Glaucomatous visual field progression with frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in a longitudinal prospective study

PURPOSE. To compare frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry with standard automated perimetry (SAP) for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression in a longitudinal prospective study.

METHODS. One eye of patients with open-angle glaucoma was tested every 6 months with both FDT and SAP. A minimum of 6 examinations with each perimetric technique was required for inclusion. Visual field progression was determined by two methods: glaucoma change probability (GCP) analysis and linear regression analysis (LRA). For GCP, several criteria for progression were used. The number of locations required to classify progression with FDT compared with SAP, respectively, was 1:2 (least conservative), 1:3, 2:3, 2:4, 2:6, 2:7, 3:6, 3:7, and 3:10 (most conservative). The number of consecutive examinations required to confirm progression was 2-of-3, 2-of-2, and 3-of-3. For LRA, the progression criterion was any significant decline in mean threshold sensitivity over time in each of the following three visual field subdivisions: (1) all test locations, (2) locations in the central 10° and the superior and inferior hemifields, and (3) locations in each quadrant. Using these criteria, the proportion of patients classified as showing progression with each perimetric technique was calculated and, in the case of progression with both, the differences in time to progression were determined.

RESULTS. Sixty-five patients were followed for a median of 3.5 years (median number of examinations, 9). For the least conservative GCP criterion, 32 (49%) patients were found to have progressing visual fields with FDT and 32 (49%) patients with SAP. Only 16 (25%) patients showed progression with both methods, and in most of those patients, FDT identified progression before SAP (median, 12 months earlier). The majority of GCP progression criteria (15/27), classified more patients as showing progression with FDT than with SAP. Contrary to this, more patients showed progression with SAP than FDT, when analysed with LRA; e.g., using quadrant LRA 20 (31%) patients showed progression with FDT, 23 (35%) with SAP, and only 10 (15%) with both.

CONCLUSIONS. FDT perimetry detected glaucomatous visual field progression. However, the proportion of patients who showed progression with both FDT and SAP was small, possibly indicating that the two techniques identify different subgroups of patients. Using GCP, more patients showed progression with FDT than with SAP, yet the opposite occurred using LRA. As there is no independent qualifier of progression, FDT and SAP progression rates vary depending on the method of analysis and the criterion used.

Risk of falls and motor vehicle collisions in glaucoma

PURPOSE. To investigate the risk of falls and motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) in patients with glaucoma.

METHODS. The sample comprised 48 patients with glaucoma (mean visual field mean deviation [MD] in the better eye = −3.9 dB; 5.1 dB SD) and 47 age-matched normal control subjects, who were recruited from a university-based hospital eye care clinic and are enrolled in an ongoing prospective study of risk factors for falls, risk factors for MVCs, and on-road driving performance in glaucoma. Main outcome measures at baseline were previous self-reported falls and MVCs, and police-reported MVCs. Demographic and medical data were obtained. In addition, functional independence in daily living, physical activity level and balance were assessed. Clinical vision measures included visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, standard automated perimetry, useful field of view (UFOV), and stereopsis. Analyses of falls and MVCs were adjusted to account for the possible confounding effects of demographic characteristics, medications, and visual field impairment. MVC analyses were also adjusted for kilometers driven per week.

RESULTS. There were no significant differences between patients with glaucoma and control subjects with respect to number of systemic medical conditions, body mass index, functional independence, and physical activity level (P > 0.10). At baseline, 40 (83%) patients with glaucoma and 44 (94%) control subjects were driving. Compared with control subjects, patients with glaucoma were over three times more likely to have fallen in the previous year (odds ratio [OR]adjusted = 3.71; 95% CI, 1.14–12.05), over six times more likely to have been involved in one or more MVCs in the previous 5 years (ORadjusted = 6.62; 95% CI, 1.40–31.23), and more likely to have been at fault (ORadjusted = 12.44; 95% CI, 1.08–143.99). The strongest risk factor for MVCs in patients with glaucoma was impaired UFOV selective attention (ORadjusted = 10.29; 95% CI, 1.10–96.62; for selective attention >350 ms compared with ≤350 ms).

CONCLUSIONS. There is an increased risk of falls and MVCs in patients with glaucoma.

Visual sensitivity loss in the central 30° of visual field is associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Aims/hypothesis
Impaired central vision has been shown to predict diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). Several studies have demonstrated diffuse retinal neurodegenerative changes in diabetic patients prior to retinopathy development, raising the prospect that non-central vision may also be compromised by primary neural damage. We hypothesise that type 2 diabetic patients with DPN exhibit visual sensitivity loss in a distinctive pattern across the visual field, compared with a control group of type 2 diabetic patients without DPN.

Methods
Increment light sensitivity was measured by standard perimetry in the central 30° of visual field for two age-matched groups of type 2 diabetic patients, with and without neuropathy (n = 40/30). Neuropathy status was assigned using the neuropathy disability score. Mean visual sensitivity values were calculated globally, for each quadrant and for three eccentricities (0–10°, 11–20° and 21–30°). Data were analysed using a generalised additive mixed model (GAMM).

Results
Global and quadrant between-group visual sensitivity mean differences were marginally but consistently lower (by about 1 dB) in the neuropathy cohort compared with controls. Between-group mean differences increased from 0.36 to 1.81 dB with increasing eccentricity. GAMM analysis, after adjustment for age, showed these differences to be significant beyond 15° eccentricity and monotonically increasing. Retinopathy levels and disease duration were not significant factors within the model (p = 0.90).

Conclusions/interpretation
Visual sensitivity reduces disproportionately with increasing eccentricity in type 2 diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathy. This sensitivity reduction within the central 30° of visual field may be indicative of more consequential loss in the far periphery.