Prediction of Development of Glaucoma in Ocular Hypertensive Patients
This multivariate analysis study was designed to identify parameters to predict which ocular hypertensive (OHT) patients will remain OHT during follow-up and which will develop glaucoma. Material included 96 OHT patients aged 25–75 (mean 57) years. All had a minimum of 5 years (mean 9 + /-2.5, range 5–15) follow-up during which their optic discs were photographed at least three times. The patients were divided into two groups randomly. The best identifying combination of variables was determined in group 1. The model was then tested in group 2.
Variables available at the beginning of the follow-up yielded good specificity but poor sensitivity. The factors best separating stable OHT patients from the ones who developed glaucoma in group 1 were:
In group 2 this model correctly classified 81% of the patients with 72% sensitivity and 87% specificity. Intraocular pressure (IOP) variables, retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) score and peripapillary atrophy (PPA) were poor predictors.
Information obtainable at the patients first visit does not seem to be sensitive enough. Inclusion of variables obtainable during a relatively short period of follow-up will increase predictive power of the model considerably.
KeywordsPeri Glaucoma Tudy
Airaksinen PJ, Drance SM, Schulzer M (1985) Neuroretinal rim area in early glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 99:1–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
Airaksinen PJ, Juvala PA, Tuulonen A, Alanko HI, Valkonen R, Tuohino A (1987) Change of peripapillary atrophy in glaucoma. In: Krieglstein GK (ed) Glaucoma Update III. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson DR (1983) Correlation of the peripapillary anatomy with the disc damage and field abnormalities in glaucoma. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 35:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson DR (1989) Glaucoma: The damage caused by pressure XLVI Edward Jackson Memorial Lecture. Am J Ophthalmol 108:485–495PubMedGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson B (1981) The prevalence of glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 65:46–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drance SM, Schulzer M, Douglas GR et al (1978) Use of discriminant analysis: II. Identification of persons with glaucomatous visual field defects. Arch Ophthalmol 96:1571–1573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drance SM, Lakowski R, Schulzer M et al (1981a) Acquired color vision changes in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 99:829–831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drance SM, Schulzer M, Thomas B, Douglas GR (1981b) Multivariate analysis in glaucoma. Use of discriminant analysis in predicting glaucomatous visual field damage. Arch Ophthalmol 99: 1019–1022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddy DM, Sanders LE, Eddy JF (1983) The value of screening for glaucoma with tonometry. Surv Ophthalmol 28:194–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart WM, Yablonski M, Kass MA et al (1979) Multivariate analysis of risk of glaucomatous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmol 97: 1455–1458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heijl A, Samander C (1985) Peripapillary atrophy and glaucomatous visual field defects. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 42:403–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonas JB, Naumann GOH (1988) Die parapapilläre Region in Normal- und Glaukomaugen. II. Korrelation der planimetrischen Befunde zu intrapapillären, perimetrischen und allgemeinen Daten. Klin Mbl Augenheilk 191:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juvala PA, Airaksinen PJ, Alanko HI, Tuulonen AE, Valkonen RT (1987) Change in rim area of the optic nerve in ocular hypertensives and patients with glaucoma. Chibret International Journal of Ophthalmology 5:36–40Google Scholar
Kitazawa Y, Horie T, Aoki S, Suzuki M, Nishioka K (1977) Untreated ocular hypertension. A long-term prospective study. Arch Ophthalmol 95: 1180–1184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagin P, Schwartz B, Nanba K (1985) The reproducibility of computerized boundary analysis for measuring optic disc pallor in the normal optic disc. Ophthalmology 92:243–251PubMedGoogle Scholar
Tuulonen A, Airaksinen PJ (1991) First glaucomatous optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer abnormalities and the mode of their progression. (Submitted for publication)Google Scholar
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991