Carmen Gruzei1,2,3,4, Jufen Zhang5, Rupert Bourne6,7. 1. Ophthalmology Department & Cambridge Eye Research Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK. 2. Vision and Eye Research Institute, School of Medicine, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK. 3. Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. 4. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 5. School of Medicine, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, UK. 6. Ophthalmology Department & Cambridge Eye Research Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK. rb@rupertbourne.co.uk. 7. Vision and Eye Research Institute, School of Medicine, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK. rb@rupertbourne.co.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Glaucoma patients who deteriorate despite standard treatment may benefit from novel gene therapies. Key inclusion criteria for a glaucoma gene therapy trial were devised. A retrospective chart review in a glaucoma clinic population was conducted. Feasibility of gene therapy inclusion criteria and factors associated with progression and fast progression < -1 decibels/year (dB/y) were evaluated. METHODS: Three hundred and seventy-four primary open-angle glaucoma patients all of whom had performed at least five Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard visual fields within a 58-month period. Two definitions were applied to characterize visual field progression rate using Guided Progression Analysis for an individual patient based on A, the eye with the greatest visual field loss, or B, the eye with the most rapid progression rate. RESULTS: Mean rate of visual field progression was -0.50 dB/y (Definition A) and -0.64 dB/y (Definition B). 19.0% (A) and 21.9% (B) of eyes, 71 (A) and 82 (B) eyes, were 'fast progressors' (< -1 dB/y). 37 (A) and 43 (B) eyes met the putative gene therapy inclusion criteria (≥ 50 years; mean deviation ≤ -4 to ≥ -12 or ≤ -20 dB, progression rate between -1 and -4 dB/y). Beta blockers (Odds ratio (OR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 2.84 (1.39-5.80); p = 0.004) (A), (OR (95%CI): 2.48 (1.30-4.75); p = 0.006) (B) and alpha agonists (OR (95%CI): 2.18 (1.14-4.17); p = 0.02) (A), (OR (95%CI) 2.00 (1.08-3.73); p = 0.028) (B) were significantly associated with fast progression. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion (10%) of patients in this clinic population would meet recommended gene therapy inclusion criteria.
PURPOSE: Glaucoma patients who deteriorate despite standard treatment may benefit from novel gene therapies. Key inclusion criteria for a glaucoma gene therapy trial were devised. A retrospective chart review in a glaucoma clinic population was conducted. Feasibility of gene therapy inclusion criteria and factors associated with progression and fast progression < -1 decibels/year (dB/y) were evaluated. METHODS: Three hundred and seventy-four primary open-angle glaucoma patients all of whom had performed at least five Swedish interactive threshold algorithm standard visual fields within a 58-month period. Two definitions were applied to characterize visual field progression rate using Guided Progression Analysis for an individual patient based on A, the eye with the greatest visual field loss, or B, the eye with the most rapid progression rate. RESULTS: Mean rate of visual field progression was -0.50 dB/y (Definition A) and -0.64 dB/y (Definition B). 19.0% (A) and 21.9% (B) of eyes, 71 (A) and 82 (B) eyes, were 'fast progressors' (< -1 dB/y). 37 (A) and 43 (B) eyes met the putative gene therapy inclusion criteria (≥ 50 years; mean deviation ≤ -4 to ≥ -12 or ≤ -20 dB, progression rate between -1 and -4 dB/y). Beta blockers (Odds ratio (OR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 2.84 (1.39-5.80); p = 0.004) (A), (OR (95%CI): 2.48 (1.30-4.75); p = 0.006) (B) and alpha agonists (OR (95%CI): 2.18 (1.14-4.17); p = 0.02) (A), (OR (95%CI) 2.00 (1.08-3.73); p = 0.028) (B) were significantly associated with fast progression. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion (10%) of patients in this clinic population would meet recommended gene therapy inclusion criteria.
Authors: Michael Waisbourd; Osama M Ahmed; Jeanne Molineaux; Alberto Gonzalez; George L Spaeth; L Jay Katz Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2016-03-19 Impact factor: 3.117
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: Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Craig A Liebmann; Remo Susanna; Celso Tello; Robert Ritch Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Mario Damiano Toro; Antoine Pierre Brézin; Michael Burdon; Arthur Bernard Cummings; Ozlem Evren Kemer; Boris Edvard Malyugin; Isabel Prieto; Miguel Angel Teus; Daniele Tognetto; Riikka Törnblom; Chiara Posarelli; Tomasz Chorągiewicz; Robert Rejdak Journal: Eur J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 2.597
Authors: Balwantray C Chauhan; Rizwan Malik; Lesya M Shuba; Paul E Rafuse; Marcelo T Nicolela; Paul H Artes Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Yih-Chung Tham; Xiang Li; Tien Y Wong; Harry A Quigley; Tin Aung; Ching-Yu Cheng Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Rupert R A Bourne; Hugh R Taylor; Seth R Flaxman; Jill Keeffe; Janet Leasher; Kovin Naidoo; Konrad Pesudovs; Richard A White; Tien Y Wong; Serge Resnikoff; Jost B Jonas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Luke J Saunders; Richard A Russell; James F Kirwan; Andrew I McNaught; David P Crabb Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-01-07 Impact factor: 4.799