Listening Sessions to Shape the Innovative NIH ComPASS Common Fund Program to Advance Health Equity.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recognized the need for a research program to address the underlying structural factors that impact health. To inform the development of the NIH Common Fund Community Partnerships to Advance Science for Society (ComPASS) Program, NIH obtained input through community listening sessions. Through its design, ComPASS recognizes the essential role of community organizations as the lead in addressing persistent structural and social challenges to accelerate progress toward advancing health equity. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print April 18, 2024:e1-e5. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307656).

Iridotomy to slow progression of visual field loss in angle-closure glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Primary angle-closure glaucoma is a type of glaucoma associated with a physically obstructed anterior chamber angle. For example, contact between the iris and lens at the pupillary margin creates a pupillary block that increases resistance to aqueous outflow. Obstruction of the anterior chamber angle blocks drainage of fluids (aqueous humor) within the eye and may raise intraocular pressure (IOP). Elevated IOP is associated with glaucomatous optic nerve damage and visual field loss. Laser peripheral iridotomy ('iridotomy') is a procedure to eliminate pupillary block by allowing aqueous humor to pass directly from the posterior to anterior chamber, which is achieved by creating a hole in the iris using laser. Iridotomy is used to treat patients with primary angle-closure glaucoma, patients with primary angle-closure (narrow angles and no signs of glaucomatous optic neuropathy), and patients who are primary angle-closure suspects (patients with reversible obstruction). However, the effectiveness of iridotomy on slowing progression of visual field loss is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of iridotomy compared with no iridotomy for primary angle-closure glaucoma, primary angle-closure, and primary angle-closure suspect. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 10), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; PubMed; LILACS; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the most recent search was 10 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared iridotomy with no iridotomy in primary angle-closure suspects, people with primary angle-closure, or people with primary angle-closure glaucoma in one or both eyes were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology and assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for prespecified outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four studies (3086 eyes of 1543 participants) that compared iridotomy with no iridotomy in participants (range of mean age 59.6 to 62.9 years) who were primary angle-closure suspects from China, Singapore, or the UK. Study investigators randomized one eye of each participant to iridotomy and the other to no iridotomy. Two studies provided long-term (five or more years) results. We judged the certainty of the evidence as moderate to low across the prespecified outcomes, downgrading for high risk of bias (e.g. performance and detection biases) and imprecision of results. Meta-analyses of data from two studies suggest that iridotomy probably results in little to no difference in IOP compared with no iridotomy at one year (mean difference (MD) 0.04 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.24; I2 = 65%; 2598 eyes of 1299 participants; moderate certainty evidence) and five years (MD 0.12 mm Hg, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.35; I2 = 0%; 2016 eyes of 1008 participants), and in best-corrected visual acuity measured as logMAR at one year (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 69%; 2596 eyes of 1298 participants; moderate certainty evidence) and five years (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03; I2 = 0%; 2002 eyes of 1001 participants). In terms of gonioscopic findings, eyes treated with iridotomy likely had wider angles in Shaffer grading scale (MD 4.93 units, 95% CI 4.73 to 5.12; I2 = 59%; 2598 eyes of 1299 participants at one year; MD 5.07, 95% CI 4.78 to 5.36; I2 = 97%; 2016 eyes of 1008 participants at five years; moderate certainty evidence) and experienced fewer peripheral anterior synechiae (PAS) than eyes that received no iridotomy at five years (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67; I2 = 28%; 2 studies, 2738 eyes of 1369 participants), but the evidence was less conclusive at one year (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.54; I2 = 57%; 3 studies, 2896 eyes of 1448 participants; low certainty evidence). No studies reported data on the proportion of participants with progressive visual field loss during follow-up (the primary outcome of this review), mean number of medications to control IOP, or quality of life outcomes. Low certainty evidence suggests that iridotomy may result in little to no difference in the incidence of acute angle-closure (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.20; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3006 eyes of 1503 participants). Other ocular adverse events (e.g. eye pain, dry eye, redness of eyes, and ocular discomfort), although rare, were more common in eyes treated with iridotomy than in eyes in the control group.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find sufficient evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions on the use of iridotomy for the purpose of slowing progression of visual field loss. No study reported on progressive visual field loss, the primary outcome of this review. Although there is moderate certainty evidence that iridotomy results in improved gonioscopic findings, in is unclear if these findings translate to clinically meaningful benefits.

Assessing bidirectional associations between cognitive impairment and late age-related macular degeneration in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate bidirectional associations between cognitive impairment and late age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: Participants in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) received annual eye examinations and cognitive function testing (e.g., Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status [TICS-M]). We examined bidirectional associations between cognitive impairment (e.g., a TICS-M score < 30) and late AMD at 5 and 10 years. RESULTS: Five thousand one hundred eighty-nine eyes (3157 participants; mean age 72.7 years) were analyzed and followed for a median of 10.4 years. Eyes of participants with cognitive impairment at baseline were more likely to progress to late AMD at 5 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.43) and 10 years (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.05-1.37) than eyes of participants without cognitive impairment. Worse baseline AMD severity was not associated with developing cognitive impairment. DISCUSSION: Cognitive impairment is associated with late AMD progression in AREDS2. Our finding highlights the importance of eyecare for people with cognitive impairment.

Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgical Techniques for Open-Angle Glaucoma: An Overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Network Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Glaucoma affects more than 75 million people worldwide. Intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering surgery is an important treatment for this disease. Interest in reducing surgical morbidity has led to the introduction of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS). Understanding the comparative effectiveness and safety of MIGS is necessary for clinicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: To summarize data from randomized clinical trials of MIGS for open-angle glaucoma, which were evaluated in a suite of Cochrane reviews. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews including studies published before June 1, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Reviews of randomized clinical trials comparing MIGS with cataract extraction alone, other MIGS, traditional glaucoma surgery, laser trabeculoplasty, or medical therapy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines by one investigator and confirmed by a second. Methodologic rigor was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 appraisal tool and random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of participants who did not need to use medication to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) postsurgery (drop-free). Outcomes were analyzed at short-term (<6 months), medium-term (6-18 months), and long-term (>18 months) follow-up. RESULTS: Six eligible Cochrane reviews were identified discussing trabecular bypass with iStent or Hydrus microstents, ab interno trabeculotomy with Trabectome, subconjunctival and supraciliary drainage devices, and endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation. Moderate certainty evidence indicated that adding a Hydrus safely improved the likelihood of drop-free glaucoma control at medium-term (relative risk [RR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.8) and long-term (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9) follow-up and conferred 2.0-mm Hg (95% CI, -2.7 to -1.3 mm Hg) greater IOP reduction at long-term follow-up, compared with cataract surgery alone. Adding an iStent also safely improved drop-free disease control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.6), but the short-term IOP-lowering effect of the iStent was not sustained. Addition of a CyPass microstent improved drop-free glaucoma control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5) but was associated with an increased risk of vraision loss. Network meta-analyses supported the direction and magnitude of these results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Based on data synthesized in Cochrane reviews, some MIGS may afford patients with glaucoma greater drop-free disease control than cataract surgery alone. Among the products currently available, randomized clinical trial data associate the Hydrus with greater drop-free glaucoma control and IOP lowering than the iStent; however, these effect sizes were small.

Priorities and Treatment Preferences among Surgery-Naive Patients with Moderate to Severe Open-Angle Glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To explore patients' perspectives and experiences living with moderate to severe glaucoma through qualitative, semistructured interviews and to identify important benefits and risks that patients consider when choosing glaucoma treatments. DESIGN: Semistructured, in-person qualitative interviews with a convenience sample of patients seen at the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute. PARTICIPANTS: Surgery-naive patients 21 years of age or older with moderate to severe open-angle glaucoma seeking treatment at the Wilmer Eye Institute's Glaucoma Center of Excellence between August and December 2018. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with patients diagnosed with moderate to severe open-angle glaucoma, focusing on outcomes they prioritize when considering various treatment options. We used Atlas.ti software version 7.5.12 (Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany) to process interview transcripts and the framework approach to analyze the qualitative data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' descriptions of outcomes important to them in management of moderate to severe open-angle glaucoma. RESULTS: Thirteen men and 15 women with a median age 67 years participated in the study. Compared with the mild-to-moderate glaucoma patients interviewed previously, these participants similarly emphasized (1) activities of daily living, (2) visual symptoms, (3) treatment burden, and (4) intraocular pressure (IOP) control, but unlike patients with milder disease, most related IOP control directly to (5) avoiding disease progression. Almost all (27/28) had also given significant thought to (6) surgical decision making and could describe how they would decide for or against a particular procedure. Finally, two thirds (18/28) expressed (7) significant fear and worry related to their glaucoma diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: We identified outcomes that matter to patients who are undergoing treatment for moderate to severe glaucoma, many of which may serve as end points in clinical trials, such as functional independence in vision-dependent activities of daily living, avoidance of visual symptoms, and disease progression via maintenance of IOP control. We also observed that these patients have varied and nuanced perspectives on surgical management and its outcomes. It behooves providers and trial designers to consider these in future evaluations of new treatments for moderate to severe glaucoma.

Tea tree oil for Demodex blepharitis.

BACKGROUND: Demodex blepharitis is a chronic condition commonly associated with recalcitrant dry eye symptoms though many people with Demodex mites are asymptomatic. The primary cause of this condition in humans is two types of Demodex mites: Demodex folliculorum and Demodex brevis. There are varying reports of the prevalence of Demodex blepharitis among adults, and it affects both men and women equally. While Demodex mites are commonly treated with tea tree oil, the effectiveness of tea tree oil for treating Demodex blepharitis is not well documented. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of tea tree oil on ocular Demodex infestation in people with Demodex blepharitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; LILACS; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the databases on 18 June 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with tea tree oil (or its components) versus another treatment or no treatment for people with Demodex blepharitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts and then full text of records to determine their eligibility. The review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Covidence. A third review author resolved any conflicts at all stages. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (1124 eyes of 562 participants; 17 to 281 participants per study) from the US, Korea, China, Australia, Ireland, and Turkey. The RCTs compared some formulation of tea tree oil to another treatment or no treatment. Included participants were both men and women, ranging from 39 to 55 years of age. All RCTs were assessed at unclear or high risk of bias in one or more domains. We also identified two RCTs that are ongoing or awaiting publications. Data from three RCTs that reported a short-term mean change in the number of Demodex mites per eight eyelashes contributed to a meta-analysis. We are uncertain about the mean reduction for the groups that received the tea tree oil intervention (mean difference [MD] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24 to 1.16) at four to six weeks as compared to other interventions. Only one RCT reported data for long-term changes, which found that the group that received intense pulse light as the treatment had complete eradication of Demodex mites at three months. We graded the certainty of the evidence for this outcome as very low. Three RCTs reported no evidence of a difference for participant reported symptoms measured on the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) between the tea tree oil group and the group receiving other forms of intervention. Mean differences in these studies ranged from -10.54 (95% CI - 24.19, 3.11) to 3.40 (95% CI -0.70 7.50). We did not conduct a meta-analysis for this outcome given substantial statistical heterogeneity and graded the certainty of the evidence as low. One RCT provided information concerning visual acuity but did not provide sufficient data for between-group comparisons. The authors noted that mean habitual LogMAR visual acuity for all study participants improved post-treatment (mean LogMAR 1.16, standard deviation 0.26 at 4 weeks). We graded the certainty of evidence for this outcome as low. No RCTs provided data on mean change in number of cylindrical dandruff or the proportion of participants experiencing conjunctival injection or experiencing meibomian gland dysfunction. Three RCTs provided information on adverse events. One reported no adverse events. The other two described a total of six participants randomized to treatment with tea tree oil who experienced ocular irritation or discomfort that resolved with re-educating the patient on application techniques and continuing use of the tea tree oil. We graded the certainty of the evidence for this outcome as very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review suggests that there is uncertainty related to the effectiveness of 5% to 50% tea tree oil for the short-term treatment of Demodex blepharitis; however, if used, lower concentrations may be preferable in the eye care arena to avoid induced ocular irritation. Future studies should be better controlled, assess outcomes at long term (e.g. 10 to 12 weeks or beyond), account for patient compliance, and study the effects of different tea tree oil concentrations.

Glycemic control and diabetic foot ulcer outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between glycemic control (hemoglobin A1C, fasting glucose, and random glucose) and the outcomes of wound healing and lower extremity amputation (LEA) among patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched for observational studies published up to March 2019. Five independent reviewers assessed in duplicate the eligibility of each study based on predefined eligibility criteria and two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias. Ameta-analysis was performed to calculate a pooled odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) using random effects for glycemic measures in relation to the outcomes of wound healing and LEA. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore potential source of heterogeneity between studies. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018096842). RESULTS: Of 4572 study records screened, 60 observational studies met the study eligibility criteria of which 47 studies had appropriate data for inclusion in one or more meta-analyses(n = 12,604 DFUs). For cohort studies comparing A1C >7.0 to 7.5% vs. lower A1C levels, the pooled OR for LEA was 2.04 (95% CI, 0.91, 4.57) and for studies comparing A1C ≥ 8% vs. <8%, the pooled OR for LEA was 4.80 (95% CI 2.83, 8.13). For cohort studies comparing fasting glucose ≥126 vs. <126 mg/dl, the pooled OR for LEA was 1.46 (95% CI, 1.02, 2.09). There was no association with A1C category and wound healing (OR or HR). There was high risk of bias with respect to comparability of cohorts as many studies did not adjust for potential confounders in the association between glycemic control and DFU outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that A1C levels ≥8% and fasting glucose levels ≥126 mg/dl are associated with increased likelihood of LEA in patients with DFUs. A purposively designed prospective study is needed to better understand the mechanisms underlying the association between hyperglycemia and LEA.

Adjudication rather than experience of data abstraction matters more in reducing errors in abstracting data in systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: During systematic reviews, "data abstraction" refers to the process of collecting data from reports of studies. The data abstractors' level of experience may affect the accuracy of data abstracted. Using data from a randomized crossover trial in which different data abstraction approaches were compared, we examined the association between abstractors' level of experience and accuracy of data abstraction. METHODS: We classified abstractors as "more experienced" if they had authored three or more published systematic reviews, and "less experienced" otherwise. Each abstractor abstracted data related to study design, baseline characteristics, and outcomes/results from six articles. We considered two types of errors: incorrect abstraction and errors of omission. We estimated the proportion of errors by level of experience using a binomial generalized linear mixed model. RESULTS: We used data from 25 less experienced and 25 more experienced data abstractors. Overall error proportions were similar for less experienced abstractors (21%) and more experienced abstractors (19%). Compared with less experienced abstractors, more experienced abstractors had a lower odds of errors for data items related to outcomes/results (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.82) and potentially for data items related to study design (adjusted OR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64-1.09) but a potentially higher odds of errors for items related to baseline characteristics (adjusted OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 0.97-2.06). CONCLUSION: Experience of data abstraction matters little. Errors are reduced by adjudication but still remain high for data items related to outcomes/results.

Patient-reported outcomes measures and patient preferences for minimally invasive glaucoma surgical devices.

BACKGROUND: Many therapeutic options are available to glaucoma patients. One recent therapeutic option is minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) devices. It is unclear how patients view different treatments and which patient-reported outcomes would be most relevant in patients with mild to moderate glaucoma. We developed a questionnaire for patients eligible for MIGS devices and a patient preference study to examine the value patients place on certain outcomes associated with glaucoma and its therapies. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the progress to date. METHODS: Questionnaire development: We drafted the questionnaire items based on input from one physician and four patient focus groups, and a review of the literature. We tested item clarity with six cognitive interviews. These items were further refined. Patient preference study: We identified important benefit and risk outcomes qualitatively using semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with patients who were eligible for MIGS devices. We then prioritized these outcomes quantitatively using best-worst scaling methods. RESULTS: Questionnaire testing: Three concepts were deemed relevant for the questionnaire: functional limitations, symptoms, and psychosocial factors. We will evaluate the reliability and validity of the 52-item draft questionnaire in an upcoming field test. Patient preference study: We identified 13 outcomes that participants perceived as important. Outcomes with the largest relative importance weights were "adequate IOP control" and "drive a car during the day." CONCLUSIONS: Patients have the potential to steer clinical research towards outcomes that are important to them. Incorporating patients' perspectives into the MIGS device development and evaluation process may expedite innovation and availability of these devices.

Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Interventions for Retina and Vitreous Conditions.

Importance: Patient care and clinical practice guidelines should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The reliability of systematic reviews related to forthcoming guidelines for retina and vitreous conditions is unknown. Objectives: To summarize the reliability of systematic reviews on interventions for 7 retina and vitreous conditions, describe characteristics of reliable and unreliable systematic reviews, and examine the primary area in which they appeared to be lacking. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews was conducted. Systematic reviews of interventions for retina- and vitreous-related conditions in a database maintained by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite were identified. Databases that the reviewers searched, whether any date or language restrictions were applied, and bibliographic information, such as year and journal of publication, were documented. The initial search was conducted in March 2007, and the final update was performed in July 2018. The conditions of interest were age-related macular degeneration; diabetic retinopathy; idiopathic epiretinal membrane and vitreomacular traction; idiopathic macular hole; posterior vitreous detachment, retinal breaks, and lattice degeneration; retinal and ophthalmic artery occlusions; and retinal vein occlusions. The reliability of each review was evaluated using prespecified criteria. Data were extracted by 2 research assistants working independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion or by 1 research assistant with verification by a senior team member. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of reviews that meet all of the following criteria: (1) defined eligibility criteria for study selection, (2) described conducting a comprehensive literature search, (3) reported assessing risk of bias in included studies, (4) described using appropriate methods for any meta-analysis performed, and (5) provided conclusions consistent with review findings. Results: A total of 327 systematic reviews that addressed retina and vitreous conditions were identified; of these, 131 reviews (40.1%) were classified as reliable and 196 reviews (59.9%) were classified as not reliable. At least 1 reliable review was found for each of the 7 retina and vitreous conditions. The most common reason that a review was classified as not reliable was lack of evidence that a comprehensive literature search for relevant studies had been conducted (149 of 196 reviews [76.0%]). Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that most systematic reviews that addressed interventions for retina and vitreous conditions were not reliable. Systematic review teams and guideline developers should work with information professionals who can help navigate sophisticated and varied syntaxes required to search different resources.

Outcome Specification in a Sample of Publicly Funded Eye and Vision Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

IMPORTANCE: For findings from clinical trials to be actionable, outcomes measured in trials must be fully defined and, when appropriate, defined consistently across trials. Otherwise, it is difficult to compare findings between trials, combine results in meta-analyses, or leverage findings collectively to inform health care decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize outcomes specified in ClinicalTrials.gov records for publicly funded clinical trials for 3 high-burden, high-prevalence eye conditions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: ClinicalTrials.gov, a registry of publicly and privately supported clinical studies, was searched on January 31, 2019, for records of clinical trials for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), dry eye, or refractive error. The search was limited to trials funded by the National Eye Institute but did not impose a date restriction. Five elements of a well-specified outcome were extracted from each outcome stated in each record, including the domain, method of measurement, metric, method of aggregation, and time points. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Number of outcome domains specified for trials for AMD, dry eye, and refractive error and the number of trial records specifying each unique domain. RESULTS: A total of 49 unique outcome domains specified across 39 records of trials were identified. The median (interquartile range) number of records specifying each unique outcome domain was 1 (1-3), 1.5 (1-2), and 1 (1-1) for AMD, dry eye, and refractive error, respectively. Even when the same domains were registered across multiple trials, the time point, specific metric, and method of aggregation were specified in multiple ways. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There were too many outcomes with too little overlap in the sample of trials that were examined. Differences in how outcomes are measured across trials make it difficult to compare results, even for well-established domains, such as visual acuity. To reduce this waste in eye and vision research, the time is ripe for agreeing on what outcomes to measure.

Ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with iStent for open-angle glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. In early stages, glaucoma results in progressive loss of peripheral (side) vision; in later stages, it results in loss of central vision leading to blindness. Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) is the only known modifiable risk factor for glaucoma. Minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) techniques, such as ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with iStent (Glaukos Corporation, Laguna Hills, CA, USA), have been introduced as a new treatment modality for glaucoma. However, the effectiveness of MIGS on keeping people 'drop-free' (i.e. not having to use eye drops to control IOP) and other outcomes is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of ab interno trabecular bypass surgery with iStent (or iStent inject) for open-angle glaucoma in comparison to conventional medical, laser, or surgical treatment. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Eyes and Vision's Information Specialist searched the following databases on 17 August 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2018, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, the ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We applied no date or language restrictions. We searched the reference lists of reports from included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had compared iStent or iStent inject to medical therapy, laser treatment, conventional glaucoma surgery (trabeculectomy), or other MIGS procedures. We included RCTs that had compared iStent or iStent inject in combination with phacoemulsification to phacoemulsification alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened search results, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data from reports of included RCTs using an electronic data collection form. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs (765 eyes of 764 participants; range per study 33 to 239 participants) that evaluated iStent in people with open-angle glaucoma. We also identified 13 studies that are ongoing or awaiting publications of results. Most participants in the included studies were women (417/764 (55%) participants) and older age (age range: 49 to 89 years). We assessed most trials at unclear or high risk of bias: four trials did not clearly report the method of generating the random sequence or concealing allocation; five were unmasked, open-label studies, which we assessed at high risk of bias for performance and detection bias. All seven trials were funded by the Glaukos Corporation. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low.Four RCTs compared iStent in combination with phacoemulsification to phacoemulsification alone. The summary estimate which we derived from two of the four RCTs suggested that participants in the iStent in combination with phacoemulsification group were 1.38 times more likely to be drop-free between six and 18 months than those in the phacoemulsification alone group (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 1.63, I2 = 67%). Data from two RCTs also suggested that iStent in combination with phacoemulsification compared to phacoemulsification alone may have offered a small reduction in number of IOP-lowering drops (mean difference (MD) -0.42 drops, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.23). It is uncertain whether there was any difference in terms of mean reduction in IOP from baseline (no meta-analysis).Two RCTs compared treatment with iStent to medical therapy; one of the two trials used the iStent inject. We determined the two trials to be clinically and methodologically heterogeneous and did not conduct a meta-analysis; however, the investigators of both trials reported that over 90% of participants in the treatment groups were drop-free compared to no participants in the medical therapy groups at six to 18 months.One RCT compared treatment with one versus two versus three iStents. There was no difference in terms of participants who were drop-free at 36 months or less; however, at longer follow-up (i.e. at 42 months) participants in the one iStent treatment were less likely to be drop-free than those in the two iStent (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.75) or three iStent (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.73) treatment groups. The study did not report the mean change in number of IOP-lowering drops.The type and timing of complications reported varied by RCTs. Similar proportions of participants who underwent treatment with iStent in combination with phacoemulsification and who underwent phacoemulsification alone needed secondary glaucoma surgery. None of RCTs reported findings related to quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low-quality evidence that treatment with iStent may result in higher proportions of participants who are drop-free or achieving better IOP control, in the short, medium, or long-term. Results from the 13 studies with results not yet available may clarify the benefits of treatment of people with iStent. Additionally, future MIGS studies should consider measuring quality of life and outcomes that reflect people's ability to perform vision-dependent activities.

Prioritizing outcome preferences in patients with ocular hypertension and open-angle glaucoma using best-worst scaling.

Purpose: To quantify patients' preferences for glaucoma outcomes and use this information to prioritize outcomes that are important to patients. Design: A cross-sectional study using best-worst scaling object case (BWS). Participants: Two hundred seventy-four participants newly diagnosed with ocular hypertension or mild to moderate open angle glaucoma from three private practices and one academic medical center in the United States. Methods: We designed a preference-elicitation survey based on findings from 25 semi-structured, qualitative interviews with patients with glaucoma (reported elsewhere). The survey asked participants to rate the importance of 13 glaucoma outcomes on a Likert scale as a warm-up exercise followed by completion of 13 BWS tasks. For each task, we presented participants a subset of four outcomes from the possible thirteen, and participants chose the most important and least important outcome. Outcomes included in the survey pertain to maintaining ability to perform vision-dependent activities of daily living (e.g., driving), maintaining visual function and perception (e.g., depth perception), minimizing need to take glaucoma drops, not experiencing ocular surface symptoms (e.g., red eyes, teary eyes), and having adequate control of intraocular pressure (IOP). We administered the survey online and analyzed response patterns using conditional logistic regression to determine the relative importance of different outcomes. Main outcome: Ordinal ranking of glaucoma outcomes based on preference weights. Results: Between September 1, 2017 and February 28, 2018, we invited 1035 patients to complete our survey, among whom 274 (26%) responded. Most participants were older than 65 years of age (146/274, 53%) and currently on IOP-lowering drops (179/274, 65%). Participants identified that outcomes with the largest relative importance weight were having "adequate IOP control" and ability to "drive a car during the day," and the outcomes with the smallest relative importance weights were "maintaining appearance of the eye" and "reducing the number of IOP-lowering drops". Conclusions: Determining the relative importance of glaucoma outcomes to patients can help researchers design studies that may better inform clinical and regulatory decision-making. Although IOP is an outcome that researchers often measure in glaucoma clinical trials, patients also prioritized outcomes related to the ability to perform vision-dependent activities such as driving.

Identifying outcomes that are important to patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma: a qualitative interview study.

Purpose: To explore patients' perspectives and experiences living with glaucoma and identify important benefits and risks that patients consider before electing for new glaucoma treatments, such as minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) devices. Design: Semi-structured, in-person qualitative interviews with patients seen at the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute. Participants: Adults older than 21 years of age who were suspected or diagnosed with ocular hypertension or mild to moderate primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) (and thus eligible for treatment with a MIGS procedure) presenting to a glaucoma clinic in Baltimore, Maryland, between May and December 2016. Method: We conducted in-person interviews with patients recently diagnosed with ocular hypertension or POAG. We focused on considerations patients take into account when deciding between different treatments. We used the framework approach to code and analyze the qualitative data. Considerations of special interest to us were those that can be translated into outcomes (or endpoints) in clinical trials. Main outcome measures: Patients' perspectives concerning outcomes that matter to them when managing ocular hypertension or POAG. Results: Ten male and fifteen female patients participated in our study. The median participant age was 69 years (range 47 - 82 years). We identified outcomes that patients expressed as important, which we grouped into four thematic categories: (1) limitations in performing specific vision-dependent activities of daily living; (2) problems with general visual function or perceptions; (3) treatment burden, including ocular adverse events; and (4) intraocular pressure (IOP). All 25 participants expressed some concerns with their ability to perform vision-dependent activities, such as reading and driving. Most (23/25) participants had an opinion about IOP, and among those currently taking ocular hypotensive eye drops, all recognized the relationship between eye drops and IOP. Conclusion: We have identified outcomes that matter to patients who are deciding between different treatments for ocular hypertension and POAG, such as the ability to drive or maintain mobility outside the home. These outcomes will be important in future evaluations of new treatments for glaucoma.