The Effect of Transitioning from SITA Standard to SITA Faster on Visual Field Performance

A Practical Framework for the Integration of Structural Data Into Perimetric Examinations

Purpose

We sought to develop and evaluate a practical framework that supports structurally enhanced perimetric examinations.

Methods

Two perimetric strategies were compared: standard Zippy Estimation through Sequential Testing (ZEST) procedure, a traditional visual field test with population-based prior distributions, and structural-ZEST (S-ZEST), enhanced with individual optical coherence tomography data to determine the starting parameters. The integration and collection of data was facilitated by a bespoke application developed in Shiny R (R Studio). The test was implemented using the Open Perimetry Interface on the Compass perimeter (CentreVue-iCare, Italy). The strategies were evaluated via simulations and on 10 visually healthy participants. The usability of the application was assessed in a simulated environment with 10 test users.

Results

In simulations, the S-ZEST improved test speed in patients with glaucoma. In the practical implementation, there was a statistically significant decrease in the testing time (approximately 26%) and in the number of presentations per test with S-ZEST (P < 0.001). The structure-function relationship was similar between the two strategies. The time taken for users to complete the sequence of actions on the application was 52.9 ± 11.5 seconds (mean ± standard deviation).

Conclusions

Structurally enhanced perimetric examination can significantly improve test time in healthy subjects and can be delivered through a user-friendly interface. Further testing will need to assess feasibility and performance of S-ZEST in patients with glaucoma.

Translational Relevance

We have developed a user-friendly web application based within the Shiny environment for R, which implements an automated extraction of optical coherence tomography data from raw files and performs real-time calculations of structural features to inform the perimetric strategy.

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.

Opportunities for Improving Glaucoma Clinical Trials via Deep Learning-Based Identification of Patients with Low Visual Field Variability

PURPOSE

Develop and evaluate the performance of a deep learning model (DLM) that forecasts eyes with low future visual field (VF) variability, and study the impact of using this DLM on sample size requirements for neuroprotective trials.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort and simulation study.

METHODS

We included 1 eye per patient with baseline reliable VFs, OCT, clinical measures (demographics, intraocular pressure, and visual acuity), and 5 subsequent reliable VFs to forecast VF variability using DLMs and perform sample size estimates. We estimated sample size for 3 groups of eyes: all eyes (AE), low variability eyes (LVE: the subset of AE with a standard deviation of mean deviation [MD] slope residuals in the bottom 25th percentile), and DLM-predicted low variability eyes (DLPE: the subset of AE predicted to be low variability by the DLM). Deep learning models using only baseline VF/OCT/clinical data as input (DLM1), or also using a second VF (DLM2) were constructed to predict low VF variability (DLPE1 and DLPE2, respectively). Data were split 60/10/30 into train/val/test. Clinical trial simulations were performed only on the test set. We estimated the sample size necessary to detect treatment effects of 20% to 50% in MD slope with 80% power. Power was defined as the percentage of simulated clinical trials where the MD slope was significantly worse from the control. Clinical trials were simulated with visits every 3 months with a total of 10 visits.

RESULTS

A total of 2817 eyes were included in the analysis. Deep learning models 1 and 2 achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68, 0.76) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.85) in forecasting low VF variability. When compared with including AE, using DLPE1 and DLPE2 reduced sample size to achieve 80% power by 30% and 38% for 30% treatment effect, and 31% and 38% for 50% treatment effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Deep learning models can forecast eyes with low VF variability using data from a single baseline clinical visit. This can reduce sample size requirements, and potentially reduce the burden of future glaucoma clinical trials.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

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

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.

Central Visual Field Testing in Early Glaucoma: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

PURPOSE

To evaluate the current published literature on the utility of the 10-2 visual field (VF) testing strategy for the evaluation and management of early glaucoma, defined here as mean deviation (MD) better than -6 decibels (dB).

METHODS

A search of the peer-reviewed literature was last conducted in June 2023 in the PubMed database. Abstracts of 986 articles were examined to exclude reviews and non-English-language articles. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 26 articles were selected, and the panel methodologist rated them for strength of evidence. Thirteen articles were rated level I, and 8 articles were rated level II. The 5 level III articles were excluded. Data from the 21 included articles were abstracted and reviewed.

RESULTS

The central 12 locations on the 24-2 VF test grid lie within the central 10 degrees covered by the 10-2 VF test. In early glaucoma, defects detected within the central 10 degrees generally agree between the 2 tests. Defects within the central 10 degrees of the 24-2 VF test can predict defects on the 10-2 VF test, although the 24-2 may miss defects detected on the 10-2 VF test. In addition, results from the 10-2 VF test show better association with findings from OCT scans of the macular ganglion cell complex. Modifications of the 24-2 test that include extra test locations within the central 10 degrees improve detection of central defects found on 10-2 VF testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence to date does not support routine testing using 10-2 VF for patients with early glaucoma. However, early 10-2 VF testing may provide sufficient additional information for some patients, particularly those with a repeatable defect within the central 12 locations of the standard 24-2 VF test or who have inner retinal layer thinning on OCT scans of the macula.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

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

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.

A potential primary endpoint for clinical trials in glaucoma neuroprotection

The purpose of this retrospective, longitudinal study is to evaluate the relationship between MD slope from visual field tests collected over a short period of time (2 years) and the current United States' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended endpoints for visual field outcomes. If this correlation is strong and highly predictive, clinical trials employing MD slopes as primary endpoints could be employed in neuroprotection clinical trials with shorter duration and help expedite the development of novel IOP-independent therapies. Visual field tests of patients with or suspected glaucoma were selected from an academic institution and evaluated based on two functional progression endpoints: (A) five or more locations worsening by at least 7 dB, and (B) at least five test locations based upon the GCP algorithm. A total of 271 (57.6%) and 278 (59.1%) eyes reached Endpoints A and B, respectively during the follow up period. The median (IQR) MD slope of eyes reaching vs. not reaching Endpoint A and B were -1.19 (-2.00 to -0.41) vs. 0.36 (0.00 to 1.00) dB/year and -1.16 (-1.98 to -0.40) vs. 0.41 (0.02 to 1.03) dB/year, respectively (P < 0.001). It was found that eyes experiencing rapid 24-2 visual field MD slopes over a 2-year period were on average tenfold more likely to reach one of the FDA accepted endpoints during or soon after that period.

24-2 SITA Standard versus 24-2 SITA Faster in Perimetry-Naive Normal Subjects

PURPOSE

To compare the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Standard (SS) and SITA Faster (SFR) strategies in normal individuals undergoing standard automated perimetry (SAP) for the first time.

DESIGN

Randomized, comparative, observational case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-four perimetry-naive healthy individuals.

METHODS

All individuals underwent SAP 24-2 testing with the Humphrey Field Analyzer III (model 850 Zeiss) using the SS and SFR strategies. One eye of each individual was tested. Test order between strategies was randomized, and an interval of 15 minutes was allowed between the tests.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The following variables were compared: test time, foveal threshold, false-positive errors, number of unreliable tests, mean deviation (MD), visual field index (VFI), pattern standard deviation (PSD), glaucoma hemifield test (GHT), and number of depressed points deviating at P < 5%, P < 2%, P < 1%, and P < 0.5% on the total and pattern deviation probability maps. Specificity of the SS and SFR strategies were compared using Anderson's criteria for abnormal visual fields.

RESULTS

The SFR tests were 60.4% shorter in time compared with SS (P < 0.001) and were associated with a significantly lower PSD (1.75 ± 0.80 decibel [dB] vs. 2.15 ± 1.25 dB; P = 0.016). There were no significant differences regarding the MD, VFI, foveal threshold, GHT, and number of points depressed at P < 5%, P < 2%, P < 1%, and P < 0.5% on the total deviation and pattern deviation probability maps between SS and SFR. When all exams were analyzed and any of Anderson's criteria was applied, the specificity was 68% with SFR and 61% with SS (P = 0.250). The specificities observed with SFR and SS when only the first or second exams were analyzed were also similar (63% vs. 64% and 72% vs. 58%, respectively, P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The SS and SFR were associated with similar specificities in perimetry-naive individuals. The SFR did not increase the number of depressed points in the total and pattern deviation probability maps. Ophthalmologists should be aware that both strategies are associated with disturbingly high false-positive rates in perimetry-naive individuals.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

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.

Visual fields in glaucoma: Where are we now?

Visual fields are an integral part of glaucoma diagnosis and management. COVID has heightened the awareness of the potential for viral spread with the practice of visual fields modified. Mask artefacts can occur due to fogging of the inferior rim of the trail lens. Fortunately, the risk of airborne transmission when field testing is low. The 24-2c may be useful to detect early disease and the 10-2 more sensitive to detect advanced loss. The SITA faster test algorithm is able to reduce testing time thereby improving clinic efficiency, however, may show milder results for moderate or severe glaucoma. The technician has an important role of supervising the visual field performance to achieve reliable output. Home monitoring can provide earlier detection of progression and thus improve monitoring of glaucoma as well as reduce the burden of in-clinic assessments. Artificial Intelligence has been found to have high sensitivity and specificity compared to expert observers in detecting field abnormalities and progression as well as integrating structure with function. Although these advances will improve efficiency and guide accuracy, there will remain a need for clinicians to interpret the results and instigate management.

The Frequency of Visual Field Testing in a US Nationwide Cohort of Individuals with Open-Angle Glaucoma

PURPOSE

Visual field testing that is not frequent enough results in delayed identification of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) progression. Guidelines recommend at least annual testing. It is not known how frequently patients with OAG across the United States receive visual field testing and how patient characteristics and circumstances influence this frequency. If US patients with OAG do not receive visual field tests frequently enough, interventions to increase this frequency or to develop other forms of testing visual function may reduce unidentified OAG vision loss.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

The TruvenHealth MarketScan Commercial Claims Database (IBM) contains demographic and claims data for > 160 million individuals across the United States from 2008 to 2017. We identified enrollees in the database with a recorded diagnosis of OAG (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 356.1x and H40.1x, respectively). We excluded those aged < 40 years at the time of their first OAG diagnosis, those without at least 1 confirmatory OAG diagnosis at a subsequent visit, and those with < 4 years of follow-up data after OAG diagnosis.

METHODS

We calculated the number of visual field tests that each enrollee with OAG underwent per year and categorized the enrollees based on that number (0, > 0 to < 0.9, ≥ 0.9 to ≤ 1.1, > 1.1 to ≤ 2.1, and > 2.1). We used negative binomial regression to investigate the demographic or health variables that were associated with the frequency of visual field tests that enrollees with OAG received.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency of visual field testing among enrollees with OAG.

RESULTS

Of the 380 029 enrollees included in the study, 33 267 (8.8%) did not receive a visual field test during the study period, 259 349 (68.2%) underwent > 0 to < 0.9 visual field tests per year, 42 129 (11.1%) underwent ≥ 0.9 to ≤ 1.1 visual field tests per year, 42 301 (11.1%) underwent > 1.1 to ≤ 2.1 visual field tests per year, and 2983 (0.8%) underwent ≥ 2.1 visual field tests per year. The median number of visual field tests per year was 0.63 (interquartile range, 0.33-0.88; mean, 0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

More than 75% of enrollees with OAG received < 1 visual field test per year and, thus, did not receive guideline-adherent glaucoma monitoring.

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.