Association of Angle Width With Progression of Normal-Tension Glaucoma: A Minimum 7-Year Follow-up Study

Ahnul Ha,Young Kook Kim,Jin Wook Jeoung,Dong Myung Kim,Ki Ho Park
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.4333
2019-01-01
Abstract:Importance: Glaucoma has been dichotomically classified as open or closed angle, and accordingly, distinct therapies have been administered. In this study, the issue of narrow-angle normal-tension glaucoma (NTG), which may be an intermediate-stage or hybrid-stage disease entity, was addressed. Objective: To determine whether anterior chamber (AC) angle width plays any role in NTG progression. Design, setting, and participants: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data at Seoul National University Hospital between January 2004 and December 2009. Fifty-two eyes of narrow-angle NTG and 52 wide-angle NTG eyes matched for age, untreated intraocular pressure, and mean deviation of visual field. Nonindentation gonioscopy was used to grade AC angles: narrow angle was defined as a partially invisible (invisible in ≥90° and <180°) pigmented posterior trabecular meshwork, and wide angle was defined as a fully visible pigmented posterior trabecular meshwork. Data were analyzed in September 2017. Main outcomes and measures: Optic disc/retinal nerve fiber layer defect and visual field progression. Results: Of the narrow-angle NTG cohort, the mean (SD) age was 49.5 (9.1) years and 15 individuals (28.8%) were women; of the wide-angle NTG cohort, the mean (SD) age was 48.7 (9.5) years and 19 (36.5%) were women. All participants were Korean. Over the course of the mean (SD) 7.6 (0.4)-year follow-up period, 25 of 52 narrow-angle eyes (48.1%) and 13 of 52 wide-angle eyes (25.0%) showed structural progression (odds ratio [OR], 2.78; 95% CI, 1.21-6.37; P = .02). Meanwhile, 21 of 52 narrow-angle eyes (40.3%) and 9 of 52 wide-angle eyes (17.3%) showed functional progression (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.31-8.00; P = .009). The cumulative probability of both structural and functional progression was significantly greater in the narrow-angle than in the wide-angle group (mean [SD] 5-year survival rates, 0.56 [0.07] vs 0.83 [0.05]; P = .006 and 0.60 [0.07] vs 0.87 [0.05]; P = .007, respectively). The baseline diurnal intraocular pressure's SD was approximately 1.38-times greater in the narrow-angle than in the wide-angle group (1.8 [0.6] vs 1.3 [0.3] mm Hg; mean difference, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.72; P < .001). For the follow-up intraocular pressure fluctuation, the narrow-angle group showed an approximately 1.75-times greater SD (2.1 [0.5] vs 1.2 [0.3] mm Hg; mean difference, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77-1.09; P < .001). Conclusions and relevance: Narrow-angle NTG showed a greater probability of disease progression than did wide-angle NTG. Further studies determining whether augmented or differentiated treatment strategies would be beneficial for patients with narrow-angle NTG are warranted.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?