Viability of Performing Multiple 24-2 Visual Field Examinations at the Same Clinical Visit: The Frontloading Fields Study (FFS)

Exploring the relationship between 24-2 visual field and widefield optical coherence tomography data across healthy, glaucoma suspect and glaucoma eyes

PURPOSE

To utilise ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) measurements acquired using widefield optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans spanning 55° × 45° to explore the link between co-localised structural parameters and clinical visual field (VF) data.

METHODS

Widefield OCT scans acquired from 311 healthy, 268 glaucoma suspect and 269 glaucoma eyes were segmented to generate GCIPL thickness measurements. Estimated ganglion cell (GC) counts, calculated from GCIPL measurements, were plotted against 24-2 SITA Faster visual field (VF) thresholds, and regression models were computed with data categorised by diagnosis and VF status. Classification of locations as VF defective or non-defective using GCIPL parameters computed across eccentricity- and hemifield-dependent clusters was assessed by analysing areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCCs). Sensitivities and specificities were calculated per diagnostic category.

RESULTS

Segmented linear regression models between GC counts and VF thresholds demonstrated higher variability in VF defective locations relative to non-defective locations (mean absolute error 6.10-9.93 dB and 1.43-1.91 dB, respectively). AUROCCs from cluster-wide GCIPL parameters were similar across methods centrally (p = 0.06-0.84) but significantly greater peripherally, especially when considering classification of more central locations (p < 0.0001). Across diagnoses, cluster-wide GCIPL parameters demonstrated variable sensitivities and specificities (0.36-0.93 and 0.65-0.98, respectively), with the highest specificities observed across healthy eyes (0.73-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Quantitative prediction of VF thresholds from widefield OCT is affected by high variability at VF defective locations. Prediction of VF status based on cluster-wide GCIPL parameters from widefield OCT could become useful to aid clinical decision-making in appropriately targeting VF assessments.

Retinal sensitivity changes in early/intermediate AMD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of visual field testing under mesopic and scotopic lighting

Visual fields under mesopic and scotopic lighting are increasingly being used for macular functional assessment. This review evaluates its statistical significance and clinical relevance, and the optimal testing protocol for early/intermediate age-related macular degeneration (AMD). PubMed and Embase were searched from inception to 14/05/2022. All quality assessments were performed according to GRADE guidelines. The primary outcome was global mean sensitivity (MS), further meta-analysed by: AMD classification scheme, device, test pattern, mesopic/scotopic lighting, stimuli size/chromaticity, pupil dilation, testing radius (area), background luminance, adaptation time, AMD severity, reticular pseudodrusen presence, and follow-up visit. From 1489 studies screened, 42 observational study results contributed to the primary meta-analysis. Supported by moderate GRADE certainty of the evidence, global MS was significantly reduced across all devices under mesopic and scotopic lighting with large effect size (-0.9 [-1.04, -0.75] Hedge's g, P < 0.0001). The device (P < 0.01) and lighting (P < 0.05) used were the only modifiable factors affecting global MS, whereby the mesopic MP-1 and MAIA produced the largest effect sizes and exceeded test-retest variabilities. Global MS was significantly affected by AMD severity (intermediate versus early AMD; -0.58 [-0.88, -0.29] Hedge's g or -2.55 [3.62, -1.47] MAIA-dB) and at follow-up visit (versus baseline; -0.62 [-0.84, -0.41] Hedge's g or -1.61[-2.69, -0.54] MAIA-dB). Magnitudes of retinal sensitivity changes in early/intermediate AMD are clinically relevant for the MP-1 and MAIA devices under mesopic lighting within the central 10° radius. Other factors including pupil dilation and dark adaptation did not significantly affect global MS in early/intermediate AMD.

Quantification and Predictors of Visual Field Variability in Healthy, Glaucoma Suspect, and Glaucomatous Eyes Using SITA-Faster

PURPOSE

The newly released Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA)-Faster (SFR) has significantly shorter testing durations compared with older SITA algorithms, but its variability is uncertain. This study quantified and established threshold limits of test-retest variability across the 24-2 test grid using SFR.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study with prospective longitudinal arm.

PARTICIPANTS

1426 eyes of 787 patients with healthy, suspected glaucoma, or manifest glaucoma eyes from hospital- and university- eye clinics.

METHODS

Two SFR tests per eye at a baseline visit and at two follow-up visits.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pointwise variability measured by test-retest difference in pointwise sensitivity between tests one and two, mean global variability (test-retest variance) measured by average of pointwise variability for each participant, global sensitivity, and reliability indices of each eye.

RESULTS

Of the 1426 eyes, 540 eyes (37.9%) had a diagnosis of glaucoma, 753 eyes (52.8%) were suspected of having glaucoma, and the remaining 133 eyes (9.3%) were healthy. Of 74 152 pointwise sensitivities obtained, the mean test-retest difference was 2.17 ± 2.9 dB, whereas the mean test-retest variance for each participant was 2.17 ± 1.2 dB. Pointwise and global variability increased with worsening threshold sensitivity and (MD), respectively, and was greater for peripheral compared with central test locations. In the longitudinal cohort, no significant difference in mean test-retest variance was found across the 3 visits (mean variability, 2.10 dB vs. 2.16 dB vs. 2.16 dB at visits F0 vs. F1 vs. F2; P = 0.53, repeated-measures analysis of variance). Baseline MD (-0.19 dB; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.16 dB; P < 0.0001) and abnormally high sensitivity on glaucoma hemifield test (1.14 dB; 95% CI, 0.78-1.51 dB; P < 0.0001) were significantly associated with increased variability. Finally, test-retest MD showed minimal change around the recommended 15% false-positive cutoff threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

The variability of SFR increases with worsening threshold sensitivity, is stable over time, and is greater for peripheral compared with central test locations. Worse baseline MD and abnormally high sensitivity are significant predictors of increased variability. A cutoff of 15% in false-positive results may be inappropriate as a threshold for judging test reliability in SFR.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Which glaucoma patients benefit from 10-2 visual field testing? Proposing the functional vulnerability zone framework

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A method for determining 10-2 deployment in glaucoma with the goal of detecting additional visual field sensitivity for the purpose of functional monitoring is proposed.

BACKGROUND

To provide a pilot method for determining when to deploy the 10-2 visual field (VF) test grid in glaucoma by characterising the 'functional vulnerability zone'.

METHODS

The cross-sectional 24-2 (central 12 locations) and 10-2 VF results from 133 eyes of 133 glaucoma subjects were used to describe the central Hill of Vision using VF sensitivity. The 'volume' (defined using arbitrary units, A.U.) under the Hill was calculated. A greater A.U. on the 10-2 indicated a functional vulnerability zone (FVZ), signifying additional clinical dynamic range for potential future monitoring. The main outcome measures were calculated A.U. and 24-2 factors which were significantly related to A.U. differences between 24-2 and 10-2.

RESULTS

Over 55% of patients had an FVZ (A.U. greater using 10-2). Several 24-2 features (worse mean deviation, worse central 24-2 mean defect, and a higher proportion of defective locations) were significant in the FVZ cohort compared to non-FVZ. 24-2 mean deviation levels at which 10-2 may be favoured were low at -3.16 to -3.62 dB. Specifically, 5 or more defective central 24-2 test locations were associated with an FVZ. Subjects exhibiting a less severe defect on the 10-2 were more likely to have an FVZ, indicating its potential for future VF monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors propose several clinical markers, focussing on the 24-2, which can guide clinicians on when the 10-2 may have utility in glaucoma assessment. The authors provide a pilot reference spreadsheet for clinicians to visualise the likelihood of 10-2 utility in the context of an FVZ.

Frontloading visual field tests detect earlier mean deviation progression when applied to real-world-derived early-stage glaucoma data

PURPOSE

To examine the diagnostic accuracy of performing two (frontloaded) versus one (clinical standard) visual field (VF) test per visit for detecting the progression of early glaucoma in data derived from clinical populations.

METHODS

A computer simulation model was used to follow the VFs of 10,000 glaucoma patients (derived from two cohorts: Heijl et al., Swedish cohort; and Chauhan et al., Canadian Glaucoma Study [CGS]) over a 10-year period to identify patients whose mean deviation (MD) progression was detected. Core data (baseline MD and progression rates) were extracted from two studies in clinical cohorts of glaucoma, which were modulated using SITA-Faster variability characteristics from previous work. Additional variables included follow-up intervals (six-monthly or yearly) and rates of perimetric data loss for any reason (0%, 15% and 30%). The main outcome measures were the proportions of progressors detected.

RESULTS

When the Swedish cohort was reviewed six-monthly, the frontloaded strategy detected more progressors compared to the non-frontloaded method up to years 8, 9 and 10 of follow-up for 0%, 15% and 30% data loss conditions. The time required to detect 50% of cases was 1.0-1.5 years less for frontloading compared to non-frontloading. At 4 years, frontloading increased detection by 26.7%, 28.7% and 32.4% for 0%, 15% and 30% data loss conditions, respectively. Where both techniques detected progression, frontloading detected progressors earlier compared to the non-frontloaded strategy (78.5%-81.5% and by 1.0-1.3 years when reviewed six-monthly; 81%-82.9% and by 1.2-2.1 years when reviewed yearly). Accordingly, these patients had less severe MD scores (six-monthly review: 0.63-1.67 dB 'saved'; yearly review: 1.10-2.87 dB). The differences increased with higher rates of data loss. Similar tendencies were noted when applied to the CGS cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Frontloaded VFs applied to clinical distributions of MD and progression led to earlier detection of early glaucoma progression.

Understanding and identifying visual field progression

Detecting deterioration of visual field sensitivity measurements is important for the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. This review surveys the current methods for assessing progression that are implemented in clinical devices, which have been used in clinical trials, alongside more recent advances proposed in the literature. Advice is also offered to clinicians on what they can do to improve the collection of perimetric data to help analytical progression methods more accurately predict change. This advice includes a discussion of how frequently visual field testing should be undertaken, with a view towards future developments, such as digital healthcare outside the standard clinical setting and more personalised approaches to perimetry.

Comparing a head-mounted virtual reality perimeter and the Humphrey Field Analyzer for visual field testing in healthy and glaucoma patients

PURPOSE

To compare clinical visual field outputs in glaucoma and healthy patients returned by the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) and virtual reality (Virtual Field, VF) perimetry.

METHODS

One eye of 54 glaucoma patients and 41 healthy subjects was prospectively tested (three times each in random order) using the HFA and VF perimeters (24-2 test grids). We extracted and compared global indices (mean deviation [MD] and pattern standard deviation [PSD]), pointwise sensitivity (and calculated 'equivalent' sensitivity after accounting for differences in background luminance) and pointwise defects. Bland-Altman (mean difference [Mdiff ] and 95% limits of agreement [LoA]) and intraclass correlation analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The VF test was shorter (by 76 s) and had lower fixation losses (by 0.08) and false-positive rate (by 0.01) compared to the HFA (all p < 0.0001). Intraclass correlations were 0.86, 0.82 and 0.47 for MD, PSD and pointwise sensitivity between devices, respectively. Test-retest variability was higher for VF (Mdiff 0.3 dB, LoA -7.6 to 8.2 dB) compared to the HFA (Mdiff -0.3 dB, LoA -6.4 to 5.9 dB), indicating greater test-retest variability. When using each device's underlying normative database, the HFA detected, on average, 7 more defects (at the p < 0.05 level) out of the 52 test locations compared to this iteration of VF in the glaucoma cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual Field returns global results that are correlated with the HFA, but pointwise sensitivities were more variable. Differences in test-retest variability and defect detection by its current normative database raise questions about the widespread adoption of VF in lieu of the HFA.

Evaluation of the Consistency of Glaucomatous Visual Field Defects Using a Clustered SITA-Faster Protocol

PURPOSE

Frontloading SITA-Faster (SFR) visual fields (2 tests per eye on the same visit) has been shown to provide repeatable perimetric data at minimal time cost. This study reports the outcomes of using frontloaded SFR in the evaluation of pointwise visual field (VF) defects in a cohort of patients with glaucoma when transitioned from SITA-Standard (SS).

DESIGN

Prospective, cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 144 eyes of 91 patients with confirmed or suspected glaucoma who had an SS test on a previous visit.

METHODS

Two SFR tests (T1, T2) per eye on the same visit.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Global sensitivity, reliability indices, and pointwise deviation map probability scores from the pattern deviation grid of each patient were compared across the 3 sequential tests to evaluate the consistency of VF defects.

RESULTS

The mean age was 68.6 years, and 79.2% of patients had a diagnosis of glaucoma. There was no significant difference in mean deviation (MD) across the 3 tests (-5.83 decibels [dB], -5.28 dB, and -5.71 dB in SS, SFR1, and SFR2, respectively, repeated-measures analysis of variance [ANOVA], P = 0.48). The frontloaded SFR tests provided repeatable VFs that confirmed existing pointwise data on the SS in 4661 (62.3%) locations, reversed an SS defect in 614 (8.2%) locations, and demonstrated a new repeatable defect in 406 (5.4%) locations of the pattern deviation grid. A new defect of at least 3 contiguous points was identified in 20.1% of eyes. The non-repeatable points on the 2 SFR tests displayed no significant difference in the distribution of defect/nondefect points based on test order or peripheral versus central locations. There was no significant difference in the rate of obtaining at least 1 reliable test result between SS and the frontloaded SFR T1 and T2 (P = 0.77). Test duration significantly decreased from SS to SFR1/2 (379 vs. 160 vs. 158 seconds, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Frontloading SFR tests can provide repeatable data for the evaluation of the consistency of pattern deviation defects in glaucoma, with no observable decline in performance from test fatigue. This is achieved at equivalent duration and reliability as a single SS test. Frontloading SFR may be helpful in increasing testing frequency/quantity to meet recommended guidelines for progression analysis.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Frontloading SITA-Faster Can Increase Frequency and Reliability of Visual Field Testing at Minimal Time Cost

PURPOSE

To report the outcomes of frontloaded visual field (VF) testing (2 tests per eye on the same visit) over 2 longitudinal, consecutive visits using SITA-Faster (SFR) in terms of global indices, reliability metrics, and test duration.

DESIGN

Prospective longitudinal study.

SUBJECTS

A total of 902 eyes of 463 subjects with normal, suspect, or manifest glaucoma.

METHODS

Two intravisit SFR VF tests (T1 and T2) per eye at an initial (Ti) and follow-up (Tf) visit.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Intra- and intervisit global indices, reliability metrics, and test durations.

RESULTS

The mean age of the subjects was 63.6 years, and 58.3% were male. Seven hundred ninety eyes (87.4%) had a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspicion. The mean duration between visits was 265.0 (standard deviation 98.8) days. In total, 3608 VF tests were analyzed, with the correlation of mean deviation (MD) values of the frontloaded tests at each visit high (T1/T2 MD correlation at initial visit r = 0.83, root mean squared error [RMSE] = 1.26, follow-up visit r = 0.83, RMSE = 1.25, P < 0.0001) and greater than the correlation of MD between visits (Ti1/Tf1 MD correlation r = 0.72, RMSE = 1.31). There was a significant intra-visit decrease in rates of abnormally high sensitivity in the glaucoma hemifield test (3.2% vs. 1.6%, P = 0.0023) and rates of unreliable test results (15.4% vs. 9.2%, P = 0.002) from T1 to T2 in both visits, with a corresponding significant decrease in MD (-1.28 dB vs. -1.68 dB, P < 0.0001) and VF index (P = 0.03). The mean duration of each SFR test was 132.6 (SD 27.2) seconds.

CONCLUSIONS

Frontloading VFs using SFR produced sets of repeatable perimetric data with significant improvement of reliability indices from the first to second test. This may help increase testing frequency at minimal time cost to meet recommended guidelines and for evaluating patients prone to high variability.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Multiple (frontloaded) visual field tests increase identification of very slow mean deviation progression in glaucoma

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of frontloading (multiple) visual field (VF) tests at the same visit for detecting mean deviation (MD) change in slowly progressive glaucoma.

METHODS

This was a computer simulation study. Baseline MD (range, 0 to -12 dB) and progression rate (range, 0 to -0.4 dB/year, non-inclusive) were generated for 10,000 patients. Each patient had 6 simulated "stable" baseline VF tests. Then follow-up VFs (up to 10 years) were generated by incorporating progression rate and within-visit and between-visit variability. The independent variables were number of VF tests per visit (one non-frontloaded or two frontloaded), VF reliability (100%, 85%, or 70%), repeat testing because of unreliable results (yes or no), and follow-up interval (6-monthly or yearly). The outcomes were detection of progression (MD slope that was negative and significant at p < 0.05), MD at detection, and number of years to detection.

RESULTS

Frontloading identified more progressors (62.7%-79.2%) compared with non-frontloading (31.0%-36.7%) at 10 years (p < 0.0001). Six-monthly follow-ups led to greater detection than yearly intervals. Progressors detected by both methods were detected by the non-frontloaded method sooner (up to 0.26 years), but this was small and not clinically significant (MD difference, 0.06 dB). An increase (less severe) in MD, an increase (slower) in progression rate, and an increase in SD of baseline VFs decreased the likelihood of detecting progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Frontloading VF tests at 6-monthly intervals improve detection rates of MD progression in slowly progressive glaucoma patients compared with performing 1 test per visit at yearly intervals.

Assessment of visual field progression in glaucoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Perimetry plays an important role in the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. This article discusses the assessment of visual field progression in patients with glaucoma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Selecting the best visual field test strategy and establishing a baseline of visual fields will assist clinicians in the detection of glaucomatous progression. Repeat testing serves to confirm or refute changes on visual field testing. More frequent testing after initial diagnosis is recommended to establish a baseline and to identify patients with rapid progression who may need more aggressive management. Statistically significant changes on event analysis can prompt examination of a patient's trend analysis to determine whether clinically significant deterioration may be occurring. Future applications of machine learning can complement existing methods of visual field interpretation.

SUMMARY

Many treated patients with glaucoma will experience visual field progression. Optimal utilization of visual field testing strategy and analytical software can help clinicians identify patients with glaucomatous progression likely to cause functional visual disability.

Gaze tracker parameters have little association with visual field metrics of intrasession frontloaded SITA-Faster 24-2 visual field results

PURPOSE

To determine the usefulness of Humphrey Field Analyser (HFA) SITA-Faster 24-2 gaze tracker outputs on interpreting intra-visit visual field (VF) result pairs.

METHODS

Analysis of 1380 right-left eye pairs and 1432 pairs of test 1-test 2 intrasession VF results of patients seen within a university-based glaucoma service was undertaken to understand gaze deviation distributions. Output gaze tracker results were aggregated into total ticks, sum of amplitudes and average amplitudes. Correlations between visual field indices (mean deviation [MD], "events" and overall hill of vision) and independent variables (age and test order) were performed using one eye from each subject.

RESULTS

There was no association of test order (right-left, test 1-test 2) with eye movements. There was a significant, but weak correlation between eye movements and age (r = 0.16). Correlations of eye movements with MD were driven by more severe MD values. There were no significant correlations between intrasession difference in eye movements and the change in MD, number of "events" and hill of vision, or in the root mean square of sensitivity and total deviation values. There was also no significant correlation between gaze tracker outputs and another commonly used "reliability" metric, false positive rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Eye movement parameters as currently reported by the HFA do not appear to be correlated with key sensitivity parameters when considering the repeatability of intrasession SITA-Faster 24-2 VF results. Thus, current gaze tracker outputs do not appear to provide clinically meaningful information for interpretation of intra-visit visual field results that cannot already be garnered using other strategies.

Prediction of visual field defects from macular optical coherence tomography in glaucoma using cluster analysis

Purpose

To assess the accuracy of cluster analysis‐based models in predicting visual field (VF) defects from macular ganglion cell‐inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) measurements in glaucomatous and healthy cohorts.

Methods

GCIPL measurements were extracted from posterior pole optical coherence tomography (OCT), from locations corresponding to central VF test grids. Models incorporating cluster analysis methods and corrections for age and fovea to optic disc tilt were developed from 493 healthy participants, and 5th and 1st percentile limits of GCIPL thickness were derived. These limits were compared with pointwise 5th and 1st percentile limits by calculating sensitivities and specificities in an additional 40 normal and 37 glaucomatous participants, as well as applying receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses to assess the accuracy of predicting VF results from co‐localised GCIPL measurements.

Results

Clustered models demonstrated globally low sensitivity, but high specificity in the glaucoma cohort (0.28–0.53 and 0.77–0.91, respectively), and high specificity in the healthy cohort (0.91–0.98). Clustered models showed similar sensitivities and superior specificities compared with pointwise methods (0.41–0.65 and 0.71–0.98, respectively). There were significant differences in accuracy between clusters, with relatively poor accuracy at peripheral macular locations (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons).

Conclusions

Cluster analysis‐based models incorporating age correction and holistic consideration of fovea to optic disc tilt demonstrated superior performance in predicting VF results to pointwise methods in both glaucomatous and healthy eyes. However, relatively low sensitivity and poorer performance at the peripheral macula indicate that OCT in isolation may be insufficient to predict visual function across the macula accurately. With modifications to criteria for abnormality, the concepts suggested by the described normative models may guide prioritisation of VF assessment requirements, with the potential to limit excessive VF testing.

Differences in visual field loss pattern when transitioning from SITA standard to SITA faster

Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm (SITA) Faster is the most recent and fastest testing algorithm for the evaluation of Humphrey visual fields (VF). However, existing evidence suggests that there are some differences in global measures of VF loss in eyes transitioning from SITA Standard to the newer SITA Faster. These differences may be relevant, especially in glaucoma, where VF changes over time influence clinical decisions around treatment. Furthermore, characterization of differences in localizable VF loss patterns between algorithms, rather than global summary measures, can be important for clinician interpretation when transitioning testing strategies. In this study, we determined the effect of transitioning from SITA Standard to SITA Faster on VF loss patterns in glaucomatous eyes undergoing longitudinal VF testing in a real-world clinical setting. Archetypal analysis was used to derive composition weights of 16 clinically relevant VF patterns (i.e., archetypes (AT)) from patient VFs. We found switching from SITA Standard to SITA Faster was associated with less preservation of VF loss (i.e., abnormal AT 2-4, 6-9, 11, 13, 14) relative to successive SITA Standard exams (P value < 0.01) and was associated with relatively greater preservation of AT 1, the normal VF (P value < 0.01). Eyes that transition from SITA Standard to SITA Faster in a real-world clinical setting have an increased likelihood of preserving patterns reflecting a normal VF and lower tendency to preserve patterns reflecting abnormal VF as compared to consecutive SITA Standard exams in the same eye.

The Frontloading Fields Study: The Impact of False Positives and Seeding Point Errors on Visual Field Reliability When Using SITA-Faster

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of two conventional reliability criteria (false positives [FPs] and seeding point errors [SPEs]) and the concurrent effect of low sensitivity points (≤19 dB) on intrasession SITA-Faster visual field (VF) result correlations.

Methods

There were 2320 intrasession SITA-Faster VF results from 1160 eyes of healthy, glaucoma suspects, and subjects with glaucoma that were separated into “both reliable” or “reliable-unreliable” pairs. VF results (mean deviation and pointwise sensitivity) were analyzed against the spectrum of FP rates and SPE, with and without censorship of sensitivity results ≤19 dB. Segmental linear regression was used to identify critical points where visual field results were significantly different between tests due to FP levels.

Results

There was a significant, but small (0.09 dB per 1% exceeding 12%) increase in mean deviation, and an increase in the number of points showing a >3 dB sensitivity increase (0.25–0.28 locations per 1% exceeding 12%). SPEs were almost exclusively related to a decrease in sensitivity at the primary seeding points but did not result in significant differences in other indices. Censoring sensitivity results ≤19 dB significantly improved the correlation between reliable and unreliable results.

Conclusions

Current criteria for judging an unreliable VF result (FP rate >15% and SPE) can lead to data being erroneously excluded, as many results do not show significant differences compared to those deemed “reliable.” Censoring of sensitivity results ≤19 dB improves intrasession correlations in VF results.

Translational Relevance

We provide guidelines for assessing the impact of FP, SPE, and low sensitivity results on VF interpretation.

Glaucoma Suspects: The Impact of Risk Factor-Driven Review Periods on Clinical Load, Diagnoses, and Healthcare Costs

Purpose

To model the healthcare impact (clinical attendance time and financial cost) and clinical outcomes (glaucoma diagnoses) of different risk factor–driven review frequencies for glaucoma suspect patients up until the point of discharge or diagnosis.

Methods

Medical records of 494 glaucoma suspects were examined to extract the clinical diagnosis. Two criteria for review periods were defined, based on contrasting stringency from established clinical guidelines: American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO), more stringent/less frequent; and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), less stringent/more frequent. We used these data to model patient outcomes and healthcare costs using a Markov model.

Results

The less stringent/more frequent criterion resulted in more high-risk glaucoma suspects requiring more frequent review compared with the more stringent/less frequent criterion. Across the 15 Markov cycles (7.5 years), the less stringent/more frequent review criterion resulted in 6.6% more diagnoses and fewer overall clinical visits (14.7%) and reduced cost per diagnosis by 12% to 32% (P < 0.0001). The number of glaucoma diagnoses made using each criterion converged at 2.5 to 3 years.

Conclusions

The stringency of risk assessments for glaucoma suspects impacts review periods and therefore clinical load, healthcare costs, and diagnosis rates. Using current testing methods, more frequent review periods appear advantageous for diagnostic efficiency, with both lower clinic load and lower cost up until the point of discharge or glaucoma diagnosis.

Translational Relevance

A less stringent criterion for assessing the risk of developing glaucoma potentially offers a more cost-effective method for reviewing glaucoma suspects, especially within the first 2.5 years.

The Frontloading Fields Study (FFS): Detecting Changes in Mean Deviation in Glaucoma Using Multiple Visual Field Tests Per Clinical Visit

Purpose

To determine the impact of different numbers of visual field tests per visit for detecting mean deviation changes over time in patients with early glaucoma or suspected glaucoma and to identify a practical approach to maximize change detection.

Methods

Intrasession (n = 322) and intersession (n = 323) visual field results for patients with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma were used to model mean deviation change in 10,000 progressing and 10,000 non-progressing computer-simulated patients over time. Variables assessed in the model included follow-up intervals (0.5, 1, or 2 years), reliability rates (70%, 85%, or 100%) and number of visual field tests performed at each visit (one to four).

Results

Two visual field tests per session compared with one provided higher case detection rates at 2 years (99%–99.8% vs. 34.7%–76.3%, respectively), reduced time to detection (three or four visits vs. six to 10, respectively), and more positive mean deviation score (−4 dB vs. −10 dB, respectively) at the point of mean deviation change identification, especially in the context of unreliable results. Performing two tests per visit offered similar advantages compared with more tests. False positive change detection rates (<2.5%), were similar across all conditions. Patients followed up 6 monthly had less severe mean deviation loss at follow-up compared to 1-year and 2-year follow-up intervals.

Conclusions

Performing two tests per clinical visit at 6 months is practical using SITA-Faster and provides higher detection rates of mean deviation change in comparison with only one test performed per visit and more spaced-out intervals.

Translational Relevance

This model provides guidance for selecting the number of tests per visit to detect mean deviation change.

Patient and technician perspectives following the introduction of frontloaded visual field testing in glaucoma assessment

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Frontloaded visual field testing (twice per eye per session) is well-tolerated by patients and technicians, representing a viable strategy that can be implemented in routine clinical practice to capture enough clinical perimetry data for effective disease diagnosis, surveillance and management.

BACKGROUND

To determine the experiences of patients and technicians following the implementation of frontloaded visual field testing (multiple tests per eye within the same session) in a glaucoma service.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study. A written questionnaire was administered to patients (three questions) attending the glaucoma service at the Centre for Eye Health for glaucoma assessment and to their administering perimetry technicians (two questions). The questionnaire was administered after static automated perimetry (24-2 SITA-Faster on the Humphrey Field Analyzer) was performed twice for each eye (frontloaded) within the same session. Respondents were asked to provide a 1-5 Likert scale response to questions that targeted operational issues for frontloaded visual field testing. Responses were correlated against to demographic (age, gender, ethnicity) and clinical (diagnosis, refractive error, visual field indices, test duration) parameters.

RESULTS

Approximately 90% of patient respondents agreed that frontloaded visual field testing was clearly explained to them, that they were comfortable during the test, and would prefer completing the tests at a single visit rather than returning to repeat the test. Most technician respondents were also able to keep their patients comfortable. 13% of technician respondents felt they ran late during the session, but on average, the total test duration for four visual field tests was 13 minutes, including breaks. There was no correlation found between demographic and clinical factors, and the responses.

CONCLUSIONS

Frontloaded visual field testing was well-tolerated by patients and technicians. Strategies that may be helpful for other clinics to adopt this new paradigm are described.