RESUMO
PURPOSE: To determine whether primary trabeculectomy or medical treatment produces better outcomes in terms of quality of life (QoL), clinical effectiveness, and safety in patients with advanced glaucoma. DESIGN: Multicenter randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Between June 3, 2014, and May 31, 2017, 453 adults with newly diagnosed advanced open-angle glaucoma in at least 1 eye (Hodapp classification) were recruited from 27 secondary care glaucoma departments in the United Kingdom. Two hundred twenty-seven were allocated to trabeculectomy, and 226 were allocated medical management. METHODS: Participants were randomized on a 1:1 basis to have either mitomycin C-augmented trabeculectomy or escalating medical management with intraocular pressure (IOP)-reducing drops as the primary intervention and were followed up for 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was vision-specific QoL measured with the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) at 5 years. Secondary outcomes were general health status, glaucoma-related QoL, clinical effectiveness (IOP, visual field, and visual acuity), and safety. RESULTS: At 5 years, the mean ± standard deviation VFQ-25 scores in the trabeculectomy and medication arms were 83.3 ± 15.5 and 81.3 ± 17.5, respectively, and the mean difference was 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.99 to 4.00; P = 0.51). The mean IOPs were 12.07 ± 5.18 mmHg and 14.76 ± 4.14 mmHg, respectively, and the mean difference was -2.56 (95% CI, -3.80 to -1.32; P < 0.001). Glaucoma severity measured with visual field mean deviation were -14.30 ± 7.14 dB and -16.74 ± 6.78 dB, respectively, with a mean difference of 1.87 (95% CI, 0.87-2.87 dB; P < 0.001). Safety events occurred in 115 (52.2%) of patients in the trabeculectomy arm and 124 (57.9%) of patients in the medication arm (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19; P = 0.54). Serious adverse events were rare. CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years, the Treatment of Advanced Glaucoma Study demonstrated that primary trabeculectomy surgery is more effective in lowering IOP and preventing disease progression than primary medical treatment in patients with advanced disease and has a similar safety profile. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
Assuntos
Anti-Hipertensivos , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto , Pressão Intraocular , Mitomicina , Qualidade de Vida , Trabeculectomia , Acuidade Visual , Campos Visuais , Humanos , Trabeculectomia/métodos , Masculino , Pressão Intraocular/fisiologia , Feminino , Acuidade Visual/fisiologia , Idoso , Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico , Campos Visuais/fisiologia , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/fisiopatologia , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/cirurgia , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/tratamento farmacológico , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Mitomicina/administração & dosagem , Inquéritos e Questionários , Seguimentos , Resultado do Tratamento , Tonometria Ocular , Perfil de Impacto da Doença , Soluções Oftálmicas , Alquilantes/administração & dosagem , Idoso de 80 Anos ou maisRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials are often beset by problems with poor recruitment and retention. Information to support decisions on trial participation is usually provided as printed participant information sheets (PIS), which are often long, technical, and unappealing. Multimedia information (MMI), including animations and videos, may be a valuable alternative or complement to a PIS. The Trials Engagement in Children and Adolescents (TRECA) study compared MMI to PIS to investigate the effects on participant recruitment, retention, and quality of decision-making. METHODS: We undertook six SWATs (Study Within A Trial) within a series of host trials recruiting children and young people. Potential participants in the host trials were randomly allocated to receive MMI-only, PIS-only, or combined MMI + PIS. We recorded the rates of recruitment and retention (varying between 6 and 26 weeks post-randomisation) in each host trial. Potential participants approached about each host trial were asked to complete a nine-item Decision-Making Questionnaire (DMQ) to indicate their evaluation of the information and their reasons for participation/non-participation. Odds ratios were calculated and combined in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Data from 3/6 SWATs for which it was possible were combined in a meta-analysis (n = 1758). Potential participants allocated to MMI-only were more likely to be recruited to the host trial than those allocated to PIS-only (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.05, 2.28; p = 0.03). Those allocated to combined MMI + PIS compared to PIS-only were no more likely to be recruited to the host trial (OR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.53, 1.50; p = 0.67). Providing MMI rather than PIS did not impact on DMQ scores. Once children and young people had been recruited to host trials, their trial retention rates did not differ according to intervention allocation. CONCLUSIONS: Providing MMI-only increased the trial recruitment rate compared to PIS-only but did not affect DMQ scores. Combined MMI + PIS instead of PIS had no effect on recruitment or retention. MMIs are a useful tool for trial recruitment in children and young people, and they could reduce trial recruitment periods.
Assuntos
Multimídia , Adolescente , Humanos , Criança , Seleção de Pacientes , Inquéritos e Questionários , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
PURPOSE: To determine clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser (SML), compared with standard laser (SL), for diabetic macular edema (DME) with central retinal thickness (CRT) < 400 µm. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicenter, allocation-concealed, double-masked, randomized, noninferiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with center-involved DME < 400 µm and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of > 24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters in one/both eyes. METHODS: Randomization 1:1 to 577 nm SML or SL treatment. Retreatments were allowed. Rescue with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies or steroids was permitted if 10 or more ETDRS letter loss occurred, CRT increased > 400 µm, or both. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was mean change in BCVA in the study eye at 24 months (noninferiority margin 5 ETDRS letters). Secondary outcomes were mean change from baseline to month 24 in binocular BCVA; CRT and mean deviation of Humphrey 10-2 visual field in the study eye; percentage meeting driving standards; EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L, 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25), and Vision and Quality of Life Index (VisQoL) scores; cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained; adverse effects; and number of laser and rescue treatments. RESULTS: The study recruited fully (n = 266); 87% of SML-treated and 86% of SL-treated patients had primary outcome data. Mean ± standard deviation BCVA change from baseline to month 24 was -2.43 ± 8.20 letters and -0.45 ± 6.72 letters in the SML and SL groups, respectively. Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy was deemed not only noninferior but also equivalent to SL therapy because the 95% confidence interval (CI; -3.9 to -0.04 letters) lay wholly within both upper and lower margins of the permitted maximum difference (5 ETDRS letters). No statistically significant difference was found in binocular BCVA (0.32 ETDRS letters; 95% CI, -0.99 to 1.64 ETDRS letters; P = 0.63); CRT (-0.64 µm; 95% CI, -14.25 to 12.98 µm; P = 0.93); mean deviation of the visual field (0.39 decibels (dB); 95% CI, -0.23 to 1.02 dB; P = 0.21); meeting driving standards (percentage point difference, 1.6%; 95% CI, -25.3% to 28.5%; P = 0.91); adverse effects (risk ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.06-1.34; P = 0.11); rescue treatments (percentage point difference, -2.8%; 95% CI, -13.1% to 7.5%; P = 0.59); or EQ-5D, NEI-VFQ-25, or VisQoL scores. Number of laser treatments was higher in the SML group (0.48; 95% CI, 0.18-0.79; P = 0.002). Base-case analysis indicated no differences in costs or QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy was equivalent to SL therapy, requiring slightly higher laser treatments.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus , Retinopatia Diabética , Edema Macular , Adulto , Humanos , Edema Macular/tratamento farmacológico , Retinopatia Diabética/cirurgia , Retinopatia Diabética/tratamento farmacológico , Qualidade de Vida , Fotocoagulação a Laser/efeitos adversos , Acuidade Visual , Retina , Injeções Intravítreas , Inibidores da Angiogênese , Ranibizumab/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is a group of optic neuropathies characterized by progressive degeneration of the retinal ganglion cells, axonal loss and irreversible visual field defects. Glaucoma is classified as primary or secondary, and worldwide, primary glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness. Several subtypes of glaucoma exist, and primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is the most common. The etiology of POAG is unknown, but current treatments aim to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP), thus preventing the onset and progression of the disease. Compared with traditional antiglaucomatous treatments, rho kinase inhibitors (ROKi) have a different pharmacodynamic. ROKi is the only current treatment that effectively lowers IOP by modulating the drainage of aqueous humor through the trabecular meshwork and Schlemm's canal. As ROKi are introduced into the market more widely, it is important to assess the efficacy and potential AEs of the treatment. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of ROKi with placebo or other glaucoma medication in people diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma (OAG), primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard Cochrane methods and searched databases on 11 December 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials examining commercially available ROKi-based monotherapy or combination therapy compared with placebo or other IOP-lowering medical treatments in people diagnosed with (P)OAG or OHT. We included trials where ROKi were administered according to official glaucoma guidelines. There were no restrictions regarding type, year or status of the publication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias by using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 trials with 4953 participants diagnosed with (P)OAG or OHT. Fifteen were multicenter trials and 15 were masked trials. All participants were aged above 18 years. Trial duration varied from 24 hours to 12 months. Trials were conducted in the USA, Canada and Japan. Sixteen trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies, and one trial provided no information about funding sources. The trials compared ROKi monotherapy (netarsudil or ripasudil) or combination therapy with latanoprost (prostaglandin analog) or timolol (beta-blocker) with placebo, timolol, latanoprost or netarsudil. Reported outcomes were IOP and safety. Meta-analyses were applied to 13 trials (IOP reduction from baseline) and 15 trials (ocular AEs). Of the trials evaluating IOP, seven were at low risk, three had some concerns, and three were at high risk of bias. Three trials found that netarsudil monotherapy may be superior to placebo (mean difference [MD] 3.11 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.59 to 3.62; I2 = 0%; 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence from three trials found that timolol may be superior to netarsudil with an MD of 0.66 mmHg (95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; I2 = 0%; 1415 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence from four trials found that latanoprost may be superior to netarsudil with an MD of 0.97 mmHg (95% CI 0.67 to 1.27; I2 = 4%; 1283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence from three trials showed that, compared with monotherapy with latanoprost, combination therapy with netarsudil and latanoprost probably led to an additional pooled mean IOP reduction from baseline of 1.64 mmHg (95% CI -2.16 to -1.11; 1114 participants). Evidence from three trials showed that, compared with monotherapy with netarsudil, combination therapy with netarsudil and latanoprost probably led to an additional pooled mean IOP reduction from baseline of 2.66 mmHg (95% CI -2.98 to -2.35; 1132 participants). The certainty of evidence was moderate. One trial showed that, compared with timolol monotherapy, combination therapy with ripasudil and timolol may lead to an IOP reduction from baseline of 0.75 mmHg (95% -1.29 to -CI 0.21; 208 participants). The certainty of evidence was moderate. Of the trials assessing total ocular AEs, three were at low risk, four had some concerns, and eight were at high risk of bias. We found very low-certainty evidence that netarsudil may lead to more ocular AEs compared with placebo, with 66 more ocular AEs per 100 person-months (95% CI 28 to 103; I2 = 86%; 4 trials, 188 participants). We found low-certainty evidence that netarsudil may lead to more ocular AEs compared with latanoprost, with 29 more ocular AEs per 100 person-months (95% CI 17 to 42; I2 = 95%; 4 trials, 1286 participants). We found moderate-certainty evidence that, compared with timolol, netarsudil probably led to 21 additional ocular AEs (95% CI 14 to 27; I2 = 93%; 4 trials, 1678 participants). Data from three trials (1132 participants) showed no evidence of differences in the incidence rate of AEs between combination therapy with netarsudil and latanoprost and netarsudil monotherapy (1 more event per 100 person-months, 95% CI 0 to 3); however, the certainty of evidence was low. Similarly, we found low-certainty evidence that, compared with latanoprost, combination therapy with netarsudil and latanoprost may cause 29 more ocular events per 100 person-months (95% CI 11 to 47; 3 trials, 1116 participants). We found moderate-certainty evidence that, compared with timolol monotherapy, combination therapy with ripasudil and timolol probably causes 35 more ocular events per 100 person-months (95% CI 25 to 45; 1 trial, 208 participants). In all included trials, ROKi was reportedly not associated with any particular serious AEs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that in people diagnosed with OHT or (P)OAG, the hypotensive effect of netarsudil may be inferior to latanoprost and slightly inferior to timolol. Combining netarsudil and latanoprost probably further reduces IOP compared with monotherapy. Netarsudil as mono- or combination therapy may result in more ocular AEs. However, the certainty of evidence was very low or low for all comparisons except timolol. In general, AEs were described as mild, transient, and reversible upon treatment discontinuation. ROKi was not associated with any particular serious AEs. Future trials of sufficient size and follow-up should be conducted to provide reliable information about glaucoma progression, relevant IOP measurements and a detailed description of AEs using similar terminology. This would ensure the robustness and confidence of the results and assess the intermediate- and long-term efficacy and safety of ROKi.
Assuntos
Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto , Hipertensão Ocular , Quinases Associadas a rho , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Hipertensão Ocular/tratamento farmacológico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento , Quinases Associadas a rho/antagonistas & inibidores , Quinases Associadas a rho/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: To test the hypothesis that 0.01% atropine eyedrops are a safe and effective myopia-control approach in Australian children. METHODS: Children (6-16 years; 49% Europeans, 18% East Asian, 22% South Asian, and 12% other/mixed ancestry) with documented myopia progression were enrolled into this single-centre randomised, parallel, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial and randomised to receive 0.01% atropine (n = 104) or placebo (n = 49) eyedrops (2:1 ratio) instilled nightly over 24 months (mean index age = 12.2 ± 2.5 and 11.2 ± 2.8 years, respectively). Outcome measures were the changes in spherical equivalent (SE) and axial length (AL) from baseline. RESULTS: At 12 months, the mean SE and AL change from baseline were -0.31D (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.39 to -0.22) and 0.16 mm (95%CI = 0.13-0.20) in the atropine group and -0.53D (95%CI = -0.66 to -0.40) and 0.25 mm (95%CI = 0.20-0.30) in the placebo group (group difference p ≤ 0.01). At 24 months, the mean SE and AL change from baseline was -0.64D (95%CI = -0.73 to -0.56) and 0.34 mm (95%CI = 0.30-0.37) in the atropine group, and -0.78D (95%CI = -0.91 to -0.65) and 0.38 mm (95%CI = 0.33-0.43) in the placebo group. Group difference at 24 months was not statistically significant (p = 0.10). At 24 months, the atropine group had reduced accommodative amplitude and pupillary light response compared to the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In Australian children, 0.01% atropine eyedrops were safe, well-tolerated, and had a modest myopia-control effect, although there was an apparent decrease in efficacy between 18 and 24 months, which is likely driven by a higher dropout rate in the placebo group.
Assuntos
Atropina , Miopia , Criança , Humanos , Adolescente , Soluções Oftálmicas , Austrália , Miopia/tratamento farmacológico , Refração Ocular , Progressão da DoençaRESUMO
PURPOSE: The increasing diabetes prevalence and advent of new treatments for its major visual-threatening complications (diabetic macular edema [DME] and proliferative diabetic retinopathy [PDR]), which require frequent life-long follow-up, have increased hospital demands markedly. Subsequent delays in patient's evaluation and treatment are causing sight loss. Strategies to increase capacity are needed urgently. The retinopathy (EMERALD) study tested diagnostic accuracy, acceptability, and costs of a new health care pathway for people with previously treated DME or PDR. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, case-referent, cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study undertaken in 13 hospitals in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes previously successfully treated DME or PDR who, at the time of enrollment, had active or inactive disease. METHODS: A new health care pathway entailing multimodal imaging (spectral-domain OCT for DME, and 7-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] and ultra-widefield [UWF] fundus images for PDR) interpreted by trained nonmedical staff (ophthalmic graders) to detect reactivation of disease was compared with the current standard care (face-to-face examination by ophthalmologists). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: sensitivity of the new pathway. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: specificity; agreement between pathways; costs; acceptability; proportions requiring subsequent ophthalmologist assessment, unable to undergo imaging, and with inadequate images or indeterminate findings. RESULTS: The new pathway showed sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92%-99%) and specificity of 31% (95% CI, 23%-40%) to detect DME. For PDR, sensitivity and specificity using 7-field ETDRS images (85% [95% CI, 77%-91%] and 48% [95% CI, 41%-56%], respectively) or UWF images (83% [95% CI, 75%-89%] and 54% [95% CI, 46%-61%], respectively) were comparable. For detection of high-risk PDR, sensitivity and specificity were higher when using UWF images (87% [95% CI, 78%-93%] and 49% [95% CI, 42%-56%], respectively, for UWF versus 80% [95% CI, 69-88%] and 40% [95% CI, 34%-47%], respectively, for 7-field ETDRS images). Participants preferred ophthalmologists' assessments; in their absence, they preferred immediate feedback by graders, maintaining periodic ophthalmologist evaluations. When compared with the current standard of care, the new pathway could save £1390 per 100 DME visits and between £461 and £1189 per 100 PDR visits. CONCLUSIONS: The new pathway has acceptable sensitivity and would release resources. Users' suggestions should guide implementation.
Assuntos
Pessoal Técnico de Saúde/normas , Atenção à Saúde/organização & administração , Retinopatia Diabética/diagnóstico , Edema Macular/diagnóstico , Padrão de Cuidado , Adolescente , Adulto , Procedimentos Clínicos , Estudos Transversais , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Feminino , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Imagem Multimodal , Oftalmologistas/normas , Estudos Prospectivos , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Tomografia de Coerência Óptica , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In at least a third of primary angle closure cases, appositional angle closure persists after laser peripheral iridotomy, and further intervention may be considered. Laser peripheral iridoplasty (LPIp) can be used in treating chronic angle closure when angle closure persists after laser peripheral iridotomy. Previous reviews have found insufficient data to determine its clinical effectiveness, compared to other interventions. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and updated in 2012. It examines all studies to date to establish whether LPIp shows any effectiveness over other available treatment options. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of laser peripheral iridoplasty in the treatment of people with chronic angle closure, when compared to laser peripheral iridotomy, medical therapy or no further treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched various electronic databases. The date of the search was 20 December 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the use of LPIp in cases of suspected primary angle closure (PACS), confirmed primary angle closure (PAC), or primary chronic angle-closure glaucoma (PACG). We applied no restrictions with respect to gender, age or ethnicity of participants. Trials evaluating LPIp for acute attacks of angle closure were not eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently assessed studies for risk of bias using Cochrane's 'risk of bias' tool. We collected adverse effects information from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs involving 252 participants (276 eyes). In total, three different methods of intervention were used and 15 outcomes reported, with different time points. We used narrative synthesis to describe the majority of the findings, as meta-analysis was only possible for a limited number of outcomes due to the variation in study design and outcomes assessed. Study Characteristics Participants were adults recruited from outpatient settings in the UK, Singapore, China and Korea with either PACS, PAC or PACG. All studies compared argon LPIp (as either a primary or secondary procedure) to an alternative intervention or no further treatment. Three studies were of parallel group design, and one within-person, randomised by eye. All studies showed elements of high risk of bias. Due to the nature of the intervention assessed, a lack of masking of both participants and assessors was noted in all trials. Findings Laser peripheral iridoplasty with iridotomy versus iridotomy alone as a primary procedure Two RCTs assessed the use of argon LPIp as a primary procedure with peripheral iridotomy, compared with peripheral iridotomy alone. However, neither study reported data for the primary outcome, disease progression. Argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect on: final mean intraocular pressure (IOP) at 3 months and 12 months (mean difference (MD) 0.39 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.07 to 1.85; I2 = 38%; 2 studies, 174 participants; low-certainty evidence); further surgical or laser intervention at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.21; 1 study, 126 participants; low-certainty evidence); or mean number of additional medications required at 12 months (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.54; 1 study, 126 participants; low-certainty evidence). Complications were assessed at 3 to 12 months (2 studies, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence) and found to be mild and uncommon, with comparable levels between groups. The only severe complication encountered was one case of malignant glaucoma in one study's argon LPIp group. Quality of life measures were not assessed. In the other study, investigators found that argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect on final mean anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) measurements, including anterior chamber depth (MD 0.00 mm, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10; 24 participants, 48 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). Laser peripheral iridoplasty as a secondary procedure versus no treatment One RCT assessed the use of argon LPIp as a secondary procedure compared with no further treatment in 22 participants over three months. Disease progression, additional medications required, complications, further surgical or laser intervention, and quality of life outcomes were not assessed. There was only very low-certainty evidence regarding final maximum IOP value (MD -1.81 mmHg, 95% CI -3.11 to -0.51; very low-certainty evidence), with no evidence of effect on final minimum IOP values (MD -0.31 mmHg, 95% CI -1.93 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of argon LPIp on AS-OCT parameters. The trial did not report AS-OCT measurements for the control group. Laser peripheral iridoplasty as a secondary procedure versus medication One RCT assessed the use of argon LPIp as a secondary procedure compared with travoprost 0.004% in 80 participants over 12 months. The primary outcome of disease progression was reported for this method: argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect on mean final cup/disk ratio (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.05; low-certainty evidence). Argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect for: mean change in IOP (MD -1.20 mmHg, 95% CI -2.87 to 0.47; low-certainty evidence) or mean number of additional medications (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.61; low-certainty evidence). Further surgical intervention was required by one participant in the intervention group alone, with none in the control group (low-certainty evidence). No serious adverse events were reported, with mild complications consisting of two cases of 'post-laser IOP spike' in the argon LPIp group. Quality of life measures were not assessed. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of argon LPIp on AS-OCT parameters. The trial did not report AS-OCT measurements for the control group. Adverse events Availability of data were limited for adverse effects. Similar rates were observed in control and intervention groups, where reported. Serious adverse events were rare. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: After reviewing the outcomes of four RCTs, argon LPIp as an intervention may be no more clinically effective than comparators in the management of people with chronic angle closure. Despite a potential positive impact on anterior chamber morphology, its use in clinical practice in treating people with chronic angle closure is not supported by the results of trials published to date. Given these results, further research into LPIp is unlikely to be worthwhile.
Assuntos
Glaucoma de Ângulo Fechado/cirurgia , Iris/cirurgia , Terapia a Laser/métodos , Adulto , Viés , Doença Crônica , Glaucoma de Ângulo Fechado/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Pressão Intraocular , Terapia a Laser/estatística & dados numéricos , Lasers de Gás/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate the pragmatism and generalizability of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema and determine whether clinical outcomes would differ based on whether or not patients fulfill the eligibility criteria of these RCTs. METHODS: Pragmatism and generalizability of three RCTs on ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema (DRCRnet Protocols I and T, and RESTORE) were rated using the PRECIS-2 tool. A cohort of consecutive patients with diabetic macular edema was assessed to determine whether clinical outcomes differed based on whether or not patients met the RCT eligibility criteria. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses, adjusted for baseline best-corrected visual acuity, central retinal thickness and number of injections received, were used. RESULTS: All RCTs were rated as being more pragmatic than explanatory, with DRCRnet trials being the most pragmatic. Of the 216 eyes (176 patients) included in the cohort, 63% would have met eligibility criteria for Protocol T, 61% for Protocol I, and 56% for RESTORE. When adjusted for best-corrected visual acuity, central retinal thickness, and number of ranibizumab injections received, there were no statistically significant differences in best-corrected visual acuity or central retinal thickness found between "eligible" and "ineligible" patients. CONCLUSION: Randomized clinical trials evaluating ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema were more pragmatic than explanatory. "Ineligible" patients still benefited from ranibizumab therapy.
Assuntos
Retinopatia Diabética/complicações , Macula Lutea/patologia , Edema Macular/tratamento farmacológico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Ranibizumab/administração & dosagem , Tomografia de Coerência Óptica/métodos , Acuidade Visual , Idoso , Inibidores da Angiogênese/administração & dosagem , Retinopatia Diabética/diagnóstico , Retinopatia Diabética/tratamento farmacológico , Feminino , Humanos , Injeções Intravítreas , Edema Macular/diagnóstico , Edema Macular/etiologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Resultado do Tratamento , Fator A de Crescimento do Endotélio Vascular/antagonistas & inibidoresRESUMO
PURPOSE: To investigate relationships between health and socio-economic status with delayed attendance at routine eye examinations and risk of subsequent general practitioner (GP) referral in Northern Ireland. METHODS: We constructed a cohort of 132 046 community dwelling individuals aged ≥60 years, drawing contextual information from the 2011 Northern Ireland Census. Using linked administrative records of routine eye examinations between 2009 and 2014, we calculated 311 999 examination intervals. Multinomial models were used to estimate associations between contextual factors and examination interval (classified into three groups: early recall, on-time, delayed attendance). Associations between examination interval and referral risk were estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Delayed attendance was recorded for 129 857 (41.6%) examination intervals, 53 759 (17.2%) delayed by ≥6 months. Female sex, poor general or mental health were each associated with delay, as were longer distances to optometry services among those aged ≥70 years (longest vs shortest: Relative Risk Ratio = 1.21 [1.14, 1.28]). Low income and residence in social housing were associated with reduced delay risk. There were 3347 (3.5%) and 11 401 (5.3%) GP referrals in the 60-69 and ≥70 years age groups respectively. Delayed attendance was associated with increased referral risk in both groups (Odds Ratios: 60-69 years = 1.30 [1.04, 1.61]; ≥70 years = 1.07 [1.01, 1.13]). CONCLUSIONS: Poor health and longer distances to optometry services were associated with delayed attendance at routine eye examinations but low income was not. Delayed attendance was associated with increased GP referral risk, indicative of missed opportunities to detect potentially serious eye conditions.
Assuntos
Diagnóstico Tardio , Testes Diagnósticos de Rotina/métodos , Oftalmopatias/diagnóstico , Clínicos Gerais , Encaminhamento e Consulta/organização & administração , Idoso , Oftalmopatias/epidemiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Irlanda do Norte/epidemiologia , Razão de Chances , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
IMPORTANCE: Atropine eyedrops are a promising treatment for slowing myopia progression in East Asian children. However, its effects on children in Australia, including those of non-Asian background, have not been well-studied. BACKGROUND: The Western Australia Atropine for the Treatment of Myopia (WA-ATOM) study aims to determine the efficacy and long-term effects of low-dose atropine eyedrops in myopia control. This paper describes the study rationale, methodology and participant baseline characteristics. DESIGN: Single-centre, double-masked, randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Children (6-16 years) with spherical equivalent ≤-1.50 D in each eye, astigmatism ≤1.50 D and myopia progression by ≥0.50 D/year. METHODS: Enrolled children were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive 0.01% atropine or placebo eyedrops. Participants are examined every 6 months during first 3 years of the study (2-year treatment phase followed by a 1-year washout phase), and then at a 5-year follow-up (2 years after the end of the washout phase). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Annual progression rate of myopia and axial length, tolerability to eyedrops and incidence and severity of unwanted effects. RESULTS: Out of 311 children who were referred, 242 were suitable for study participation, and 153 were subsequently enrolled. The baseline characteristics of enrolled participants are presented. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Outcomes of the WA-ATOM study will inform on the efficacy, tolerability, safety and long-term effects of low-dose atropine eyedrops in myopia control in Australian children. The impact of ocular sun exposure, iris colour and parental myopia on the efficacy of low-dose atropine will also be assessed.
Assuntos
Atropina , Miopia , Austrália/epidemiologia , Criança , Progressão da Doença , Humanos , Miopia/tratamento farmacológico , Soluções Oftálmicas , Refração Ocular , Austrália Ocidental/epidemiologiaRESUMO
PURPOSE: The United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study (UKGTS) demonstrated the effectiveness of an intraocular pressure-lowering drug in patients with glaucoma using visual field progression as a primary outcome. The present study tested the hypothesis that responses on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; secondary outcome measure) differ between patients receiving a topical prostaglandin analog (latanoprost) or placebo eye drops in UKGTS. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, triple-masked, placebo-controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Newly diagnosed glaucoma patients in the UKGTS with baseline and exit PROMs (n = 182 and n = 168 patients from the treatment and placebo groups, respectively). METHODS: In the UKGTS (trial registration number, ISRCTN96423140), patients with open-angle glaucoma were allocated to receive latanoprost (treatment) or placebo; the observation period was 24 months. Patients completed general health PROMs (European Quality of Life in 5 Dimensions [EQ-5D] and 36-item Short Form [SF-36]) and PROMs specific to glaucoma (15-item Glaucoma Quality of Life [GQL-15] and 9-item Glaucoma Activity Limitation [GAL-9]) at baseline and exit from the trial. Percentage changes between measurement on PROMs were calculated for each patient and compared between treatment arms. In addition, differences between stable patients (n = 272) and those with glaucomatous progression (n = 78), as determined by visual field change (primary outcome), were assessed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: PROMs on health-related and vision-related quality of life. RESULTS: Average percentage change on PROMs was similar for patients in both arms of the trial, with no statistically significant differences between treatment and placebo groups (EQ-5D, P = 0.98; EQ-5D visual analog scale, P = 0.88; SF-36, P = 0.94, GQL-15, P = 0.66; GAL-9, P = 0.87). There were statistically significant differences between stable and progressing patients on glaucoma-specific PROMs (GQL-15, P = 0.02; GAL-9, P = 0.02), but not on general health PROMs (EQ-5D, P = 0.62; EQ-5D visual analog scale, P = 0.23; SF-36, P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Average change in PROMs on health-related and vision-related quality of life was similar for the treatment and placebo groups in the UKGTS. The PROMs used may not be sensitive enough to function as primary end points in clinical trials when participants have newly diagnosed early-stage glaucoma.
Assuntos
Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/tratamento farmacológico , Pressão Intraocular/fisiologia , Latanoprosta/administração & dosagem , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Qualidade de Vida , Acuidade Visual , Campos Visuais/fisiologia , Idoso , Anti-Hipertensivos/administração & dosagem , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Feminino , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/diagnóstico , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/fisiopatologia , Humanos , Masculino , Soluções Oftálmicas , Resultado do Tratamento , Reino UnidoRESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Angle closure glaucoma is a leading cause of blindness globally and trends of how best to treat this disease are evolving. The advent of anterior segment imaging aids our understanding of pathogenesis and allows more robust and objective measurement of treatment modalities. We will also review recent literature regarding the role of laser and surgical interventions for the treatment of primary angle closure disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies evaluating the efficacy of laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) in primary angle closure suspects (PACs) show that while it is a safe intervention and initially anterior chamber angle widens following the laser treatment, the effect is lost with time. Only a small minority of PACs patients develop primary angle closure (PAC) or primary angle closure glaucoma (PACG). Trials evaluating argon laser peripheral iridoplasty (ALPI) have failed to show a substantial clinical benefit. In patients with early or moderate PACG and those with PAC with IOP over 30âmmHg, clear lens extraction is associated with better clinical and quality of life outcomes than LPI. SUMMARY: Recent evidence supports initial clear lens extraction in the context of PACG or primary angle closure with IOP more than 30âmmHg.
Assuntos
Glaucoma de Ângulo Fechado/cirurgia , Iridectomia/métodos , Iris/cirurgia , Terapia a Laser/métodos , Glaucoma de Ângulo Fechado/fisiopatologia , Humanos , Pressão Intraocular/fisiologiaRESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Lens extraction in people with coexisting cataract and open angle glaucoma is associated with a reduction in intraocular pressure (IOP). In primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG), lens extraction and laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) can be used to open the anterior chamber angle, increase the outflow through the trabecular meshwork and reduce the IOP. The present review will summarize the recent available literature regarding the role of both interventions for the treatment of glaucoma. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent articles have confirmed the effect of cataract surgery as an IOP-lowering procedure in people with coexisting cataract and glaucoma, and highlight that the most important predictor for a greater decrease is a higher preoperative IOP. The probability for achieving a significant IOP reduction is highest in PACG and pseudoexfoliation glaucoma. Clear lens extraction (CLE) is associated with better clinical and quality of life outcomes than laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) in patients with early or moderate PACG and those with primary angle closure and IOP over 30âmmHg. There is no high-quality evidence to support LPI in the treatment of pigmentary glaucoma. SUMMARY: Evidence from the assessed period supports the IOP-lowering effect of cataract surgery in people with coexisting cataract and glaucoma. CLE is an option in the initial treatment of some patients with PACG as its superiority has been demonstrated against LPI.
Assuntos
Extração de Catarata/métodos , Catarata/complicações , Glaucoma/cirurgia , Iris/cirurgia , Terapia a Laser/métodos , Cristalino/cirurgia , Glaucoma/complicações , HumanosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness. Subconjunctival draining minimally-invasive glaucoma devices such as the Xen gelatin implant and InnFocus stent have been introduced as a treatment to prevent glaucoma progressing.These implants provide a channel to allow aqueous humour from the anterior chamber of the eye to drain into the subconjunctival space on the surface of the eye thus reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) and mimicking the mechanism of the most commonly undertaken glaucoma surgery, trabeculectomy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of subconjunctival draining minimally-invasive glaucoma devices in treating people with open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension whose condition is inadequately controlled with drops. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2018, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 10 July 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of Xen gelatin implant or InnFocus MicroShunt to other surgical treatments (other minimally-invasive glaucoma device techniques, trabeculectomy), laser treatment or medical treatment. We also planned to include trials where these devices were combined with phacoemulsification compared to phacoemulsification alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We planned to have two review authors independently extract data from reports of included studies using a data collection form and analyse data based on methods expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was mean change in IOP. Secondary outcomes included proportion of participants who were drop-free; proportion of participants who achieved an IOP of 21 mmHg or less, 17 mmHg or less or 14 mmHg or less; and proportion of participants experiencing intra- and postoperative complications. We planned to measure all outcomes in the short-term (six to 18 months), medium-term (18 to 36 months), and long-term (36 months onwards). MAIN RESULTS: We found no completed RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. We found one ongoing study (NCT01881425). The study compares InnFocus MicroShunt to trabeculectomy in people with primary open angle glaucoma. The primary outcome is greater than 20% IOP reduction from baseline to 12 months' follow-up. A total of 889 people aged between 40 and 85 years have been enrolled. The estimated study completion date is November 2019. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no high-quality evidence for the effects of subconjunctival draining minimally-invasive glaucoma devices for medically uncontrolled open angle glaucoma. Properly designed RCTs are needed to assess the medium- and long-term efficacy and safety of this technique.
Assuntos
Implantes para Drenagem de Glaucoma , Glaucoma/terapia , Implantes para Drenagem de Glaucoma/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Pressão Intraocular , TrabeculectomiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a chronic progressive disease of the retinal microvasculature associated with prolonged hyperglycaemia. Proliferative DR (PDR) is a sight-threatening complication of DR and is characterised by the development of abnormal new vessels in the retina, optic nerve head or anterior segment of the eye. Argon laser photocoagulation has been the gold standard for the treatment of PDR for many years, using regimens evaluated by the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS). Over the years, there have been modifications of the technique and introduction of new laser technologies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different types of laser, other than argon laser, and different laser protocols, other than those established by the ETDRS, for the treatment of PDR. We compared different wavelengths; power and pulse duration; pattern, number and location of burns versus standard argon laser undertaken as specified by the ETDRS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 8 June 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) using standard argon laser for treatment of PDR compared with any other laser modality. We excluded studies of lasers that are not in common use, such as the xenon arc, ruby or Krypton laser. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane guidelines and graded the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 studies from Europe (6), the USA (2), the Middle East (1) and Asia (2). Five studies compared different types of laser to argon: Nd:YAG (2 studies) or diode (3 studies). Other studies compared modifications to the standard argon laser PRP technique. The studies were poorly reported and we judged all to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. The sample size varied from 20 to 270 eyes but the majority included 50 participants or fewer.Nd:YAG versus argon laser (2 studies): very low-certainty evidence on vision loss, vision gain, progression and regression of PDR, pain during laser treatment and adverse effects.Diode versus argon laser (3 studies): very-low certainty evidence on vision loss, vision gain, progression and regression of PDR and adverse effects; moderate-certainty evidence that diode laser was more painful (risk ratio (RR) troublesome pain during laser treatment (RR 3.12, 95% CI 2.16 to 4.51; eyes = 202; studies = 3; I2 = 0%).0.5 second versus 0.1 second exposure (1 study): low-certainty evidence of lower chance of vision loss with 0.5 second compared with 0.1 second exposure but estimates were imprecise and compatible with no difference or an increased chance of vision loss (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.04, 44 eyes, 1 RCT); low-certainty evidence that people treated with 0.5 second exposure were more likely to gain vision (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.68 to 7.28, 44 eyes, 1 RCT) but again the estimates were imprecise . People given 0.5 second exposure were more likely to have regression of PDR compared with 0.1 second laser PRP again with imprecise estimate (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.48, 32 eyes, 1 RCT). There was very low-certainty evidence on progression of PDR and adverse effects.'Light intensity' PRP versus classic PRP (1 study): vision loss or gain was not reported but the mean difference in logMAR acuity at 1 year was -0.09 logMAR (95% CI -0.22 to 0.04, 65 eyes, 1 RCT); and low-certainty evidence that fewer patients had pain during light PRP compared with classic PRP with an imprecise estimate compatible with increased or decreased pain (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.93, 65 eyes, 1 RCT).'Mild scatter' (laser pattern limited to 400 to 600 laser burns in one sitting) PRP versus standard 'full' scatter PRP (1 study): very low-certainty evidence on vision and visual field loss. No information on adverse effects.'Central' (a more central PRP in addition to mid-peripheral PRP) versus 'peripheral' standard PRP (1 study): low-certainty evidence that people treated with central PRP were more likely to lose 15 or more letters of BCVA compared with peripheral laser PRP (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 13.46, 50 eyes, 1 RCT); and less likely to gain 15 or more letters (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.08) with imprecise estimates compatible with increased or decreased risk.'Centre sparing' PRP (argon laser distribution limited to 3 disc diameters from the upper temporal and lower margin of the fovea) versus standard 'full scatter' PRP (1 study): low-certainty evidence that people treated with 'centre sparing' PRP were less likely to lose 15 or more ETDRS letters of BCVA compared with 'full scatter' PRP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50, 53 eyes). Low-certainty evidence of similar risk of regression of PDR between groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.27, 53 eyes). Adverse events were not reported.'Extended targeted' PRP (to include the equator and any capillary non-perfusion areas between the vascular arcades) versus standard PRP (1 study): low-certainty evidence that people in the extended group had similar or slightly reduced chance of loss of 15 or more letters of BCVA compared with the standard PRP group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.28, 270 eyes). Low-certainty evidence that people in the extended group had a similar or slightly increased chance of regression of PDR compared with the standard PRP group (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.31, 270 eyes). Very low-certainty information on adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Modern laser techniques and modalities have been developed to treat PDR. However there is limited evidence available with respect to the efficacy and safety of alternative laser systems or strategies compared with the standard argon laser as described in ETDRS.
Assuntos
Retinopatia Diabética/cirurgia , Terapia a Laser/métodos , Lasers de Estado Sólido/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoAssuntos
Glaucoma , Pressão Intraocular , Humanos , Intervenção Psicossocial , Glaucoma/terapia , Tonometria OcularRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Primary angle-closure glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. In early-stage disease, intraocular pressure is raised without visual loss. Because the crystalline lens has a major mechanistic role, lens extraction might be a useful initial treatment. METHODS: From Jan 8, 2009, to Dec 28, 2011, we enrolled patients from 30 hospital eye services in five countries. Randomisation was done by a web-based application. Patients were assigned to undergo clear-lens extraction or receive standard care with laser peripheral iridotomy and topical medical treatment. Eligible patients were aged 50 years or older, did not have cataracts, and had newly diagnosed primary angle closure with intraocular pressure 30 mm Hg or greater or primary angle-closure glaucoma. The co-primary endpoints were patient-reported health status, intraocular pressure, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained 36 months after treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN44464607. FINDINGS: Of 419 participants enrolled, 155 had primary angle closure and 263 primary angle-closure glaucoma. 208 were assigned to clear-lens extraction and 211 to standard care, of whom 351 (84%) had complete data on health status and 366 (87%) on intraocular pressure. The mean health status score (0·87 [SD 0·12]), assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire, was 0·052 higher (95% CI 0·015-0·088, p=0·005) and mean intraocular pressure (16·6 [SD 3·5] mm Hg) 1·18 mm Hg lower (95% CI -1·99 to -0·38, p=0·004) after clear-lens extraction than after standard care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £14â284 for initial lens extraction versus standard care. Irreversible loss of vision occurred in one participant who underwent clear-lens extraction and three who received standard care. No patients had serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Clear-lens extraction showed greater efficacy and was more cost-effective than laser peripheral iridotomy, and should be considered as an option for first-line treatment. FUNDING: Medical Research Council.
Assuntos
Glaucoma de Ângulo Fechado/cirurgia , Qualidade de Vida , Extração de Catarata , Humanos , Pressão Intraocular , CristalinoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the spectrum of glaucoma surgery and the post-operative follow-up regimes undertaken among glaucoma specialists in the United Kingdom. DESIGN: National survey. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five glaucoma specialists (consultants and fellows). METHODS: An eight-question survey was emailed to all glaucoma subspecialists members of the United Kingdom and Eire Glaucoma Society. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Surgery undertaken, post-operative management, awareness of intervention tariff and handling of the follow-up burden generated through surgery. RESULTS: Almost all the participants (74/75: 99%) routinely performed trabeculectomy, 54 responders (72%) undertook tube surgery and Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS) was more frequently undertaken (33.0%) than non-penetrating surgery (23%). In general, for patients with advanced glaucoma requiring a low target intraocular pressure (IOP), the most frequent primary intervention was trabeculectomy (99%), followed by tubes (64%). Similarly, in patients with less advanced glaucoma requiring moderate target IOP, participants preferred trabeculectomy (99%), followed by MIGS (60%). By the first 6 months after the procedure, trabeculectomy and Baerveldt tube implant required a larger number of postoperative visits (9 and 7, respectively), than iStent® and non-penetrating deep sclerectomy (3 and 5, respectively). The majority of participants were not aware of the costs of their interventions. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variety of glaucoma surgery techniques are undertaken. Post-operative follow-up regimes are variable between techniques and for surgeons using the same technique. Trabeculectomy requires more follow-up than any other intervention. For patients requiring low IOP, trabeculectomy is the operation of choice for most surgeons.
Assuntos
Implantes para Drenagem de Glaucoma , Glaucoma/cirurgia , Oftalmologistas/estatística & dados numéricos , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Trabeculectomia/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisas sobre Atenção à Saúde , Humanos , Pressão Intraocular/fisiologia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Minimamente Invasivos , Especialização , Inquéritos e Questionários , Tonometria Ocular , Reino UnidoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Treatments for open-angle glaucoma aim to prevent vision loss through lowering of intraocular pressure, but to our knowledge no placebo-controlled trials have assessed visual function preservation, and the observation periods of previous (unmasked) trials have typically been at least 5 years. We assessed vision preservation in patients given latanoprost compared with those given placebo. METHODS: In this randomised, triple-masked, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled patients with newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma at ten UK centres (tertiary referral centres, teaching hospitals, and district general hospitals). Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) with a website-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by centre and with a permuted block design, to receive either latanoprost 0·005% (intervention group) or placebo (control group) eye drops. Drops were administered from identical bottles, once a day, to both eyes. The primary outcome was time to visual field deterioration within 24 months. Analyses were done in all individuals with follow-up data. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) recommended stopping the trial on Jan 6, 2011 (last patient visit July, 2011), after an interim analysis, and suggested a change in primary outcome from the difference in proportions of patients with incident progression between groups to time to visual field deterioration within 24 months. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN96423140. FINDINGS: We enrolled 516 individuals between Dec 1, 2006, and March 16, 2010. Baseline mean intraocular pressure was 19·6 mm Hg (SD 4·6) in 258 patients in the latanoprost group and 20·1 mm Hg (4·8) in 258 controls. At 24 months, mean reduction in intraocular pressure was 3·8 mm Hg (4·0) in 231 patients assessed in the latanoprost group and 0·9 mm Hg (3·8) in 230 patients assessed in the placebo group. Visual field preservation was significantly longer in the latanoprost group than in the placebo group: adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0·44 (95% CI 0·28-0·69; p=0·0003). We noted 18 serious adverse events, none attributable to the study drug. INTERPRETATION: This is the first randomised placebo-controlled trial to show preservation of the visual field with an intraocular-pressure-lowering drug in patients with open-angle glaucoma. The study design enabled significant differences in vision to be assessed in a relatively short observation period. FUNDING: Pfizer, UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.
Assuntos
Anti-Hipertensivos/administração & dosagem , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/tratamento farmacológico , Prostaglandinas F Sintéticas/administração & dosagem , Administração Oftálmica , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/fisiopatologia , Humanos , Pressão Intraocular/efeitos dos fármacos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Latanoprosta , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Soluções Oftálmicas/administração & dosagem , Resultado do Tratamento , Campos Visuais/efeitos dos fármacos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of automated imaging for glaucoma. DESIGN: Prospective, direct comparison study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with suspected glaucoma or ocular hypertension referred to hospital eye services in the United Kingdom. METHODS: We evaluated 4 automated imaging test algorithms: the Heidelberg Retinal Tomography (HRT; Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) glaucoma probability score (GPS), the HRT Moorfields regression analysis (MRA), scanning laser polarimetry (GDx enhanced corneal compensation; Glaucoma Diagnostics (GDx), Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) nerve fiber indicator (NFI), and Spectralis optical coherence tomography (OCT; Heidelberg Engineering) retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) classification. We defined abnormal tests as an automated classification of outside normal limits for HRT and OCT or NFI ≥ 56 (GDx). We conducted a sensitivity analysis, using borderline abnormal image classifications. The reference standard was clinical diagnosis by a masked glaucoma expert including standardized clinical assessment and automated perimetry. We analyzed 1 eye per patient (the one with more advanced disease). We also evaluated the performance according to severity and using a combination of 2 technologies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic, odds ratio, and proportion of indeterminate tests. RESULTS: We recruited 955 participants, and 943 were included in the analysis. The average age was 60.5 years (standard deviation, 13.8 years); 51.1% were women. Glaucoma was diagnosed in at least 1 eye in 16.8%; 32% of participants had no glaucoma-related findings. The HRT MRA had the highest sensitivity (87.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 80.2%-92.1%), but lowest specificity (63.9%; 95% CI, 60.2%-67.4%); GDx had the lowest sensitivity (35.1%; 95% CI, 27.0%-43.8%), but the highest specificity (97.2%; 95% CI, 95.6%-98.3%). The HRT GPS sensitivity was 81.5% (95% CI, 73.9%-87.6%), and specificity was 67.7% (95% CI, 64.2%-71.2%); OCT sensitivity was 76.9% (95% CI, 69.2%-83.4%), and specificity was 78.5% (95% CI, 75.4%-81.4%). Including only eyes with severe glaucoma, sensitivity increased: HRT MRA, HRT GPS, and OCT would miss 5% of eyes, and GDx would miss 21% of eyes. A combination of 2 different tests did not improve the accuracy substantially. CONCLUSIONS: Automated imaging technologies can aid clinicians in diagnosing glaucoma, but may not replace current strategies because they can miss some cases of severe glaucoma.