glaucoma for the “ regular”...

Glaucoma For The “ Regular” Optometrist

Eric E. Schmidt, O.D.Omni Eye Specialists

Wilmington, [email protected]

Glaucoma Risk Factors

• FINDACAR

• The more risk factors one has, the more likely one is to develop glaucoma

• The more risk factors one has, the lower the IOP target should be

A Review Of Risk Factors

• FINDACAR– Family history– IOP– Nearsightedness– Diabetes/Vascular disease– Age– Corneal thickness– Asymmetry– Race

A risk factor analysis is critical

• For the diagnosis• To increase your level of suspicion• For initiating therapy• For changing therapy

• BUT…are any of these more important than others?

Reviewing The Glaucoma Studies

What do they all mean?

EMGT Conclusions

1) Reducing IOP (by 25%) prevents or slows VF defect and progression

2) For each 1mm of IOP reduction there is a 10% lower risk of VF loss

3) Study design and outcome show that these results are only due to IOP reduction (non IOP related factors showed difference between the 2 groups)

4) Tx effect was equal across age and glaucoma categories

Eric’s spin on the EMGT

• 1-2 extra mm Hg may indeed be important-especially in advanced cases.

• For those pxs who need treatment, aggressive therapy is warranted

• It is probably better to treat early than late• You do not necessarily need to wait until the VF

defects arise before therapy is initiated• The benefit of treatment does last throughout the

lifetime of the px – just remember the risk/benefit

AGIS Results

• Pxs who achieved IOP < 18mm on 100% of f/up visits showed no VF progression (avg IOP 12.3mm)

• Pxs w/ IOP < 18mm on<50% of f/up visits showed VF progression (mean IOP 20.2mm)

Low IOP Slows or Halts Vision Loss in Open-Angle Glaucoma

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Mean IOP (mm Hg)

Perc

enta

ge o

f Pat

ient

s

Stable Progressed

stable

Mao et al, AJO, 1991

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Low IOP Slows or Halts Vision Loss in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Many studies have shown that reducing IOP in patients with elevated IOP limits the progression of glaucoma and slows visual field loss. For example, Mao and associates (1991) reported a prospective study of patients with early primary open-angle glaucoma. Patients included in the study had IOP controlled with ocular hypotensive medications or laser trabeculoplasty. They had optic disc cupping but little or no visual field loss at the beginning of the study. Patients were followed for 4 to 11 years. All eyes with an average IOP less than 17 mm Hg during follow-up remained stable; all eyes with an average IOP over 21 mm Hg had progressive optic disc cupping and/or visual field loss. Note that large numbers of patients continue to progress even with IOPs of 17 to 19 mm Hg. Reference Mao LK, Stewart WC, Shields MB. Correlation between intraocular pressure control and progressive glaucomatous damage in primary open-angle glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1991;111(1):51-55.

Aggressive IOP Lowering Needed In Advanced POAG

IOP <15 mm Hg

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28Mean IOP Over 15 Years (mm Hg)

Perc

enta

ge o

f Eye

s

Stable Progressed

Shirakashi et al, Ophthalmologica, 1993

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Aggressive IOP Lowering Needed In Advanced POAG IOP <15 mm Hg The optic nerve that has already been damaged appears to be more susceptible to pressure-mediated injury; therefore, patients with glaucomatous neuropathy require very low target pressures to halt the disease (Grant & Burke, 1982). A retrospective study of 83 eyes with advanced glaucoma (loss of at least a quarter of the visual field) that were followed up for at least 15 years was reported by Shirakashi and associates (1993). Over the 15-year follow-up, the visual field worsened in 71 of the 83 eyes (86%). The mean IOP in these eyes during follow-up was 19.4 mm Hg. Each of these eyes had a mean IOP of 15 mm Hg or higher. In contrast, 12 of the 83 eyes (14%) were stable during the follow-up period. These eyes had a mean IOP of 13.4 mm Hg (ranging from 11-15 mm Hg). These results suggest that IOP should be reduced to target pressures under 15 mm Hg in order to prevent further visual field loss in advanced glaucoma. References Grant WM, Burke J Jr. Why do some people go blind from glaucoma? Ophthalmology 1982;89(9):991-998. Shirakashi M, Iwata K, Sawaguchi S, Abe H, Nanba K. Intraocular pressure-dependent progression of visual field loss in advanced primary open-angle glaucoma: a 15-year follow up. Ophthalmologica. 1993;207(1):1-5.

Diurnal IOP Fluctuations Speed Glaucomatous Progression

Asrani et al, J Glauc, 2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

Patients With Diurnal IOPRange >11.8 mm Hg

Patients With Diurnal IOPRange <7.7 mm Hg

Pat

ient

s (%

)

Stable Visual Field

Visual Field Loss

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Diurnal IOP Fluctuations Speed Glaucomatous Progression This graph demonstrates that glaucoma patients with wide diurnal IOP fluctuations are at greater risk of visual field loss than those with more stable IOP levels throughout the day and night. The single IOP measures taken in the clinic did not predict the extent of diurnal variation. A large variation in IOP over multiple days is also a significant risk factor for progression of glaucomatous damage. Reference Asrani S, Zeimer R, Wilensky J, et al. Large diurnal fluctuations in intraocular pressure are an independent risk factor in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2000;9(2):134-142.

AGIS Results

• Diurnal Curve Is Real Important– Avg IOP of 15mm with a curve btwn 13mm –

17mm progresses less than if curve is btwn 11mm – 19mm

• The peak IOP is important• Which tx best affect the diurnal curve?

• Also remember risk/benefit ratio

Consistently Low IOP Reduces Vision Loss

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

0 20 40 60 80 100Follow-up Visit (Months)

Mea

n C

hang

e in

Vis

ual

Def

ect S

core

All visits <1875 to 100% of visits <1850 to 75% of visits <180 to 50% of visits <18

Mean IOP

20.2 mm Hg

16.9 mm Hg14.7 mm Hg

12.3 mm Hg

AGIS 7, AJO, 2000

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Consistently Low IOP Reduces Vision Loss This slide demonstrates the importance of maintaining a consistently low IOP for the long term measured in months or years, as illustrated with data from the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS, 2000). After surgery to reduce IOP, patients with IOP consistently below �18 mm Hg over the 6-year follow-up period had, on average, visual field progression close to zero. Mean IOP during this period in this group of patients was very low (12.3 mm Hg). At later time points during follow-up, the visual field worsened significantly more in patients with IOP of 18 or more at any visit compared with patients who always had IOP under 18. For example, the average visual field defect worsened more in patients with IOP of 18 or more at 75% to <100% of visits (the mean IOP was 14.7 mm Hg in these patients) compared with patients who had IOPs under 18 mm Hg at all visits (the mean IOP was 12.3 mm Hg in these patients). Reference The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130(4):429-440.

OHTS

• Goal of tx – 20% drop in IOP- 24mm target IOP

RESULTS: At 5 years4.4% of tx group developed POAG9.5% of no tx group developed POAG

So - lowering IOP in Oc Hx reduced the likelihood of glaucoma by 50% - RIGHT?

OHTS – A Closer Look

• 90% of untreated group did not progress• 95.6% of tx group did not progress

• It proved that in those individuals who are going to progress to POAG lowering IOP by 22.4% will delay the onset by at least 5 yrs.

• Who are “ those individuals at risk”?

OHTS – The Nitty Gritty

• The most predictive factors for conversion:– Older age

• 22% increase/ decade– Larger horizontal and vertical C/D

• 32% increase/0.1 larger– Higher baseline IOP

• 10% increase/ mm Hg– Thinner corneas

• 71% increase in risk/ 40 microns thinner

Risk Factors For Conversion

The pachymetry issue

• Juicy Data– 36% of pxs w/ IOP >25.75 AND K thickness < 555

microns developed POAG– 6% of pxs w/ same IOP but K thickness > 588

converted toPOAG• Juicy Data II

– 15% pxs w/ C/D .3/.3 and K thickness < 555 microns converted but

– 4% of pxs w/ same disk parameters and K thickness> 588 microns converted

More Pachymetry Chatter

• African-Americans have thinner corneas• Perhaps thin corneas translate to poor

connective tissue at the disk as well• Is there a fudge-factor for K thickness?

– Baseline of 545 microns– Add or subtract 2.5mm Hg for every 50

microns deviation (Doughty and Zaman, Surv Ophthalmol, 2000).

• How should you use this data?

Corneal Thickness And Glaucoma The Latest Scoop

• CCT and VF loss –– CCT is a strong predictor for field loss in both

NTG and POAG

– CCT-adjusted IOP does not predict VF loss

• Sullivan-Mee, Halverson, et.al. Optometry 2005;76:228-38.

Corneal Thickness and Glaucoma

• CCT and Visual Function In OHT pxs– OHT pxs with abnormal SWAP results had

significantly thinner CCT than normals or OHT pxs with no VF defects

– Abnormal VF – 545microns– OHT w/ normal VF – 572 microns– Normals – 557 microns

• Medeiros, Sample, Weinreb – AJO Feb, 2003 135,No.2

• So????

CCT And Glaucoma-More latest scoop

• RNFL thickness and CCT in OHT pxs– RNFL in OHT pxs with CCT < 555 was

significantly thinner than in those with CCT >555.

– RNFL of normals and OHT pxs with CCT >555 were similar

– Points to an inherent structural predispositon to glaucomatous damage?

– Kaushik,S, et.al, AJO May 2006, 884-890.

CCT and Treatment Response• OHTS group –AJO, November, 2004• Pxs with thinner corneas responded better to

PGA and beta-blockers– 1mm difference for beta-blockers– 1.5-2.5 mm difference for PGAs– 550 microns was tipping point

• Fan and Camras reported similar results with brimonidine (ARVO, 2004)

• Why??? And what clinical implications are there?

Predictive Factors For Progressing POAG

• Older age• Advanced VF damage• Smaller neuroretinal im• Larger zone Beta

– Martus, Jonas, et.al. AJO, June 2005• Baseline IOP, but not Mean IOP

• Martinez-Bello, et al, AJO March 2000.

Risk factors for progression • Predictive Factors for Progressive Optic Nerve Damage

in Various Types of Chronic Open-Angle Glaucoma -– Martus, Budde, Jonas, et.al. – AJO 6/05

• POAG-– Older age– Advanced perimetric damage– Smaller neuroretinal rim– Larger Beta zone

• NTG-– Baseline disk hemorrhage

When deciding to treat …

• Identify…– Risk factors for conversion– Risk factors for progression– Risk factors for rate of progression

• Initial peak IOP• Age• C/D ratio• Systemic/vascular status

– Noscitur a sociis!

IOP and Glaucoma

• Which IOP is most important?– Mean IOP– Peak IOP– Trough IOP– IOP range

• For pxs who showed progression of glaucoma despite IOP at acceptable range – 3% showed a peak IOP >21mm– 35% showed a range of IOP >5mm

– Collaer, Caprioli, et.al, J Glaucoma 2005;14(3): 196-200

• Underscores the importance of serial tonometry even in well controlled pxs

When Is The Peak IOP?

• 3,025 IOP readings on 1,072 eyes• NTG, POAG, Pre-perimetric G, OHT• Results:

– Peak IOP – 7AM – 20.4%– Noon – 17.8%– 5PM - 13.9%– 9PM – 26.7%

– Jonas, Budde, et al. AJO, June 2005;139:136-137

Jonas study conclusion

• “Any single IOP measurement taken between 7AM and 9PM has a higher than 75% chance to miss the highest point of the diurnal curve.”

• Stresses the need for serial tonometry.

“New” Goal of treatment in Glaucoma

• Low and Stable IOP

• Minimize the diurnal curve

• Prevent IOP peaks

Treatment Goals of Glaucoma• Maximum IOP reduction—achieve lower IOP

to help preserve sight; historically physicians tried to achieve pressures below 20 mm Hg

• Maintaining low IOP over 24 hours—avoid pressure spikes associated with visual field progression

• Ease of use—patient compliance is best with simple, easy-to-use medication regimen (typical glaucoma patient uses at least 3 other systemic medicines); monotherapy is preferred

• Safety—minimize systemic safety issues

Gottfredsdottir et al. J Glaucoma. 1997.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

In the early 1960s, papers by Chandler (1960) and Shaffer (1963) recommended keeping IOP in the normal range (at or below 21 mm Hg) as the acceptable goal for IOP lowering in glaucoma patients. A systematic evaluation of the relationship between IOP lowering and disease progression, however, was not available until recently. Conducting studies to ascertain the optimal IOP level for treating glaucoma patients has been difficult for 2 reasons. First, visual function declines over a period of years, so studies must be several years in duration. Second, improved technology for measuring visual function has only existed for the last decade. As a result, only recently have population-based studies been published that document the levels of IOP needed to preserve sight. These studies demonstrate that the lower the IOP, the better the preservation of the visual field. Studies also show that it is important to maintain low pressure over the course of the day and to minimize pressure spikes. References Chandler PA. Long-term results in glaucoma therapy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1960;49:221-246. Gottfredsdottir MS, Allingham RR, Shields MB. Physicians’ guide to interactions between glaucoma and systemic medications. J Glaucoma. 1997;6(6):377-383. Shaffer RN. Open-angle glaucoma. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1963(4);67:467-475.

Recommendations

• Minimum initial target IOP reduction of 25% recommended for glaucoma patients

• More aggressive initial target IOP reductions of 30% or 35% recommended for most patients: especially those at higher risk

• Target IOP must be DYNAMIC, re-evaluated periodically, and lowered if patient progresses despite meeting the initial target IOP– Re-evaluate and adjust patient’s target IOP

at least every 5 years, and in light of newest information

The Delphi Panel. PDR. 2003.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Reference Coleman et al. Evidence-based Management of Glaucoma: Recommendations of an Expert Panel. Physician Desk Reference. November 2003.

General Rule #1

• 30% decrease as an initial target

• Target decrease from highest untreated IOP

• CNTGS, OHTS

General Rule #2

• Mild glaucoma – decrease IOP 30%

• Moderate glaucoma – decrease IOP 40%

• Severe glaucoma – decrease IOP 50% (at least)

When should the target IOP be changed?

• VF progression (even at target IOP)• Neuroretinal rim recession (even at target

IOP)• Parametric changes• Long term stability – even if on multiple

meds

Importance of IOP Stability

• IOP variation is a risk factor for VF loss in glaucoma

• VF protected best when pressures are consistently kept under 18 mm Hg

• Wide swings in IOP during the day or from visit to visit should be avoided

• Stabilizing IOP is vital

Treatment Paradigm Summary• Mean IOP in study populations

– Early treatment to lower IOP reduces and delays progression– NEI trials show better outcomes at lowest IOP

• IOP in individual patient– To preserve vision, every mm Hg matters– Individualized, low target IOP recommended

• New predictors of progression– Diurnal fluctuation and long-term variation in IOP within

individual patients can cause glaucomatous damage• Treatment goal: get IOP low, and keep it low

Heijl et al. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; Kass et al. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002; Lichter et al. Ophthalmology. 2001; AGIS Investigators: 7. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

References Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:701-713. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M; Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial Group. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1268-1279. Lichter PR, Musch DC, Gillespie BW, et al.; CIGTS Study Group. Interim clinical outcomes in the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study comparing initial treatment randomized to medications or surgery. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1943-1953. The AGIS Investigators. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual field deterioration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:429-440.

Primary Medical Therapy

• Building block approach

• Start with the STRONGEST FOUNDATION

• Efficacy Goals of Primary Therapy– Achieve lowest IOP on single agent– High response rate – every mm Hg matters – Maintain consistent long term and diurnal

pressure lowering

Eric’s 7 Simple Rules For Treatment

1. Choose 30% IOP decrease as initial target

2. Squash the diurnal curve (Keep IOP peak <18mm)

3. Assess risk factors for progression and rate of progression(CT<555, IOP >26,C/D 0.5)

Eric’s Rules cont.

4. If you are going to treat; treat aggressively

5. KISS

6. Be mindful of perfusion issues

7. Above all, do no harm

The Glaucoma Treatment Universe 2008

• Prostaglandins• Alpha –agonist• CAI• Combo drugs• Ginkgo , etc

• Beta-blockers• Cardioselective beta-

blockers• ALT/SLT• Trabeculectomy• Nutrition issues

Prostaglandins

• All decrease IOP by increasing uveoscleral outflow

• All are effective at squashing the diurnal curve

• They have either no effect or a positive effect on retinal perfusion

• But does 1 work better than the others?

Why Are so Many Patients on Multiple Medications?

• Target IOPs set lower than in the past• As disease progresses, patients need

even lower IOP• Even the most effective IOP-lowering

medications, the lipids, do not get all patients to low target IOPs

Choosing Therapy: Switch or Add?

• Target IOP should be reached with minimal number of medications

• Build strongest foundation prior to adjunctive therapy• Switching to a more effective medication may be best

course of action• Differences within medication classes exist• Potential benefits of monotherapy

– Improved patient compliance– Decreased cost– Reduced cumulative exposure to benzalkonium chloride

Presenter

Presentation Notes

When selecting a therapeutic regimen for reaching a preselected target IOP, clinicians should strive to reach the target pressure with as few medications as possible. This often means that clinicians should switch patients from inadequate or ineffective medications and not just simply add another agent. This strategy is important because we know that monotherapy increases patient compliance and decreases the risk of ocular side effects and irritation of the corneal surface due to overexposure to benzalkonium chloride.

What If:

• A patient failed on Xalatan?

• If switched to Lumigan, 57% achieved target IOP

• If switched to Travatan, 45.5% achieved target IOP

• SO?

Latanoprost Non-Responders: Switch to Bimatoprost

Gandolfi, Cimino. Ophthalmology. 2003.

24.7 24.8 24.1

18.1

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

Baseline(Untreated)

After 30 DaysWashoutBetween

Treatments

After 30 Dayson

Latanoprost

After 30 Dayson

Bimatoprost

*P <.001 vs baseline, washout, and latanoprost

*

n = 15

Mea

n 16

-Hou

r Diu

rnal

IOP

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Bimatoprost reduces mean IOP in latanoprost nonresponders. The purpose of this study was to determine if bimatoprost effectively lowers IOP in eyes demonstrated to be nonresponsive to latanoprost. This was a randomized, prospective clinical trial with a cross-over design in patients with previous documented non-response to latanoprost. Patients were treated with each study medication for 30 days with a 30-day washout between treatment periods. One eye was treated and the fellow eye was untreated, which provided an internal control. The efficacy outcome measure was diurnal IOP measured over 16 hours at study visits before and after treatment. Bimatoprost provided a 6-7 mm Hg average decrease in IOP in patients who were nonresponders to latanoprost. At every time point throughout the day, the mean IOP of eyes on bimatoprost was significantly less than the mean IOP at baseline and on latanoprost. Reference Gandolfi SA, Cimino L. Effect of bimatoprost on patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension who are nonresponders to latanoprost. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:609-614.

Regarding Prostaglandins:

• Generally the 1st line of treatment• There are interindividual differences in

efficacy• Are there racial differences?• If at first one fails; try, try , try again (with

another prostaglandin)

• Why wouldn’t you use a prostaglandin 1st?

Prostaglandin Side Effects

• Conjunctival hyperemia: Severe hyperemia– Lumigan 3.5%– Travatan 1.5%– Xalatan <1%– Rescula 1%

• Is this a transient phenomenon?• Is it an allergic conjunctivitis?• Is it worth stopping the drop?

Prostaglandin Side Effects• Iris pigmentation

– Is it reversible?– Is it pre-cancerous?

• Xalatan – 6.7% @ 6mths16% @ 12mths

• Travatan – 3% @ 12 mths• Lumigan – 1.9% @ 12mths• Rescula – 1 patient

• SO?

Other Prostaglandin side effects

• CME• Uveitis• Reactivation of HSK• Hypertrichosis

• One must take into consideration the benefits of low IOP with the risks of the side effects

Final prostaglandin thoughts

• They are additive to other G drugs but not with each other

• Travatan and Lumigan maintain target IOP 36hrs after instillation and significant IOP drop up to 84 hrs after instillation

What if Target Pressure Is Not Reached With Even the Most

Powerful Monotherapy?

• Add a second medication!

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The goal of IOP-lowering therapy is to reach the target pressure. Ideally, this goal will be accomplished with monotherapy, but if the patient has not achieved the target pressure, it may be necessary to re-evaluate therapy. The patient should be queried to see whether there are problems with compliance. If the patient has complied with the regimen, but IOP is above the target pressure range, a treatment decision is needed. If the optic disc and visual field (VF) are stable, the physician may choose to wait until there is a discernable change before altering the therapy. If there is evidence of progression, or if the physician chooses not to wait, more aggressive treatment should be initiated. There are 2 choices for treatment: the patient can be switched to a more efficacious primary therapy, or another medication can be added to the regimen. It is not unusual for a patient who was diagnosed many years ago to be on multiple IOP-lowering medications. The efficacy of some of them may have decreased over time, and the patient may possibly have developed systemic side effects and failed to attribute them to the topical medication. One approach to dealing with this situation is to discontinue all medications and then initiate monotherapy. Monotherapy with one of the newer drugs may lower IOP into the target pressure range, and IOP control on monotherapy is both possible and preferred. If the patient is uncontrolled on monotherapy, the patient can be switched to another monotherapy, or another drug can be added. The effectiveness of each medication used should be monitored, and the patient should be taken off any medication that fails to significantly reduce IOP.

Primary Considerations in Choosing Adjunctive Therapy

• Efficacy when used with the first-line medication– IOP should be reduced by at least an additional

15% to a level as low as possible– A medication that is effective monotherapy, or when

added to one medication, may not be effective when added to a different medication!

• Safety– Safety concerns increase with each additional

medication: add the safest medication possible

Brimonidine vs Dorzolamide Added to Topical Beta-Blocker

• Only patients who met target 15% IOP reduction were continued beyond 1 month

0

20

40

60

80

100*

* * P < .007

Patie

nts

Ach

ievi

ng T

arge

t≥

15%

IOP

Red

uctio

n (%

)

Month 1 Month 3

86%

62%

78%

44%

Brimonidine BID Dorzolamide TID

Simmons, Alphagan/Trusopt Study Group. Clin Ther. 2001.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

When added to topical selective or non-selective beta-blocker therapy, a significantly higher percentage of patients achieved at least an additional 15% reduction in IOP with brimonidine than with dorzolamide. After 1 month of adjunctive therapy, a significantly higher percentage of patients achieved the 15% or greater target IOP reduction with brimonidine (86%, 44/51) than with dorzolamide (62%, 29/47;�P = .005). The percentage of brimonidine-treated patients that met the target IOP reduction at month 3 (78%; 28/36) was significantly higher than the percentage of dorzolamide-treated patients that met the target IOP reduction at month 3 (44%, 12/27; P = .007). Reference Simmons ST; Alphagan/Trusopt Study Group. Efficacy of brimonidine 0.2% and dorzolamide 2% as adjunctive therapy to beta blockers in adult patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Clin Ther. 2001;23:604-619.

Treatment paradigm – Step 2

• Prostaglandins 1st

• If not successful – try another agent by itself: Brimonidine bid or timolol QAM or CAI BID

• If neither of these get IOP to desired level then add

Treatment Paradigm, Part III

1.Prostaglandins alone2. Brimonidine or beta-blocker alone3. Prostaglandin + beta-blocker or

brimonidine (unless 1 of these absolutely sucked!)

4. Consider CAI or combo drop if (3) is not successful

Treatment paradigm, part IV

• If on 2 meds and target IOP not met…– 1. Consider 3rd drop (Betoptic S or CAI)– 2. Substitute Cosopt or Combigan for least successful

drop– 3. Consider ALT or SLT

• What is maximum medical therapy nowadays?• SLT/ALT and trabeculectomy should not be

considered weapons of last choice or last chance

Remember The Diurnal Curve!!!

• PGAs• Trabeculectomy• Brimonidine -TID• CAI – TID• What about beta-blockers?

– BID vs QAM– ½% vs ¼%– Effect on diurnal curve

Visual Fields and Glaucoma

• Are they still cool?

• Are they considered the standard of care?

• How often?

• Do they better measure early detection or progression?

Are certain VF parameters more predictive for progression?

• Johnson, Sample et al. – AJO 8/2002 177-185

• Highest predictors of conversion– GHT “outside normal limits”– 2 hemifield clusters worse than 5% level– 4 abnormal (P<.05) locations on pattern

deviation probability plot– Specificity increased with 2nd confirmatory VF

test

Which VF instrument is best?

• SAP, SWAP or FDT– FDT and SWAP similar in flagging abnormal

locations– FDT defects were more extensive in 62%

• SWAP more specific and accurate than SAP but harder to administer

• FDT questionable in end stage glaucoma• Use 10-2 strategy in advanced glaucoma

What About Imaging Units?

• Are they essential?

• What do they do ?

• What do they don’t do?

• Are they the standard of care?

3 Questions For The Audience:

• 1. What is your definition of glaucoma?

• 2. What is the pathology of glaucoma?

• 3. Is retinal imaging the standard of care for treating glaucoma?

RNFL and Glaucoma

• Axons of retinal ganglion cells form the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL)

• Glaucoma is characterized by loss of ganglion cells leading to loss of retinal nerve fibers

Glaucoma is a disease of the RNFL

RNFL and Glaucoma

• RNFL changes are early to occur in glaucoma• Up to 50% of the retinal nerve fibers may be lost

before a visual field defect is detectable• Early detection of glaucoma by RNFL imaging

and analysis leads to early treatment, improving the chance to delay or halt the disease progression

It’s Like An Alphabet Soup!!!

• GDx• HRT• OCT• RTA

• Are they all the same?• Are they all different?• Are there clinical studies to prove their claims?

DIAGNOSE: Early is Better

Disc change precedes VF loss in most cases

glaucoma for the “ regular”...

Documents