Prioritizing outcome preferences in patients with ocular hypertension and open-angle glaucoma using best-worst scaling

Priorities for health outcomes in glaucoma in an ethnically diverse UK cohort: an observational study

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether patients from minority ethnic groups have different perceptions about the quality-of-life outcomes that matter most to them.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study.

SETTING

High volume eye centres serving the most ethnically diverse region in the UK, recruiting from July 2021 to February 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

511 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and the predisease state of ocular hypertension.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome was participants' self-reported priorities for health outcomes.

RESULTS

Participants fell into one of four clusters with differing priorities for health outcomes, namely: (1) vision, (2) drop freedom, (3) intraocular pressure and (4) one-time treatment. Ethnicity was the strongest determinant of cluster membership after adjusting for potential confounders. Compared with white patients prioritising vision alone, the OR for black/black British patients was 7.31 (95% CI 3.43 to 15.57, p<0.001) for prioritising drop freedom; 5.95 (2.91 to 12.16, p<0.001) for intraocular pressure; and 2.99 (1.44 to 6.18, p=0.003) for one-time treatment. For Asian/Asian British patients, the OR was 3.17 (1.12 to 8.96, p=0.030) for prioritising intraocular pressure as highly as vision. Other ethnic minority groups also had higher ORs for prioritising health outcomes other than vision alone: 4.50 (1.03 to 19.63, p=0.045) for drop freedom and 5.37 (1.47 to 19.60, p=0.011) for intraocular pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

Ethnicity is strongly associated with differing perceptions about the health outcomes that matter. An individualised and ethnically inclusive approach is needed when selecting and evaluating treatments in clinical and research settings.

European Glaucoma Society - A guide on surgical innovation for glaucoma

PROLOGUE: Glaucoma surgery has been, for many decades now, dominated by the universal gold standard which is trabeculectomy augmented with antimetabolites. Tubes also came into the scene to complement what we use to call conventional or traditional glaucoma surgery. More recently we experienced a changing glaucoma surgery environment with the "advent" of what we have become used to calling Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS). What is the unmet need, what is the gap that these newcomers aim to fill? Hippocrates taught us "bring benefit, not harm" and new glaucoma techniques and devices aim to provide safer surgery compared to conventional surgery. For the patient, but also for the clinician, safety is important. Is more safety achieved with new glaucoma surgery and, if so, is it associated with better, equivalent, or worse efficacy? Is new glaucoma surgery intended to replace conventional surgery or to complement it as an 'add-on' to what clinicians already have in their hands to manage glaucoma? Which surgery should be chosen for which patient? What are the options? Are they equivalent? These are too many questions for the clinician! What are the answers to the questions? What is the evidence to support answers? Do we need more evidence and how can we produce high-quality evidence? This EGS Guide explores the changing and challenging glaucoma surgery environment aiming to provide answers to these questions. The EGS uses four words to highlight a continuum: Innovation, Education, Communication, and Implementation. Translating innovation to successful implementation is crucially important and requires high-quality evidence to ensure steps forward to a positive impact on health care when it comes to implementation. The vision of EGS is to provide the best possible well-being and minimal glaucomainduced visual disability in individuals with glaucoma within an affordable healthcare system. In this regard, assessing the changes in glaucoma surgery is a pivotal contribution to better care. As mentioned, this Guide aims to provide answers to the crucial questions above. However, every clinician is aware that answers may differ for every person: an individualised approach is needed. Therefore, there will be no uniform answer for all situations and all patients. Clinicians would need, through the clinical method and possibly some algorithm, to reach answers and decisions at the individual level. In this regard, evidence is needed to support clinicians to make decisions. Of key importance in this Guide is to provide an overview of existing evidence on glaucoma surgery and specifically on recent innovations and novel devices, but also to set standards in surgical design and reporting for future studies on glaucoma surgical innovation. Designing studies in surgery is particularly challenging because of many subtle variations inherent to surgery and hence multiple factors involved in the outcome, but even more because one needs to define carefully outcomes relevant to the research question but also to the future translation into clinical practice. In addition this Guide aims to provide clinical recommendations on novel procedures already in use when insufficient evidence exists. EGS has a long tradition to provide guidance to the ophthalmic community in Europe and worldwide through the EGS Guidelines (now in their 5th Edition). The EGS leadership recognized that the changing environment in glaucoma surgery currently represents a major challenge for the clinician, needing specific guidance. Therefore, the decision was made to issue this Guide on Glaucoma Surgery in order to help clinicians to make appropriate decisions for their patients and also to provide the framework and guidance for researchers to improve the quality of evidence in future studies. Ultimately this Guide will support better Glaucoma Care in accordance with EGS's Vision and Mission. Fotis Topouzis EGS President

Treatment expectations in glaucoma: what matters most to patients?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Recent clinical trials in glaucoma have used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of health-related quality of life to evaluate interventions. However, existing PROMs may not be sufficiently sensitive to capture changes in health status. This study aims to determine what really matters to patients by directly exploring their treatment expectations and preferences.

SUBJECTS/METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using one-to-one semi-structured interviews to elicit patients' preferences. Participants were recruited from two NHS clinics serving urban, suburban and rural populations in the UK. To be relevant across glaucoma patients under NHS care, participants were sampled to include a full range of demographic profiles, disease severities and treatment histories. Interview transcripts were evaluated using thematic analysis until no new themes emerged (saturation). Saturation was established when 25 participants with ocular hypertension, mild, moderate and advanced glaucoma had been interviewed.

RESULTS

Themes identified were: Patients' experiences of living with glaucoma, patients' experiences of having glaucoma treatment, most important outcomes to patients, and COVID-related concerns. Participants specifically expressed their most important concerns, which were (i) disease-related outcomes (intraocular pressure control, maintaining vision, and being independent); and (ii) treatment-related outcomes (treatment that does not change, drop-freedom, and one-time treatment). Both disease-related and treatment-related experiences were covered prominently in interviews with patients across the spectrum of glaucoma severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes related both to the disease and its treatment are important to patients with different severities of glaucoma. To accurately evaluate quality of life in glaucoma, PROMs may need to assess both disease-related and treatment-related outcomes.

Eliciting preferences in glaucoma management-a systematic review of stated-preference studies

BACKGROUND

In most cases, glaucoma patients require long-term medical and/or surgical treatment. Preference studies investigate how different aspects of glaucoma management, such as health or process outcomes, are valued and herewith help stakeholders make care more responsive to patients' needs. As, to our knowledge, no overview of these studies is currently available, this study aims to systematically review and critically appraise these studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted using keywords for stated-preference studies and glaucoma up to October 2021. Studies were included if they were original research and used a stated-preference methodology to investigate preferences in patients or healthcare professionals for different aspects of glaucoma management. Data were extracted and summarized. Furthermore, a quality appraisal of the included studies was performed using two validated checklists.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1214 articles after removal of duplicates. Of those, 11 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Studies aimed to elicit preferences for glaucoma treatment (27%), glaucoma related health state valuation (36%), and services (36%) from the patient (91%) or ophthalmologists' perspective (9%). Altogether studies included 69 attributes. The majority of attributes were outcome related (62%), followed by process (32%) and cost attributes (6%). Outcome attributes (e.g., effectiveness) were most often of highest importance to the population.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides an up-to-date and critical review of stated-preference studies in the field of glaucoma, suggesting that patients have preferences and are willing to trade-off between characteristics, and revealed that outcome attributes are the most influential characteristics of glaucoma management.

A Roadmap for Increasing the Usefulness and Impact of Patient-Preference Studies in Decision Making in Health: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force

Many qualitative and quantitative methods are readily available to study patient preferences in health. These methods are now being used to inform a wide variety of decisions, and there is a growing body of evidence showing studies of patient preferences can be used for decision making in a wide variety of contexts. This ISPOR Task Force report synthesizes current good practices for increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We provide the ISPOR Roadmap for Patient Preferences in Decision Making that invites patient-preference researchers to work with decision makers, patients and patient groups, and other stakeholders to ensure that studies are useful and impactful. The ISPOR Roadmap consists of 5 key elements: (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) population, (4) method, and (5) impact. In this report, we define these 5 elements and provide good practices on how patient-preference researchers and others can actively contribute to increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We also present a set of key questions that can support researchers and other stakeholders (eg, funders, reviewers, readers) to assess efforts that promote the ongoing impact (both intended and unintended) of a particular preference study and additional studies in the future.

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.

Artificial Intelligence for Glaucoma: Creating and Implementing Artificial Intelligence for Disease Detection and Progression

On September 3, 2020, the Collaborative Community on Ophthalmic Imaging conducted its first 2-day virtual workshop on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) and related machine learning techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of various ophthalmic conditions. In a session entitled "Artificial Intelligence for Glaucoma," a panel of glaucoma specialists, researchers, industry experts, and patients convened to share current research on the application of AI to commonly used diagnostic modalities, including fundus photography, OCT imaging, standard automated perimetry, and gonioscopy. The conference participants focused on the use of AI as a tool for disease prediction, highlighted its ability to address inequalities, and presented the limitations of and challenges to its clinical application. The panelists' discussion addressed AI and health equities from clinical, societal, and regulatory perspectives.

Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgical Techniques for Open-Angle Glaucoma: An Overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews and Network Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Glaucoma affects more than 75 million people worldwide. Intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering surgery is an important treatment for this disease. Interest in reducing surgical morbidity has led to the introduction of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS). Understanding the comparative effectiveness and safety of MIGS is necessary for clinicians and patients.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize data from randomized clinical trials of MIGS for open-angle glaucoma, which were evaluated in a suite of Cochrane reviews.

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews including studies published before June 1, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Reviews of randomized clinical trials comparing MIGS with cataract extraction alone, other MIGS, traditional glaucoma surgery, laser trabeculoplasty, or medical therapy.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines by one investigator and confirmed by a second. Methodologic rigor was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 appraisal tool and random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The proportion of participants who did not need to use medication to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) postsurgery (drop-free). Outcomes were analyzed at short-term (<6 months), medium-term (6-18 months), and long-term (>18 months) follow-up.

RESULTS

Six eligible Cochrane reviews were identified discussing trabecular bypass with iStent or Hydrus microstents, ab interno trabeculotomy with Trabectome, subconjunctival and supraciliary drainage devices, and endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation. Moderate certainty evidence indicated that adding a Hydrus safely improved the likelihood of drop-free glaucoma control at medium-term (relative risk [RR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.8) and long-term (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9) follow-up and conferred 2.0-mm Hg (95% CI, -2.7 to -1.3 mm Hg) greater IOP reduction at long-term follow-up, compared with cataract surgery alone. Adding an iStent also safely improved drop-free disease control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.6), but the short-term IOP-lowering effect of the iStent was not sustained. Addition of a CyPass microstent improved drop-free glaucoma control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5) but was associated with an increased risk of vraision loss. Network meta-analyses supported the direction and magnitude of these results.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Based on data synthesized in Cochrane reviews, some MIGS may afford patients with glaucoma greater drop-free disease control than cataract surgery alone. Among the products currently available, randomized clinical trial data associate the Hydrus with greater drop-free glaucoma control and IOP lowering than the iStent; however, these effect sizes were small.

Priorities and Treatment Preferences among Surgery-Naive Patients with Moderate to Severe Open-Angle Glaucoma

PURPOSE

To explore patients' perspectives and experiences living with moderate to severe glaucoma through qualitative, semistructured interviews and to identify important benefits and risks that patients consider when choosing glaucoma treatments.

DESIGN

Semistructured, in-person qualitative interviews with a convenience sample of patients seen at the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute.

PARTICIPANTS

Surgery-naive patients 21 years of age or older with moderate to severe open-angle glaucoma seeking treatment at the Wilmer Eye Institute's Glaucoma Center of Excellence between August and December 2018.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with patients diagnosed with moderate to severe open-angle glaucoma, focusing on outcomes they prioritize when considering various treatment options. We used Atlas.ti software version 7.5.12 (Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany) to process interview transcripts and the framework approach to analyze the qualitative data.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients' descriptions of outcomes important to them in management of moderate to severe open-angle glaucoma.

RESULTS

Thirteen men and 15 women with a median age 67 years participated in the study. Compared with the mild-to-moderate glaucoma patients interviewed previously, these participants similarly emphasized (1) activities of daily living, (2) visual symptoms, (3) treatment burden, and (4) intraocular pressure (IOP) control, but unlike patients with milder disease, most related IOP control directly to (5) avoiding disease progression. Almost all (27/28) had also given significant thought to (6) surgical decision making and could describe how they would decide for or against a particular procedure. Finally, two thirds (18/28) expressed (7) significant fear and worry related to their glaucoma diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified outcomes that matter to patients who are undergoing treatment for moderate to severe glaucoma, many of which may serve as end points in clinical trials, such as functional independence in vision-dependent activities of daily living, avoidance of visual symptoms, and disease progression via maintenance of IOP control. We also observed that these patients have varied and nuanced perspectives on surgical management and its outcomes. It behooves providers and trial designers to consider these in future evaluations of new treatments for moderate to severe glaucoma.

Patient-reported outcomes measures and patient preferences for minimally invasive glaucoma surgical devices

BACKGROUND

Many therapeutic options are available to glaucoma patients. One recent therapeutic option is minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) devices. It is unclear how patients view different treatments and which patient-reported outcomes would be most relevant in patients with mild to moderate glaucoma. We developed a questionnaire for patients eligible for MIGS devices and a patient preference study to examine the value patients place on certain outcomes associated with glaucoma and its therapies.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the progress to date.

METHODS

Questionnaire development: We drafted the questionnaire items based on input from one physician and four patient focus groups, and a review of the literature. We tested item clarity with six cognitive interviews. These items were further refined. Patient preference study: We identified important benefit and risk outcomes qualitatively using semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with patients who were eligible for MIGS devices. We then prioritized these outcomes quantitatively using best-worst scaling methods.

RESULTS

Questionnaire testing: Three concepts were deemed relevant for the questionnaire: functional limitations, symptoms, and psychosocial factors. We will evaluate the reliability and validity of the 52-item draft questionnaire in an upcoming field test. Patient preference study: We identified 13 outcomes that participants perceived as important. Outcomes with the largest relative importance weights were "adequate IOP control" and "drive a car during the day."

CONCLUSIONS

Patients have the potential to steer clinical research towards outcomes that are important to them. Incorporating patients' perspectives into the MIGS device development and evaluation process may expedite innovation and availability of these devices.