Social Deprivation and the Risk of Screening Positive for Glaucoma in the MI-SIGHT Telemedicine-Based Glaucoma Detection Program.

PURPOSE: To assess whether increased poverty is associated with increased risk of screening positive for glaucoma or suspected glaucoma in a large public screening and intervention program. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study from 2020 to 2022. PARTICIPANTS: Adults ≥ 18 years old without acute ocular symptoms. METHODS: Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and eye Health through Telemedicine (MI-SIGHT) program participants' sociodemographic characteristics and area deprivation index (ADI) values were summarized from the clinical sites, which included a free clinic and a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). The ADI, a composite measure of neighborhood deprivation (range, 1-10; 10 is worst deprivation), was assigned on the basis of the participants' addresses. Group comparisons were performed via 2-sample t tests or Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney tests for continuous measures and chi-square tests or Fisher exact tests with Monte Carlo simulation for categorical measures; Holm adjustment was used for multiple comparisons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk factors for screening positive for glaucoma or suspected glaucoma. RESULTS: Of the 1171 enrolled participants, 1165 (99.5%) completed the screening: 34% at the free clinic and 66% at the FQHC. Participants were on average aged 55.1 ± 14.5 years, 62% were women, 54% self-reported as Black/African-American, 34% White, 10% Hispanic or Latino, and 70% earned < $30 000 annually. The mean ADI was 7.2 ± 3.1. The FQHC had higher (worse) ADI than the free clinic (free clinic: 4.5 ± 2.9, FQHC: 8.5 ± 2.1, P < 0.0001). One-quarter (24%) of participants screened positive for glaucoma or suspected glaucoma. Screening positive for glaucoma or suspected glaucoma was associated with being older (P = 0.01), identifying as Black/African-American (P = 0.0001), having an established eyecare clinician (P = 0.0005), and not driving a personal vehicle to the appointment (P = 0.001), which is a proxy for increased poverty. Participants who screened positive had worse ADI than those who screened negative (7.7 ± 2.8 vs. 7.0 ± 3.2, P = 0.002). A larger percentage of White participants screened positive at the FQHC compared with White participants at the free clinic (21.3% vs. 12.3%, P = 0.01). FQHC White participants had worse ADI than free clinic White participants (7.5 ± 2.5 vs. 3.7 ± 2.7, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Personal poverty, assessed as not driving a personal vehicle to the appointment, and neighborhood-level poverty were both associated with increased rates of screening positive for glaucoma or suspected glaucoma. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

The Appropriateness of Digital Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Images for a Computer-Aided Glaucoma Screening System.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability to screen for glaucoma using a Food Drug Administration (FDA) Class II diagnostic digital fundus photography system used for diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS). METHODS: All research participants underwent a comprehensive eye examination as well as non-mydriatic 45°single photograph retinal imaging centered on the macula. Optic nerve images within the 45° non-mydriatic and non-stereo DRS image were evaluated by two methods: 1) grading by three glaucoma specialists, and 2) a computer-aided automated segmentation system to determine the vertical cup-to-disc ratio (VCDR). Using VCDR from clinical assessment as gold standard, VCDR results from two methods were compared to that from clinical assessment. Inter-grader agreement was assessed by computing intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). In addition, sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS: Among 245 fundus photos, 166 images met quality specifications for analysis. Fifty images were not processed by the automated system due to the poor quality of the optic disc, and 29 images did not include the optic nerve head due to the patient movement during the photo acquisition. The ICC value for the VCDR between the gold standard clinical exam and the automated system was 0.41, indicating fair agreement. The ICC value between the three ophthalmologists and the gold standard was 0.51, 0.56, and 0.69, respectively, indicating fair to moderate agreement. DISCUSSION: Assessing the VCDR on non-mydriatic and non-stereo DRS fundus photographs by either the computer-aided automated segmentation system or by glaucoma specialists showed similar fair to moderate agreement. In summary, optic nerve assessment for glaucoma from these 45° non-mydriatic and non-stereo DRS images is not yet suitable for tele-glaucoma screening.

Application of the Sight Outcomes Research Collaborative Ophthalmology Data Repository for Triaging Patients With Glaucoma and Clinic Appointments During Pandemics Such as COVID-19.

Importance: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, eye care professionals caring for patients with sight-threatening diseases, such as glaucoma, have had to determine whether some patient appointments could safely get postponed, weighing the risk that the patient's glaucoma could worsen during the interim vs the morbidity risk of acquiring COVID-19 while seeking ophthalmic care. They also need to prioritize appointment rescheduling during the ramp-up phase (when pandemic-associated service reductions are eased). Objective: To describe a flexible and scalable scoring algorithm for patients with glaucoma that considers glaucoma severity and progression risk vs the presence of high-risk features for morbidity from COVID-19, using information from a large data repository. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, patients with upcoming clinic appointments for glaucoma from March 16, 2020, to April 16, 2020, at an academic institution enrolled in the Sight Outcomes Research Collaborative (SOURCE) Ophthalmology Electronic Health Record Data Repository were identified. A risk stratification tool was developed that calculated a glaucoma severity and progression risk score and a COVID-19 morbidity risk score. These scores were summed to determine a total score for each patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total scores and percentages of clinic appointments recommended for rescheduling. Results: Among the 1034 patients with upcoming clinic appointments for glaucoma, the mean (SD) age was 66.7 (14.6) years. There were 575 women (55.6%), 733 White individuals (71%), and 160 Black individuals (15.5%). The mean (SD) glaucoma severity and progression risk score was 4.0 (14.4) points, the mean (SD) COVID-19 morbidity risk score was 27.2 (16.1) points, and the mean (SD) total score was 31.2 (21.4) points. During pandemic-associated reductions in services, using total score thresholds of 0, 25, and 50 points would identify 970 appointments (93.8%), 668 appointments (64.6%), and 275 appointments (26.6%), respectively, for postponement and rescheduling. The algorithm-generated total scores also helped prioritize appointment rescheduling during the ramp-up phase. Conclusions and Relevance: A tool that considers the risk of underlying ophthalmic disease progression from delayed care receipt and the morbidity risk from COVID-19 exposure was developed and implemented, facilitating the triage of upcoming ophthalmic appointments. Comparable approaches for other ophthalmic and nonophthalmic care during the COVID-19 pandemic and similar crises may be created using this methodology.