A Health-Related Quality of Life Measure for Patients Who Undergo Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To develop a standardized patient-reported outcome measure to assess the impact of glaucoma and treatment, including minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS), on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). DESIGN: Observational study before and after concomitant cataract and FDA-approved implantable MIGS device surgery to provide information on the measure's performance in assessing HRQOL. METHODS SETTING: Survey administration was done by electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) application to patients at multiple sites on a computer, iPad, or similar device. PATIENT POPULATION One hundred eighty-four adults completed a baseline survey, 124 completed a survey 3 months after surgery, and 106 completed the 1-month test-retest reliability survey. The age range was 37-89, and the average age was 72. Most of the respondents were female (57%), non-Hispanic White (81%), and had a college degree (56%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Glaucoma Outcomes Survey (GOS) includes 42 questions assessing functional limitations (27 items), vision-related symptoms (7 items), psychosocial issues (7 items) and satisfaction with microinvasive glaucoma surgery (1 item). The three multiple-item scales were scored on a 0-100 range, with a higher score indicating worse health. RESULTS: Internal consistency reliability estimates ranged from 0.75 (vision-related symptoms) to 0.93 (functional limitations) and one-month test-retest intraclass correlations ranged from 0.65 (PROMIS global mental health) to 0.92 (functional limitations). Product-moment correlations among the GOS scales ranged from 0.56 to 0.60. Improvement in visual acuity in the study eye from baseline to the 3-month follow-up was significantly related to improvements in GOS functional limitations (r =0.18, p =0.0485), vision-related symptoms (r = 0.19, p = 0.0386), and psychosocial concerns (r = 0.18, p =0.0503). The highest proportion of responders to treatment was seen for the GOS functional limitations scale (48%), followed by GOS psychosocial issues (21%) and GOS vision-related symptoms (17%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial support for using the GOS instrument in ophthalmic procedures such as MIGS. Further evaluation of the GOS in other samples, including different patient subgroups and clinical settings, will be valuable. The instrument may be useful for evaluations of other treatments for glaucoma.