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

Cost-effectiveness of Prophylactic Laser Peripheral Iridotomy in Primary Angle-Closure Suspects

PURPOSE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of prophylactic laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) in primary angle-closure (PAC) suspects (PACSs).

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis utilizing Markov models.

SUBJECTS

Patients with narrow angles (PACSs).

METHODS

Progression from PACSs through 4 states (PAC, PAC glaucoma, blindness, and death) was simulated using Markov cycles. The cohort entered at 50 years and received either LPI or no treatment. Transition probabilities were calculated from published models, and risk reduction of LPI was calculated from the Zhongshan Angle Closure Prevention trial. We estimated costs of Medicare rates, and previously published utility values were used to calculate quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Incremental CE ratios (ICER) were evaluated at $50 000. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) addressed uncertainty.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Total cost, QALY, and ICER.

RESULTS

Over 2 years, the ICER for the LPI cohort was > $50 000. At 6 years, the LPI cohort was less expensive with more accrued QALY. In PSA, the LPI arm was cost-effective in 24.65% of iterations over 2 years and 92.69% over 6 years. The most sensitive parameters were probability of progressing to PAC and cost and number of annual office visits.

CONCLUSIONS

By 6 years, prophylactic LPI was cost-effective. The rate of progressing to PAC and differing practice patterns most impacted CE. With uncertainty of management of narrow angles, cost may be a decision management tool for providers.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

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.

Laser peripheral iridoplasty for chronic angle closure

BACKGROUND

In at least a third of primary angle closure cases, appositional angle closure persists after laser peripheral iridotomy, and further intervention may be considered. Laser peripheral iridoplasty (LPIp) can be used in treating chronic angle closure when angle closure persists after laser peripheral iridotomy. Previous reviews have found insufficient data to determine its clinical effectiveness, compared to other interventions. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and updated in 2012. It examines all studies to date to establish whether LPIp shows any effectiveness over other available treatment options.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of laser peripheral iridoplasty in the treatment of people with chronic angle closure, when compared to laser peripheral iridotomy, medical therapy or no further treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched various electronic databases. The date of the search was 20 December 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the use of LPIp in cases of suspected primary angle closure (PACS), confirmed primary angle closure (PAC), or primary chronic angle-closure glaucoma (PACG). We applied no restrictions with respect to gender, age or ethnicity of participants. Trials evaluating LPIp for acute attacks of angle closure were not eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently assessed studies for risk of bias using Cochrane's 'risk of bias' tool. We collected adverse effects information from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs involving 252 participants (276 eyes). In total, three different methods of intervention were used and 15 outcomes reported, with different time points. We used narrative synthesis to describe the majority of the findings, as meta-analysis was only possible for a limited number of outcomes due to the variation in study design and outcomes assessed. Study Characteristics Participants were adults recruited from outpatient settings in the UK, Singapore, China and Korea with either PACS, PAC or PACG. All studies compared argon LPIp (as either a primary or secondary procedure) to an alternative intervention or no further treatment. Three studies were of parallel group design, and one within-person, randomised by eye. All studies showed elements of high risk of bias. Due to the nature of the intervention assessed, a lack of masking of both participants and assessors was noted in all trials. Findings Laser peripheral iridoplasty with iridotomy versus iridotomy alone as a primary procedure Two RCTs assessed the use of argon LPIp as a primary procedure with peripheral iridotomy, compared with peripheral iridotomy alone. However, neither study reported data for the primary outcome, disease progression. Argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect on: final mean intraocular pressure (IOP) at 3 months and 12 months (mean difference (MD) 0.39 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.07 to 1.85; I² = 38%; 2 studies, 174 participants; low-certainty evidence); further surgical or laser intervention at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.21; 1 study, 126 participants; low-certainty evidence); or mean number of additional medications required at 12 months (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.54; 1 study, 126 participants; low-certainty evidence). Complications were assessed at 3 to 12 months (2 studies, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence) and found to be mild and uncommon, with comparable levels between groups. The only severe complication encountered was one case of malignant glaucoma in one study's argon LPIp group. Quality of life measures were not assessed. In the other study, investigators found that argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect on final mean anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) measurements, including anterior chamber depth (MD 0.00 mm, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10; 24 participants, 48 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). Laser peripheral iridoplasty as a secondary procedure versus no treatment One RCT assessed the use of argon LPIp as a secondary procedure compared with no further treatment in 22 participants over three months. Disease progression, additional medications required, complications, further surgical or laser intervention, and quality of life outcomes were not assessed. There was only very low-certainty evidence regarding final maximum IOP value (MD -1.81 mmHg, 95% CI -3.11 to -0.51; very low-certainty evidence), with no evidence of effect on final minimum IOP values (MD -0.31 mmHg, 95% CI -1.93 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of argon LPIp on AS-OCT parameters. The trial did not report AS-OCT measurements for the control group. Laser peripheral iridoplasty as a secondary procedure versus medication One RCT assessed the use of argon LPIp as a secondary procedure compared with travoprost 0.004% in 80 participants over 12 months. The primary outcome of disease progression was reported for this method: argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect on mean final cup/disk ratio (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.05; low-certainty evidence). Argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect for: mean change in IOP (MD -1.20 mmHg, 95% CI -2.87 to 0.47; low-certainty evidence) or mean number of additional medications (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.61; low-certainty evidence). Further surgical intervention was required by one participant in the intervention group alone, with none in the control group  (low-certainty evidence). No serious adverse events were reported, with mild complications consisting of two cases of 'post-laser IOP spike' in the argon LPIp group. Quality of life measures were not assessed. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of argon LPIp on AS-OCT parameters. The trial did not report AS-OCT measurements for the control group. Adverse events Availability of data were limited for adverse effects. Similar rates were observed in control and intervention groups, where reported. Serious adverse events were rare.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

After reviewing the outcomes of four RCTs, argon LPIp as an intervention may be no more clinically effective than comparators in the management of people with chronic angle closure. Despite a potential positive impact on anterior chamber morphology, its use in clinical practice in treating people with chronic angle closure is not supported by the results of trials published to date. Given these results, further research into LPIp is unlikely to be worthwhile.

Predictors of narrow angle detection rate-a longitudinal study of Massachusetts residents over 1.7 million person years

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

To determine the predictors of narrow angle detection in a United States population-based cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using the Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database. Demographic information of all patients and eye care provider information during the years 2011-2015 were extracted from Massachusetts All Payers Claims Data. All payers who received eye care during 1/1/2012-12/31/2015 without any previous eye visit during 2011 were included in the analyses. Laser peripheral iridotomy was identified by Current Procedural Terminology code 66761. Narrow angle detection was defined as the diagnosis of narrow angles by diagnosis code followed by a laser peripheral iridotomy procedure. Different predictors of narrow angle detection were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves with the log rank and Cox regression modeling.

RESULTS

A total of 1,082,144 patients were included. The hazard ratio of narrow angle detection increased with age compared to the reference group of 0-10 years: 21-30 years of age (hazard ratio = 4.5), 31-40 (10.5), 41-50 (27.9), 51-60 (46.1), 61-70 (68.4), 71-80 (56.8) (all p < 0.0002), was 1.47 times higher in women and 1.85 times higher if evaluated by ophthalmologists compared to optometrists, after controlling for provider × time interaction.

CONCLUSION

Older age and female sex are associated with narrow angles. The rate of narrow angle detection was significantly higher if patients are seen by ophthalmologists compared to optometrists only. Evaluation with an ophthalmologist may be important for patients at high risks for developing primary angle closure glaucoma.

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.

Vagal Nerve Stimulation Attenuates Ischemia-Reperfusion Induced Retina Dysfunction in Acute Ocular Hypertension

Purpose: The present study aimed to investigate whether cervical vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) could prevent retinal ganglion cell (RGC) loss and retinal dysfunction after ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury.

Methods: First, rats were randomly divided into sham group (n = 4) and VNS group (n = 12). Activation of the nodose ganglia (NOG), nucleus of the solitary tract (NTS), superior salivatory nucleus (SSN), and pterygopalatine ganglion (PPG) neural circuit were evaluated by c-fos expression at 0 h after sham VNS and at 0 h (n = 4), 6 h (n = 4), 72 h (n = 4) after VNS. Secondly, rats were randomly assigned to I/R group (pressure-induced retinal ischemia for 1 h and reperfusion for 1 h in the right eye, n = 16) and I/R+VNS group (right cervical VNS for 2 h during the I/R period, n = 16). The left eye of each rat served as a control. Electroretinogram (ERG), RGC numbers, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP) levels in retina were determined. Additionally, the level of VIP in PPG was evaluated.

Results: In the first part of the study, compared with the sham group, the VNS group exhibited significantly increased expression of c-fos in NOG, NTS, SSN, and PPG tissues at 0, 6, and 72 h. In the second part of the study, compared with left eyes, retinal function in right eyes (as assessed by the a-wave, b-wave and the oscillatory potential amplitudes of ERG and RGC data) was significantly decreased by I/R. The decreased retinal function was attenuated by VNS. In addition, I/R induced an increase in inflammation, which was reflected by elevated TNF-α expression in the retina. VNS significantly attenuated the increase in I/R-induced inflammation. Moreover, VIP expression in the retina and PPG, which may contribute to the inhibition of the inflammatory response, was significantly increased after VNS.

Conclusion: VNS could protect against retinal I/R injury by downregulating TNF-α. Upregulation of VIP expression due to activation of the NOG-NTS-SSN-PPG neural circuit may underlie to the protective effects of VNS.