Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, California.
Hamilton Glaucoma Center, Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, California.
Ophthalmology. 2014 Jan;121(1):100-109. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.06.026. Epub 2013 Aug 12.
To evaluate the validity of using progressive loss of neuroretinal rim area as a surrogate end point for the development of visual field loss in glaucoma.
Prospective, observational cohort study.
The study group included 492 eyes of 328 patients classified with suspected glaucoma at the baseline visit. These eyes had an average of 7.4±2.8 confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (CSLO) images during a mean follow-up time of 6.6±1.6 years.
Rim area measurements were acquired with CSLO during follow-up. The visual field end point was considered the development of 3 consecutive abnormal visual fields on standard automated perimetry. Strong predictive ability and large proportion of treatment effect (PTE) explained are requisites for a suitable surrogate end point. A joint longitudinal survival model was used to evaluate the ability of rates of rim area loss in predicting visual field development, adjusting for confounding variables (baseline age, race, and corneal thickness and follow-up measurements of intraocular pressure [IOP] and pattern standard deviation). The PTE was calculated by comparing the effect of IOP on the risk of development of visual field loss when incorporating rim area loss in the same model with the effect of IOP in the model excluding rim area measurements.
Predictive strength was measured by survival-adapted R(2) and PTE.
Sixty-two of 492 eyes (13%) developed visual field loss during follow-up. The mean rate of rim area change in eyes that developed visual field loss was -0.011 mm(2)/year versus -0.003 mm(2)/year in eyes that did not (P<0.001). In the multivariable model, each 0.01 mm(2)/year faster rate of rim area loss was associated with a 2.94 higher risk of visual field loss (hazard ratio, 2.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-6.23; P = 0.005). R(2) values were 62% and 81% for univariable and multivariable models, respectively. The PTE was 65%.
Progressive rim area loss was highly predictive of the development of visual field loss in glaucoma and explained a significant PTE on the clinically relevant outcome. These findings suggest that rim area measurements may be suitable surrogate end points in glaucoma clinical trials.
评估神经视网膜边缘区域进行性丧失作为青光眼视野丧失发展的替代终点的有效性。
前瞻性观察队列研究。
研究组包括 328 名患者的 492 只眼,这些患者在基线检查时被诊断为疑似青光眼。这些眼睛在平均 6.6±1.6 年的随访期间平均有 7.4±2.8 张共焦扫描激光检眼镜(CSLO)图像。
在随访期间使用 CSLO 进行边缘区域测量。视野终点被认为是标准自动视野计上连续出现 3 个异常视野。对于合适的替代终点,需要具有较强的预测能力和较大的治疗效果(PTE)解释比例。使用联合纵向生存模型评估边缘区域丧失率预测视野发展的能力,同时调整混杂变量(基线年龄、种族和角膜厚度以及随访期间眼压[IOP]和模式标准差的测量值)。通过比较将边缘区域损失纳入同一模型时 IOP 对发展视野损失风险的影响与排除边缘区域测量时 IOP 的影响,计算 PTE。
预测强度通过生存适应的 R(2)和 PTE 来衡量。
在随访期间,492 只眼中有 62 只(13%)发生了视野丧失。发生视野丧失的眼睛的平均边缘区域变化率为-0.011mm(2)/年,而未发生视野丧失的眼睛为-0.003mm(2)/年(P<0.001)。在多变量模型中,边缘区域损失每增加 0.01mm(2)/年,视野丧失的风险就会增加 2.94 倍(风险比,2.94;95%置信区间,1.38-6.23;P=0.005)。单变量和多变量模型的 R(2)值分别为 62%和 81%。PTE 为 65%。
进行性边缘区域损失高度预测青光眼视野丧失的发展,并对临床相关结局有显著的 PTE 解释。这些发现表明,边缘区域测量可能是青光眼临床试验中的合适替代终点。