Literature DB >> 26967170

Course of Glaucomatous Visual Field Loss Across the Entire Perimetric Range.

Francisco Otarola1, Andrew Chen2, Esteban Morales2, Fei Yu2, Abdelmonem Afifi3, Joseph Caprioli2.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Identifying the course of glaucomatous visual field (VF) loss that progresses from normal to perimetric blindness is important for treatment and prognostication.
OBJECTIVE: To model the process of glaucomatous VF decay over the entire perimetric range from normal to perimetric blindness. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A post hoc, retrospective analysis was performed using data from the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study and the UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Jules Stein Eye Institute Glaucoma Division. Patients with open-angle glaucoma and VFs obtained from reliable examinations (defined as <30% fixation losses, <30% false-positive rates, and <30% false-negative rates) were recruited. All tests were performed with standard automated perimetry and a 24-2 test pattern. Linear, exponential, and sigmoid regression models were used to assess the pattern of threshold sensitivity deterioration at each VF location as a function of time. Visual field locations of interest included those with a mean of the initial 2 sensitivities of 26 dB or greater and a less than 10-dB mean of the final 2 sensitivities. Root mean squared error (RMSE) was used to evaluate goodness of fit for each regression model. The error was defined as the difference between the sensitivities modeled by the function and the observed sensitivities. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study was conducted from 1998 to 2006; the present post hoc analysis was conducted from March 1, 2014, to March 1, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The RMSE of the residuals (fitted minus observed values) for the 3 regression models was used to evaluate goodness of fit.
RESULTS: A total of 798 eyes from 583 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [10.7] years; 301 [51.6%] women) who had more than 6 years of follow-up and underwent more than 10 VF examinations were included in this analysis. Mean (SD) follow-up time was 8.7 (2.2) years, and each eye had a mean of 15.2 (4.9) VF tests. For the VF locations with an initial sensitivity of 26 dB or greater and final sensitivity of less than 10 dB (309 locations), the sigmoid best-fit regression model had the lowest RMSE in 248 (80.3%) of the locations, the exponential function in 39 (12.6%), and the linear function in 22 (7.1%). The means (SDs) of RMSE were sigmoid, 4.1 (1.9); exponential, 6.0 (1.5); and linear 5.8 (1.6). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Pointwise sigmoid regression had a better ability to fit perimetric decay into a subset of locations that traverse the entire range of perimetric measurements from near normal to near perimetric blindness compared with linear and exponential functions. These results support the concept that the measured behavior of glaucomatous VF loss to perimetric blindness is nonlinear and that its course of deterioration may change with the course of disease.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 26967170     DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.0118

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol        ISSN: 2168-6165            Impact factor:   7.389


  12 in total

1.  Improving the Feasibility of Glaucoma Clinical Trials Using Trend-Based Visual Field Progression Endpoints.

Authors:  Zhichao Wu; David P Crabb; Balwantray C Chauhan; Jonathan G Crowston; Felipe A Medeiros
Journal:  Ophthalmol Glaucoma       Date:  2019-01-17

2.  Comparing 10-2 and 24-2 Visual Fields for Detecting Progressive Central Visual Loss in Glaucoma Eyes with Early Central Abnormalities.

Authors:  Zhichao Wu; Felipe A Medeiros; Robert N Weinreb; Christopher A Girkin; Linda M Zangwill
Journal:  Ophthalmol Glaucoma       Date:  2019-01-14

Review 3.  Detection and measurement of clinically meaningful visual field progression in clinical trials for glaucoma.

Authors:  C Gustavo De Moraes; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Leonard A Levin
Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 21.198

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

Authors:  Diana Salazar; Esteban Morales; Alessandro Rabiolo; Vicente Capistrano; Mark Lin; Abdelmonem A Afifi; Fei Yu; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi; Joseph Caprioli
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 7.389

5.  Quantification of Visual Field Variability in Glaucoma: Implications for Visual Field Prediction and Modeling.

Authors:  Alessandro Rabiolo; Esteban Morales; Abdelmonem A Afifi; Fei Yu; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi; Joseph Caprioli
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 3.283

6.  Development of a Visual Field Simulation Model of Longitudinal Point-Wise Sensitivity Changes From a Clinical Glaucoma Cohort.

Authors:  Zhichao Wu; Felipe A Medeiros
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 3.283

7.  Comparison of Visual Field Point-Wise Event-Based and Global Trend-Based Analysis for Detecting Glaucomatous Progression.

Authors:  Zhichao Wu; Felipe A Medeiros
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 3.283

8.  A Method to Measure the Rate of Glaucomatous Visual Field Change.

Authors:  Joseph Caprioli; Lilian Mohamed; Esteban Morales; Alessandro Rabiolo; Nathaniel Sears; Hirunpatravong Pradtana; Reza Alizadeh; Fei Yu; Abdelmonem A Afifi; Anne L Coleman; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 3.283

9.  Forecasting future Humphrey Visual Fields using deep learning.

Authors:  Joanne C Wen; Cecilia S Lee; Pearse A Keane; Sa Xiao; Ariel S Rokem; Philip P Chen; Yue Wu; Aaron Y Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-05       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Detect Visual Field Progression in Glaucoma Based on Spatial Pattern Analysis.

Authors:  Mengyu Wang; Lucy Q Shen; Louis R Pasquale; Paul Petrakos; Sydney Formica; Michael V Boland; Sarah R Wellik; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Jonathan S Myers; Osamah Saeedi; Hui Wang; Neda Baniasadi; Dian Li; Jorryt Tichelaar; Peter J Bex; Tobias Elze
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2019-01-02       Impact factor: 4.799

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.