Zhichao Wu1,2, Felipe A Medeiros3, Robert N Weinreb1, Christopher A Girkin4, Linda M Zangwill1. 1. Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 2. Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Duke Eye Center and Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the ability of 10-2 visual field tests and central 12 locations of the 24-2 tests (C24-2) to detect central visual field progression in glaucoma eyes with early central visual field abnormalities. Design: Observational cohort study. Participants: Three-hundred eyes of 180 participants with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Methods: Participants with both 10-2 and 24-2 tests performed on ≥3 visits over ≥1-year period were included to estimate the longitudinal variability of 10-2 and C24-2 visual field mean deviation (MD). The variability estimates were then used to reconstruct real-world visual field results by computer simulations, in a scenario where eyes had a baseline 10-2 and C24-2 MD was -2 dB and exhibited various rates of change (-0.25, -0.50, -0.75 and -1.00 dB/year), and the time to detect these changes were evaluated using trend-based analyses. Main Outcome Measures: Time required to detect progression. Results: Overall, the time to detect central visual field progression was reduced by 7-9% using the 10-2 compared to C24-2 MD values, equivalent to a total reduction of 0.1-0.3 dB lost. For example, 90% of eyes with a central 10-2 or C24-2 MD loss of -0.50 dB/year would be detected after 5.0 and 5.5 years of semi-annual testing respectively, or after 3.4 and 3.7 years respectively for eyes with a -1.00 dB/year loss. Conclusions: Trend-based analyses using 10-2 MD resulted in a mild reduction (7-9%) in the time to detect central visual field progression compared to C24-2 MD in glaucoma eyes with early central visual field abnormalities. Further studies are needed to determine whether other progression analyses can better exploit the increased sampling of 10-2 tests. These findings provide evidence-based guidance on the potential value-add of 10-2 testing in the clinical management of glaucoma patients.
Purpose: To compare the ability of 10-2 visual field tests and central 12 locations of the 24-2 tests (C24-2) to detect central visual field progression in glaucoma eyes with early central visual field abnormalities. Design: Observational cohort study. Participants: Three-hundred eyes of 180 participants with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Methods:Participants with both 10-2 and 24-2 tests performed on ≥3 visits over ≥1-year period were included to estimate the longitudinal variability of 10-2 and C24-2 visual field mean deviation (MD). The variability estimates were then used to reconstruct real-world visual field results by computer simulations, in a scenario where eyes had a baseline 10-2 and C24-2 MD was -2 dB and exhibited various rates of change (-0.25, -0.50, -0.75 and -1.00 dB/year), and the time to detect these changes were evaluated using trend-based analyses. Main Outcome Measures: Time required to detect progression. Results: Overall, the time to detect central visual field progression was reduced by 7-9% using the 10-2 compared to C24-2 MD values, equivalent to a total reduction of 0.1-0.3 dB lost. For example, 90% of eyes with a central 10-2 or C24-2 MD loss of -0.50 dB/year would be detected after 5.0 and 5.5 years of semi-annual testing respectively, or after 3.4 and 3.7 years respectively for eyes with a -1.00 dB/year loss. Conclusions: Trend-based analyses using 10-2 MD resulted in a mild reduction (7-9%) in the time to detect central visual field progression compared to C24-2 MD in glaucoma eyes with early central visual field abnormalities. Further studies are needed to determine whether other progression analyses can better exploit the increased sampling of 10-2 tests. These findings provide evidence-based guidance on the potential value-add of 10-2 testing in the clinical management of glaucomapatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
10-2; Glaucoma; Progression; Visual Field
Authors: Lyne Racette; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Christopher A Girkin; Linda M Zangwill; Sonia Jain; Lida M Becerra; Felipe A Medeiros; Christopher Bowd; Robert N Weinreb; Catherine Boden; Pamela A Sample Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2010-05
Authors: Anders Heijl; Vincent Michael Patella; Luke X Chong; Aiko Iwase; Christopher K Leung; Anja Tuulonen; Gary C Lee; Thomas Callan; Boel Bengtsson Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Donald C Hood; Ali S Raza; Carlos Gustavo V de Moraes; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2012-09-17 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Sung Chul Park; Yungtai Kung; Daniel Su; Joseph L Simonson; Rafael L Furlanetto; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-05-19 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Siamak Yousefi; Michael H Goldbaum; Ehsan S Varnousfaderani; Akram Belghith; Tzyy-Ping Jung; Felipe A Medeiros; Linda M Zangwill; Robert N Weinreb; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Christopher A Girkin; Christopher Bowd Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Haogang Zhu; Richard A Russell; Luke J Saunders; Stefano Ceccon; David F Garway-Heath; David P Crabb Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Aakriti G Shukla; C Gustavo De Moraes; George A Cioffi; Christopher A Girkin; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill; Jeffrey M Liebmann Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Aakriti G Shukla; Portia E Sirinek; C Gustavo De Moraes; Dana M Blumberg; George A Cioffi; Alon Skaat; Christopher A Girkin; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill; Donald C Hood; Jeffrey M Liebmann Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Adi Orbach; Ghee Soon Ang; Andrew S Camp; Derek S Welsbie; Felipe A Medeiros; Christopher A Girkin; Massimo A Fazio; Won Hyuk Oh; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill; Zhichao Wu Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-02-21 Impact factor: 5.488
Authors: Ryan Caezar C David; Sasan Moghimi; Jiun L Do; Huiyuan Hou; James Proudfoot; Linda M Zangwill; Alireza Kamalipour; Takashi Nishida; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Christopher A Girkin; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-06-06 Impact factor: 5.488