21
CIGTS Study Follow-up
  • Patients followed up 3 months after treatment
    has begun, after a 6 month visit, subsequent
    visits are conducted at 6 month interval.
  • Health related quality of life interviews at 2
    months, 6 months and then at 6 months
    intervalsafter treatment initiation.

22
CIGTS Study Follow-upTable. Tests performed at
Study Visits through Month 24
23
CIGTS Study Statistical analysis
  • Treatment group comparisons followed the
    intent-to-treat principle.
  • Time specific comparisons on mean values were
    conducted using students t test.
  • Repeated measures logistic regression, to
    investigate VF loss and VA loss
  • SAS proc mixed and SAC Proc Genmod was used
  • Study 90 power

24
Table 1. Demographics and Ophthalmic Status of
Enrolled patients by treatment group
25
Table 1. Demographics and Ophthalmic Status of
Enrolled patients by treatment group (contd.)
P values result from either Yates corrected
chi-square tests contrasting proportions or
independent two-sided Student's tests contrasting
means in the medical and surgical groups.
Immediate parents, siblings, children
CDR Cup/disc ratio IOPintraocular pressure
Nnumber, POAGprimary open-angle glaucoma
SDstandard deviation VAvisual acuity
VFvisual field
26
RESULTS
27
CIGTS Study VF comparison
  • Clinically substantial VF loss 10.7 - medically
    treated
  • 13.5 - surgically treated
  • Initial surgery resulted in 0.36 unit worst VF
    score than initial medical treatment

28
CIGTS Study Results
Patients in the medical arm initially had
improvements in visual field scores , but at 5
years both groups converged towards similar
scores
29
CIGTS Study Visual Field Loss
  • Logistic regression analysis revealed significant
    associations of a 3 unit or more VF score
    increase with age, race, history of diabetes and
    time in study.
  • Older age (every 10 yr increment in age increased
    the risk of VF loss by 40)
  • Nonwhites had a 50 increased risk relative to
    whites (adjusted OR, 1.50, 95 CI 1.08, 2.07)
  • Diabetic patients had a 59 increased risk
    relative to non-diabetics (adjusted OR, 1.59, 95
    CI, 1.07, 2.38)
  • Patients with cataract were at increased risk of
    vf loss(adjusted OR, 4.71, 95 CI, 3.34, 6.65)
  • Initial surgery had a marginally positive
    association with the risk of VF loss (adjusted
    OR, 4.71, 95 CI, 3.34, 6.65)

30
CIGTS VA comparison
Surgery resulted in a 3 letter loss of VA (about
½ a line) evident at month 3 whereas in the
medicine groups showed essentially no change
31
CIGTS VA comparison
  • Clinically substantial VA loss (defined as letters in VA from baseline) during 5 years of
    follow-up in 3.9 of medically treated patients
    and 7.2 of surgically treated patients.

32
CIGTS IOP Comparison
  • The decrease in IOP was significantly greater in
    the surgery group compared to medical group.
  • Surgery Baseline 27 mm Hg
  • After 5 years 17-18 mm Hg
  • Medical Baseline 28 mm Hg
  • After 5 years 17-18 mm Hg

33
CIGTS IOP Comparison
IOP reduction 48 in the surgical group compared
to 35 in the medical group
34
CIGTS Cataract Development
  • Initial surgical treatment resulted in the
    development of more cataracts than initial
    medical treatment.

35
CIGTS Surgical Complications
  • 525 trabeculectomies were performed in 300
    patients randomized to the surgery arm.
  • Incidence of complication occuring during the
    first post-operative month
  • Intraoperative bleeding 13.5
  • Shallow or flat anterior chamber 14.2
  • Encapsulated bleb 11.9
  • Ptosis 11.9
  • Serous choroidal detachment 11.3
  • Anterior chamber bleeding 10.5

36
CIGTS Treatment Crossover
  • Treatment crossover in the medical group and
    surgical group was comparable (medical 8.5,
    surgical 8.3, P0.80, log rank test)
  • By 1 year after treatment initiation,
    Kaplan-Meier estimates show
  • 23.6 of medicine group patients underwent ALT
  • 11.8 of surgical group patients underwent ALT

37
CIGTS Quality of life Comparison
38
CIGTS Quality of life Comparison (contd.)
39
CIGTS Quality of life Comparison (contd.)
40
CIGTS Discussion
  • Both medications and surgery significantly reduce
    IOP.
  • Over 5 years, both groups of patients had similar
    low rates of VF progression.
  • Target IOP achieved in 90 of patients in both
    groups.
  • Medically treated patients less likely to develop
    cataracts, suffer non-cataract VA loss or
    complain of ocular side effects.
  • Medically treated patients were less likely to
    develop VF loss.
  • Pertaining to QOL, 5 higher scores for surgical
    group on VAQ Acuity subscale to approximately 22
    higher scores on symptom impact glaucoma total
    score.
  • Local eye subscale higher with surgical group
  • Less impact on QOL with initial medical treatment
    than initial surgical treatment.

41
CIGTS Study Strengths
  • Unlike other trials like AGIS, the CIGTS
    randomization unit was patient and not the eye.
  • To assess treatment effects in patients rather
    than eyes.
  • Effective randomization to provide 90 power
  • Thorough assessment of the patients health
    related quality of life.
  • Protocol allowed inclusion of new medications
    like topical CAIs, PG analogues.
  • Provides directly applicable and germane guidance
    to clinicians on how best to begin treating a
    patient who is diagnosed with open angle
    glaucoma.
  • First long term study involving a large number of
    patients.

42
CIGTS Weakness
  • Laser trabeculoplasty as initial therapy not
    studied in CIGTS.
  • Baseline demographics do not mention the no of
    patients with cataract.
  • Cost accounting of the two forms of therapy not
    studied.

43
CIGTS Conclusion
  • Over the period to follow up to date, both
    initial medication
  • or surgery were equally effective in minimizing
    visual field
  • loss. This can be attributed to an aggressive
    IOP
  • lowering treatment approach.
About PowerShow.com