Detection and measurement of clinically meaningful visual field progression in clinical trials for glaucoma |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Medical Center, 635 W. 165th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA;2. Department of Ophthalmology, McGill University, McGill Academic Eye Centre, 5252 Boul de Maisonneuve West, 4th Floor, Montreal, Quebec H4A 3S5, Canada;3. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, 2880 University Avenue, Madison, WI, USA;1. John van Geest Centre for Brain Repair, University of Cambridge, UK;2. Department of Neuroscience, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;3. Medical Research Council – Wellcome Trust Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, Cambridge, UK;4. Cambridge NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK;1. Department of Ophthalmology/Dean McGee Eye Institute, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA;2. Oklahoma Center for Neuroscience, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA;3. Department of Physiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA;1. Department of Ophthalmology & Vision Science, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, 95817, USA;2. Stem Cell Program, Institute for Regenerative Cures, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, 95817, USA;3. Department of Ophthalmology, Glick Eye Institute, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA;4. UC Davis RISE Eye-Pod Small Animal Imaging Laboratory, Department of Cell Biology and Human Anatomy, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA;1. Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Germany;2. Institute of Biochemistry, Faculty of Biology and Chemistry, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | Glaucomatous visual field progression has both personal and societal costs and therefore has a serious impact on quality of life. At the present time, intraocular pressure (IOP) is considered to be the most important modifiable risk factor for glaucoma onset and progression. Reduction of IOP has been repeatedly demonstrated to be an effective intervention across the spectrum of glaucoma, regardless of subtype or disease stage. In the setting of approval of IOP-lowering therapies, it is expected that effects on IOP will translate into benefits in long-term patient-reported outcomes. Nonetheless, the effect of these medications on IOP and their associated risks can be consistently and objectively measured. This helps to explain why regulatory approval of new therapies in glaucoma has historically used IOP as the outcome variable. Although all approved treatments for glaucoma involve IOP reduction, patients frequently continue to progress despite treatment. It would therefore be beneficial to develop treatments that preserve visual function through mechanisms other than lowering IOP. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated that they will accept a clinically meaningful definition of visual field progression using Glaucoma Change Probability criteria. Nonetheless, these criteria do not take into account the time (and hence, the speed) needed to reach significant change. In this paper we provide an analysis based on the existing literature to support the hypothesis that decreasing the rate of visual field progression by 30% in a trial lasting 12–18 months is clinically meaningful. We demonstrate that a 30% decrease in rate of visual field progression can be reliably projected to have a significant effect on health-related quality of life, as defined by validated instruments designed to measure that endpoint. |
| |
| Keywords: | Glaucoma Intraocular pressure Neuroprotection Perimetry Progression Clinical trials |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
