8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Association Between 24-Hour Intraocular Pressure Monitored With Contact Lens Sensor and Visual Field Progression in Older Adults With Glaucoma

      research-article
      , MD, MPH 1 , , , MD, MPH 2 , 3 , , MD 1 , , MD 4
      JAMA Ophthalmology
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Does a single 24-hour curve with a contact lens sensor that measures intraocular pressure–related patterns correlate with the rates of visual field progression in patients with treated glaucoma?

          Findings

          In a cohort study including 445 patients (445 eyes) with glaucoma, a combination of contact lens sensor–derived variables was associated with prior rates of visual field progression of glaucoma. These variables performed better than Goldmann intraocular pressure measurements taken over follow-up.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that a single 24-hour contact lens sensor session can help in risk stratification of patients with treated glaucoma.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Twenty-four–hour intraocular pressure (IOP) patterns may provide more information regarding rates of visual field progression than office-hour measurements. However, little is known about the added value of 24-hour monitoring when stratifying glaucoma risk based on rates of progression.

          Objective

          To test the hypothesis that 24-hour IOP-related patterns recorded with a contact lens sensor (CLS) correlate with prior rates of visual field progression.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted at 50 ophthalmology care centers in 13 countries. Participants included 445 patients (445 eyes) with treated, manifest open-angle glaucoma. The study was conducted from November 8, 1999, to September 17, 2016.

          Interventions

          Twenty-four–hour recordings of IOP-related patterns were prospectively collected with a CLS system. Retrospective visual field data of patients who underwent at least 3 prior reliable visual field tests were examined.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Association between CLS variables and rates of visual field mean deviation (MD) change.

          Results

          Of the 445 patients included, 238 (53.5%) were women and 394 (88.5%) were white. The mean (SD) age and MD values at the time of CLS recording were 68.9 (11.2) years and −9.0 (7.0) dB. The mean rate of MD change was −0.46 (0.5) dB/y in 5.2 (3) years of follow-up. After adjusting for baseline MD severity, age, and treatment, the following CLS variables were associated with fast visual field progression: mean peak ratio while awake (β = −0.021; 95% CI, −0.04 to −0.003), number of long peaks during sleep (β = 0.036; 95% CI, 0.005 to 0.067), night bursts ocular pulse frequency SD (β = 0.027; 95% CI, 0.004 to 0.051), and night bursts ocular pulse amplitude SD (β = 19.739; 95% CI, 1.333 to 38.145). Regression models including CLS variables had better fit than Goldmann IOP when testing the association with rates of progression.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Results of this study indicate that 24-hour CLS recordings may be associated with prior rates of visual field progression of glaucoma. This association appears to be better than Goldmann mean IOP measured multiple times during office hours. Therefore, the CLS may be useful to assess the risk of future functional loss, even in situations when insufficient historical visual field information is available.

          Abstract

          This cohort study examines the use of 24-hour monitoring of intraocular pressure with a contact lens sensor in assessing risk for change in the visual field of older adult patients with glaucoma.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Twenty-four-hour intraocular pressure pattern associated with early glaucomatous changes.

          To characterize the 24-hour pattern of intraocular pressure (IOP) in untreated patients with newly diagnosed early glaucomatous changes. Measurements of IOP, blood pressure, and heart rate were taken every 2 hours during a 24-hour period from a group of 24 untreated patients (ages 40-78 years) with newly diagnosed abnormal optic discs and/or abnormal visual fields. In the 16-hour diurnal awake period, IOP was measured sitting and supine, and blood pressure and heart rate were measured supine. In the 8-hour nocturnal sleep period, all measurements were taken in the supine position. Mean diurnal and nocturnal IOP, blood pressure, and heart rate in the glaucoma group were compared with data obtained from an age-matched control group of 24 individuals with healthy eyes. Mean diurnal IOP, either sitting or supine, was significantly higher in the glaucoma group than in the control group. For both subject groups, nocturnal supine IOP was higher than diurnal sitting IOP. However, this diurnal-to-nocturnal increase in IOP was significantly smaller in the glaucoma group. When compared with the diurnal supine IOP, the nocturnal supine IOP was lower in the glaucoma group but higher in the control group. Around normal awakening time, the supine IOP increased in the glaucoma group and did not change in the control group. There was a diurnal-to-nocturnal decrease in mean blood pressure only in the glaucoma group. Compared with healthy eyes, the diurnal IOP is higher, the diurnal-to-nocturnal change of habitual IOP is less, and the posture-independent IOP pattern around normal awakening time is different in eyes with early glaucomatous changes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical utility of intraocular pressure monitoring outside of normal office hours in patients with glaucoma.

            To determine whether intraocular pressure (IOP) monitoring outside of normal office hours adds clinically useful information. We reviewed the records of all patients with glaucoma who were admitted for 24-hour IOP monitoring during 3 years. Applanation IOP was recorded in the sitting position from 7 am until midnight and in the supine position at 6 am. Thirty-two patients (22 women and 10 men) were enrolled (mean +/- SD age, 67.3 +/- 12.1 years). Mean +/- SD 24-hour IOP was 13.0 +/- 2.2 mm Hg. Mean +/- SD peak 24-hour IOP (16.8 +/- 3.2 mm Hg) was significantly higher than peak office IOP (14.7 +/- 3.2 mm Hg) (P<.001). Peak IOP was recorded outside of office hours in at least 1 eye in 22 patients (69%). Mean IOP fluctuation during 24-hour monitoring (6.9 +/- 2.9 mm Hg) was significantly greater than that during office hours (3.8 +/- 2.3 mm Hg) (P<.001). Peak 24-hour IOP was higher than the peak IOP noted during previous office visits in 40 eyes (62%). Results of 24-hour IOP monitoring led to immediate treatment change in 23 eyes (36%). In glaucoma patients with advanced disease or progression that are disproportionate to known IOP measurements, 24-hour monitoring of IOP may reveal a greater role for pressure-related risk for glaucoma progression than previously suspected and may alter treatment strategies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Rates of glaucomatous visual field change in a large clinical population.

              To determine the rate of glaucomatous visual field change in routine clinical care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Ophthalmol
                JAMA Ophthalmol
                JAMA Ophthalmol
                JAMA Ophthalmology
                American Medical Association
                2168-6165
                2168-6173
                24 May 2018
                July 2018
                24 May 2019
                : 136
                : 7
                : 779-785
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
                [2 ]Glaucoma Research Center, Montchoisi Clinic, Swiss Vision Network, Lausanne, Switzerland
                [3 ]Department of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado
                [4 ]Einhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai, New York, New York
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Group Information: The Triggerfish Consortium group members are listed at the end of this article.
                Accepted for Publication: March 29, 2018.
                Corresponding Author: Carlos Gustavo De Moraes, MD, MPH, Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Medical Center, 635 W 165th St, PO Box 69, New York, NY 10022 ( cvd2109@ 123456cumc.columbia.edu ).
                Published Online: May 24, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.1746
                Author Contributions: Dr De Moraes had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis
                Study concept and design: All authors.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: De Moraes, Liebmann, Mansouri.
                Drafting of the manuscript: De Moraes.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: De Moraes.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Liebmann.
                Study supervision: All authors.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr De Moraes has received research support from Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, and Topcon Inc. Dr Mansouri has served as a consultant for Sensimed AG. Dr Liebmann has served as a consultant for Sensimed AG, Arie Pharmaceuticals Inc, Alcon Laboratories Inc, Allergan Inc, Bausch & Lomb Inc, Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Forsight Visio5, Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Inotek Pharmaceuticals Inc, Quark Pharmaceuticals Inc, Reichert Inc, and Sustained Nanosystems; has received research support from Heidelberg Engineering GmbH; and is equity owner of Forsight Visio5 and Sustained Nanosystems. Dr Ritch has served as a consultant for Sensimed AG, Aeon Astron Europe, Gerson Lehrman Group, Diopsys Inc, GLIA, and Guardion Health Sciences; is a member of the advisory board for Intelon Optics and iSonic Medical; has received speaker fees from Santen Pharmaceutical; and has received royalties from Ocular Instruments. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: The study was supported by an unrestricted departmental grant from Research to Prevent Blindness (Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University Medical Center).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding organization had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                The Triggerfish Consortium: Tomas Grippo, MD (Argentina); Katrin Lorentz, MD (Germany); Antonio Duch, MD, Maria Jesus Muniesa Royo, MD, Nicola Alejandre, MD, Aitor Lanzagorta, MD, and Fernando Hussa Herrera, MD (Spain); Jean-Philippe Nordmann, MD, Denis Gruber, MD, Philippe Buffière, MD, Muriel Poli, MD, Isabelle Riss, MD, Corinne Dot, MD, and Yves Lachkar, MD (France); Suneeta Dubey, MD, and Shilpa N. Patil, MD (India); Luca Agnifili, MD, Daniela Paoli, MD, Marco Nardi, MD, Francesco Nasini, MD, Stefano Gandolfi, MD, Enzo D’Ambrozio, MD, and Luca Rossetti, MD (Italy); Jemaima Che Hamzah, MD, Geetha Ramakrishnan, MD, Fang Seng Kheong, MD, and Wei Loon, MD (Malaysia); Felix Gil Carasco, MD (Mexico); Jan Askvik, MD, and Albrecht Gerstenberger, MD (Norway); Dorin Chiselita, MD, and Horia Stanca, MD (Romania); and Rohit Sharma, MD, Andrew J Tatham, MD, and Fernando Hussa Herrera, MD (United Kingdom).
                Meeting Presentation: This study was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Glaucoma Society; March 4, 2017; Coronado, California.
                Article
                PMC6136041 PMC6136041 6136041 eoi180035
                10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.1746
                6136041
                29800011
                838cfd87-9ff7-4bd3-822b-11895528b69f
                Copyright 2018 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
                History
                : 12 November 2017
                : 27 March 2018
                : 29 March 2018
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Featured
                Online First

                Comments

                Comment on this article