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

The Evolution and Current Landscape of Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgeries: A Review

This review examines the evolution, current status, and future potential of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS), a significant advancement in the treatment of glaucoma, a leading cause of irreversible blindness. MIGS offer a less invasive alternative to traditional glaucoma surgeries, primarily aimed at reducing intraocular pressure, minimizing tissue trauma, and providing a safer profile. With the emergence of devices such as the Trabectome, iStent, and others, MIGS have expanded the surgical toolkit, allowing personalized, patient-centered care. Despite their advantages, MIGS face challenges such as efficacy in severe cases, long-term data, and accessibility. Ongoing research and technological innovations continue to refine their capabilities and applications, promising to further transform glaucoma management and patient outcomes. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of MIGS, reflecting on their impact and contemplating future directions in this dynamically evolving field.

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.

Gel Stent Versus Trabeculectomy: The Randomized, Multicenter, Gold-Standard Pathway Study (GPS) of Effectiveness and Safety at 12 Months

PURPOSE

To compare effectiveness and safety of the gel stent to trabeculectomy in open-angle glaucoma (OAG).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, multicenter, noninferiority study.

METHODS

Patients with OAG and intraocular pressure (IOP) 15 to 44 mm Hg on topical IOP-lowering medication were randomized 2:1 to gel stent implantation or trabeculectomy. Primary end point (surgical success): percentage of patients at month 12 achieving ≥20% IOP reduction from baseline without medication increase, clinical hypotony, vision loss to counting fingers, or secondary surgical intervention (SSI) in a noninferiority test with 24% margins. Secondary end points (month 12) included mean IOP and medication count, postoperative intervention rate, visual recovery, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Safety end points included adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

At month 12, the gel stent was statistically noninferior to trabeculectomy (between-treatment difference [Δ], -6.1%; 95% CI, -22.9%, 10.8%); 62.1% and 68.2% achieved the primary end point, respectively (P=.487); mean IOP and medication count reductions from baseline were significant (P<.001); and the IOP change-related Δ (2.8 mm Hg) favored trabeculectomy (P=.024). The gel stent resulted in fewer eyes requiring in-office postoperative interventions (P=.024 after excluding laser suture lysis), faster visual recovery (P≤.048), and greater 6-month improvements in visual function problems (ie, PROs; P≤.022). The most common AEs were reduced visual acuity at any time (gel stent, 38.9%; trabeculectomy, 54.5%) and hypotony (IOP <6 mm Hg at any time) (gel stent, 23.2%; trabeculectomy, 50.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

At month 12, the gel stent was statistically noninferior to trabeculectomy, per the percentage of patients achieving ≥20% IOP reduction from baseline without medication increase, clinical hypotony, vision loss to counting fingers, or SSI. Trabeculectomy achieved a statistically lower mean IOP, numerically lower failure rate, and numerically lower need for supplemental medications. The gel stent resulted in fewer postoperative interventions, better visual recovery, and fewer AEs.

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.

Impact of minimally invasive glaucoma surgery on the ocular surface and quality of life in patients with glaucoma

Background:

Minimally invasive glaucoma procedures are emerging as clinically effective and safe glaucoma management approaches; however, evidence regarding quality-of-life outcomes is limited.

Objectives:

To explore the impact of minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) combined with phacoemulsification on patient-reported outcomes and clinical parameters related to ocular surface disease in people with glaucoma.

Design:

Retrospective observational study.

Methods:

Fifty-seven consecutive patients were examined prior to undergoing iStent combined with phacoemulsification with or without adjunctive endocyclophotocoagulation and at 4-month follow-up.

Results:

At follow-up, on average patients returned statistically significantly improved scores on glaucoma-specific (GQL-15, p < 0.001; GSS, p < 0.001), general health (EQ-5D, p = 0.02) and ocular surface PROMs (OSDI, p = 0.001). Patients were using fewer eye drops on average after MIGS compared with before surgery (1.1 ± 0.9 versus 1.8 ± 0.8; p < 0.001). Undergoing MIGS was associated with improved tear film break-up time ( p < 0.001) and reduced corneal fluorescein staining ( p < 0.001).

Conclusion:

This retrospective audit shows quality of life and clinical parameters related to the ocular surface are improved following MIGS combined with phacoemulsification in patients previously treated with anti-glaucoma therapy.

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.

Measuring Patient Preferences at the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Reflections and Projections

OBJECTIVES

Patient preference information (PPI) is a way to incorporate the patient voice in the evaluation of medical devices. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) has been working to encourage the voluntary inclusion of PPI throughout the medical device lifecycle for nearly a decade. This article reflects CDRH's efforts to encourage collection of PPI and offers perspectives on the future of PPI in the evaluation of medical devices.

METHODS

CDRH regulatory guidance, public meetings, and collaborations relating to PPI were explored.

RESULTS

Since 2012 when CDRH issued guidance on how PPI can be used as scientific evidence in the benefit-risk regulatory submission, CDRH has issued 5 subsequent guidance documents expanding on the use of PPI in medical device evaluations. CDRH remains committed to advancing the science and application of PPI in the medical device ecosystem through many collaborations with professional organizations, patient advocacy groups, and academic institutions. By hosting and actively participating in multiple scientific and regulatory public meetings and conferences, CDRH fosters a continuous learning environment where the experience of using PPI in regulatory submissions can be shared. A September 2020 meeting cosponsored by FDA and International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) discussed the state of PPI in regulatory applications and beyond.

CONCLUSION

This article describes these pivotal events that have helped to increase the use of PPI in medical device evaluation as well as discusses future applications of PPI.

Personalising surgical treatments for glaucoma patients

Surgical treatments for glaucoma have relied for decades on traditional filtering surgery such as trabeculectomy and, in more challenging cases, tubes. Antifibrotics were introduced to improve surgical success in patients at increased risk of failure but have been shown to be linked to a greater incidence of complications, some being potentially vision-threatening. As our understanding of glaucoma and its early diagnosis have improved, a more individualised management has been suggested. Recently the term "precision medicine" has emerged as a new concept of an individualised approach to disease management incorporating a wide range of individual data in the choice of therapeutic modalities. For glaucoma surgery, this involves evaluation of the right timing, individual risk factors, targeting the correct anatomical and functional outflow pathways and appropriate prevention of scarring. As a consequence, there is an obvious need for better knowledge of anatomical and functional pathways and for more individualised surgical approaches with new, less invasive and safer techniques allowing for earlier intervention. With the recent advent of minimally invasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) a large number of novel devices have been introduced targeting potential new sites of the outflow pathway for lowering intraocular pressure (IOP). Their popularity is growing in view of the relative surgical simplicity and apparent lack of serious side effects. However, these new surgical techniques are still in an era of early experiences, short follow-up and lack of evidence of their superiority in safety and cost-effectiveness over the traditional methods. Each year several new devices are introduced while others are withdrawn from the market. Glaucoma continues to be the primary cause of irreversible blindness worldwide and access to safe and efficacious treatment is a serious problem, particularly in the emerging world where the burden of glaucoma-related blindness is important and concerning. Early diagnosis, individualised treatment and, very importantly, safe surgical management should be the hallmarks of glaucoma treatment. However, there is still need for a better understanding of the disease, its onset and progression, the functional and structural elements of the outflow pathways in relation to the new devices as well as their long-term IOP-lowering efficacy and safety. This review discusses current knowledge and the future need for personalised glaucoma surgery.

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.