Zhichao Wu1,2,3,4, David P Crabb5, Balwantray C Chauhan6, Jonathan G Crowston3,4, Felipe A Medeiros1,2. 1. Duke Eye Center and Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Hamilton Glaucoma Center and Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 3. Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia. 4. Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 5. Division of Optometry and Visual Science, School of Health Sciences, City University London, London, United Kingdom. 6. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Dalhousie University and Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Abstract
Purpose: There have been concerns that short-term clinical trials for evaluating new treatments in glaucoma would require prohibitively large sample sizes when using visual field endpoints, given that glaucoma is often a slowly progressive disease. This study sought to determine the required sample size for such trials using event-based analyses, and whether it can be reduced using trend-based analyses. Design: Longitudinal, observational study. Participants: 321 eyes of 240 glaucoma participants followed under routine clinical care using 242 visual field for an average of 10 years. Methods: Sample size requirements were derived using computer simulations that reconstructed "real-world" visual fields by combining estimates of point-wise variability according to different threshold levels and rates of change obtained from the clinical glaucoma cohort. A clinical trial lasting 2 years with testing every 3 months was simulated, assuming that the new treatment halted visual field change in various percentages of participants (or "responders"). Treatment efficacy was evaluated by: (a) Difference in incidence of point-wise event-based progression (similar to the commercially available Guided Progression Analysis), and (b) Difference in rate of visual field mean deviation (MD) change between groups using linear mixed models (LMMs). Main Outcome Measures: Sample size to detect a statistically significance difference between groups. Results: Between-group trend-based analyses using LMMs reduced sample size requirements by 85-90% across the range of new treatment effects when compared to the conventional point-wise event-based analysis. To detect the effect of a new treatment that halted progression in 30% of the participants under routine clinical care (equal to a 30% reduction in average rate of MD change) with 90% power, for example, 1924 participants would be required per group using event-based analysis, but only 277 participants per group if LMMs were used. Conclusions: The feasibility of future glaucoma clinical trials can be substantially improved by evaluating differences in the rate of visual field change between groups.
Purpose: There have been concerns that short-term clinical trials for evaluating new treatments in glaucoma would require prohibitively large sample sizes when using visual field endpoints, given that glaucoma is often a slowly progressive disease. This study sought to determine the required sample size for such trials using event-based analyses, and whether it can be reduced using trend-based analyses. Design: Longitudinal, observational study. Participants: 321 eyes of 240 glaucomaparticipants followed under routine clinical care using 242 visual field for an average of 10 years. Methods: Sample size requirements were derived using computer simulations that reconstructed "real-world" visual fields by combining estimates of point-wise variability according to different threshold levels and rates of change obtained from the clinical glaucoma cohort. A clinical trial lasting 2 years with testing every 3 months was simulated, assuming that the new treatment halted visual field change in various percentages of participants (or "responders"). Treatment efficacy was evaluated by: (a) Difference in incidence of point-wise event-based progression (similar to the commercially available Guided Progression Analysis), and (b) Difference in rate of visual field mean deviation (MD) change between groups using linear mixed models (LMMs). Main Outcome Measures: Sample size to detect a statistically significance difference between groups. Results: Between-group trend-based analyses using LMMs reduced sample size requirements by 85-90% across the range of new treatment effects when compared to the conventional point-wise event-based analysis. To detect the effect of a new treatment that halted progression in 30% of the participants under routine clinical care (equal to a 30% reduction in average rate of MD change) with 90% power, for example, 1924 participants would be required per group using event-based analysis, but only 277 participants per group if LMMs were used. Conclusions: The feasibility of future glaucoma clinical trials can be substantially improved by evaluating differences in the rate of visual field change between groups.
Authors: Carlos Gustavo V De Moraes; Viral J Juthani; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Christopher C Teng; Celso Tello; Remo Susanna; Robert Ritch Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2011-05
Authors: Robert N Weinreb; Jeffrey M Liebmann; George A Cioffi; Ivan Goldberg; James D Brandt; Chris A Johnson; Linda M Zangwill; Susan Schneider; Hanh Badger; Marina Bejanian Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 12.079
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: Gala Beykin; Laurel Stell; Muhammad Sohail Halim; Mariana Nuñez; Lilia Popova; Bac T Nguyen; Sylvia L Groth; Amy Dennis; Zhongqiu Li; Melissa Atkins; Tom Khavari; Sophia Y Wang; Robert Chang; Ann C Fisher; Yasir J Sepah; Jeffrey L Goldberg Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 5.488
Authors: Vahid Mohammadzadeh; Erica Su; Alessandro Rabiolo; Lynn Shi; Sepideh Heydar Zadeh; Simon K Law; Anne L Coleman; Joseph Caprioli; Robert E Weiss; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 5.488
Authors: Vahid Mohammadzadeh; Erica Su; Sepideh Heydar Zadeh; Simon K Law; Anne L Coleman; Joseph Caprioli; Robert E Weiss; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 3.283