PURPOSE: Trend analysis techniques to detect glaucomatous progression typically assume a constant rate of change. This study uses data from the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study to assess whether this assumption decreases sensitivity to changes in progression rate, by including earlier periods of stability. METHODS: Series of visual fields (mean 24 per eye) completed at 6-month intervals from participants randomized initially to observation were split into subseries before and after the initiation of treatment (the "split-point"). The mean deviation rate of change (MDR) was derived using these entire subseries, and using only the window length (W) tests nearest the split-point, for different window lengths of W tests. A generalized estimating equation model was used to detect changes in MDR occurring at the split-point. RESULTS: Using shortened subseries with W = 7 tests, the MDR slowed by 0.142 dB/y upon initiation of treatment (P < 0.001), and the proportion of eyes showing "rapid deterioration" (MDR <-0.5 dB/y with P < 5%) decreased from 11.8% to 6.5% (P < 0.001). Using the entire sequence, no significant change in MDR was detected (P = 0.796), and there was no change in the proportion of eyes progressing (P = 0.084). Window lengths 6 ≤ W ≤ 9 produced similar benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Event analysis revealed a beneficial treatment effect in this dataset. This effect was not detected by linear trend analysis applied to entire series, but was detected when using shorter subseries of length between six and nine fields. Using linear trend analysis on the entire field sequence may not be optimal for detecting and monitoring progression. Nonlinear analyses may be needed for long series of fields. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000125.).
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Trend analysis techniques to detect glaucomatous progression typically assume a constant rate of change. This study uses data from the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study to assess whether this assumption decreases sensitivity to changes in progression rate, by including earlier periods of stability. METHODS: Series of visual fields (mean 24 per eye) completed at 6-month intervals from participants randomized initially to observation were split into subseries before and after the initiation of treatment (the "split-point"). The mean deviation rate of change (MDR) was derived using these entire subseries, and using only the window length (W) tests nearest the split-point, for different window lengths of W tests. A generalized estimating equation model was used to detect changes in MDR occurring at the split-point. RESULTS: Using shortened subseries with W = 7 tests, the MDR slowed by 0.142 dB/y upon initiation of treatment (P < 0.001), and the proportion of eyes showing "rapid deterioration" (MDR <-0.5 dB/y with P < 5%) decreased from 11.8% to 6.5% (P < 0.001). Using the entire sequence, no significant change in MDR was detected (P = 0.796), and there was no change in the proportion of eyes progressing (P = 0.084). Window lengths 6 ≤ W ≤ 9 produced similar benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Event analysis revealed a beneficial treatment effect in this dataset. This effect was not detected by linear trend analysis applied to entire series, but was detected when using shorter subseries of length between six and nine fields. Using linear trend analysis on the entire field sequence may not be optimal for detecting and monitoring progression. Nonlinear analyses may be needed for long series of fields. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000125.).
Authors: Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Shaban Demirel; Stuart K Gardiner; Jeffrey M Liebmann; George A Cioffi; Robert Ritch; Mae O Gordon; Michael A Kass Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-04-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Michael A Kass; Mae O Gordon; Feng Gao; Dale K Heuer; Eve J Higginbotham; Chris A Johnson; John K Keltner; J Philip Miller; Richard K Parrish; M Roy Wilson Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2010-03
Authors: Michael A Kass; Dale K Heuer; Eve J Higginbotham; Chris A Johnson; John L Keltner; J Philip Miller; Richard K Parrish; M Roy Wilson; Mae O Gordon Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2002-06
Authors: B C Chauhan; D F Garway-Heath; F J Goñi; L Rossetti; B Bengtsson; A C Viswanathan; A Heijl Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Carla N Urata; Eduardo B Mariottoni; Alessandro A Jammal; Nara G Ogata; Atalie C Thompson; Samuel I Berchuck; Tais Estrela; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-11-09 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Stuart K Gardiner; William H Swanson; Deborah Goren; Steven L Mansberger; Shaban Demirel Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Stuart K Gardiner; Pui Yi Boey; Hongli Yang; Brad Fortune; Claude F Burgoyne; Shaban Demirel Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.799