EVOLUTION THE CONCEPTS OF ROLE OF INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE IN GLAUCOMA PROGRESSION (REVIEW)

The role of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) in the progression of glaucoma optical neuropathy has emphasized repeatedly. The question about the role of elevated IOP as the underlying cause of glaucoma arose in the early 1960s. However, epidemiological studies have questioned the role of IOP as a diagnostic criterion for glaucoma, due to the relatively rare detection the disease among those with ocular hypertension and frequent detection of glaucoma with normal IOP. Multicenter studies determining the role of antihypertensive therapy in the treatment of glaucoma, have shown the importance of reducing IOP: decricing IOP at 1 mm Hg reduced the risk of developing glaucoma on 10-19%. In addition, it was found that the rate of glaucoma progression is very variable. It depends not only on the form of glaucoma, but also on other factors such as the stage of disease and therapy. Swedish study shown normal-tension glaucoma often progressed among the patients with more aggressive treatment such as argon laser trabeculoplasty or trabeculectomies. According to the study’s data, age is the most important risk factor for the progression of normal-tension glaucoma. Such questions as fluctuations in IOP, reduction of retrobulbar blood flow, antihypertensive treatment on the progression of glaucoma are still discussed. Despite the fact that the latter UKGTS multicenter study (2014) showed a decrease in the rate of progression of glaucoma in patients treated with latanoprost, a high percentage of non-treated patients didn’t have disease’s progression. In this regard, the role of IOP as main starting factor in glaucoma pathogenesis is still open.

1. Strömberg U. Ocular hypertension. Frequency, course and relation to other disorders occurring in glaucoma, as seen from mass survey of all inhabitants over forty years of age in a Swedish town. Acta Ophthlmol Suppl. 1962; Suppl 69:1 75.

2. Heijl A. Perimetry, tonometry and epidemiology: the fate of glaucoma management. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011:309–315

3. Hollows F., Graham P. Intra ocular pressure, glaucoma, and glaucoma suspects in a defined population. Br J Ophthalmol.1966;50(10):570 86.

4. Iwase A, Suzuki Y, Araie M et al. (2004): The prevalence of primary open angle glaucoma in Japanese: the Tajimi Study. Ophthalmology 111:1641–1648.

5. Keltner J.L., Johnson C.A., Cello K.E., et al. Visual field quality control in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS). J Glaucoma. 2007;16(8):665–669.

6. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L, Bengtsson B. Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial: design and baseline data. Ophthalmology. 1999 Nov;106(11):2144–53.

7. Octopus automated projection perimetry. Evidence for a learning effect. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 65(3):326–333.

8. Simon S., Fung S., Lemer C., Russell R., Malik R., Crabb D. Are practical recommendations practiced? A national multi centre cross sectional study on frequency of visual field testing in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:843–847.

9. Heijl A., Lundqvist L. (1984) The frequency distribution of earliest glaucomatous visual field defects documented by automatic perimetry. Acta Ophthalmology. 1984;62(4):658 664.

10. Singh K., Shrivastava A. Intraocular pressure fluctuations: how much do they matter? Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20:84–87.

11. Sommer A., Tielsch J.M., Katz .J, et al. Racial differences in the cause specific prevalence of blindness in east Baltimore. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(20):1412–7.

12. Heijl A. Automatic perimetry in glaucoma visual field screening. A clinical study. Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol. 1976 Jul 26;2000(1):21–37.

13. Epstein DL, Krug JH Jr, Hertzmark E, Remis LL, Edelstein DJ. A long term clinical trial of timolol therapy versus no treatment in the management of glaucoma suspects. Ophthalmology. 1989 Oct;96(10):1460–1467.

14. Gordon MO, Kass MA. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: design and baseline description of the participants. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999 May;117(5):573–

15.

16. Heijl A, Krakau CE. An automatic perimeter for glaucoma visual field screening and control. Construction and clinical cases. Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol. 1975 Oct 17;197(1):13–23.

17. Johnson C.A., Adams A.J., Casson E.J., Brandt J.D. Blue on yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucoma tous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmology 1993;111:645–50.

18. Russell R.A., Crabb D.P., Malik R., et al. The relationship between variability and sensitivity in large scale longitudinal visual field data. Invest Ophthalmology Vis Sci. 2012;53(10):5985–5990.

19. Jansonius N.M. On the accuracy of measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(10):1404 1405.

20. Susanna R. Vessani R. ARVO E Abstract 5287. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;1:50.

21. Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, et al. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:1268–79.

22. Drance S., Anderson D.R., Schulzer M. Risk factors for progression of visual field abnormalities in normal tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;131(6):699– 708.

23. Rao H.L., Yadav R.K., Begum V.U., et al. Role of visual field reliability indices in ruling out glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(1):40 44.

24. Johnson C.A., Adams A.J., Casson E.J., Brandt J.D. Blue on yellow perimetry can predict the development of glaucoma tous visual field loss. Arch Ophthalmology 1993;111:645–50.

25. Goni F.J. and the Glaucoma Progression Spanish Study Group. Estudio multicentrico Espanol Progress II sobre ritmos de progresion del campo visual en el glaucoma: resultados preliminares de la fase retrospectiva. Oral presentation at the 7th Spanish Glaucoma Society meeting, Alicante.Spain. 2012.

26. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability. Ophthalmology. 1994 Aug;101(8):1445–55.

27. Collaborative Normal Tension Glaucoma Study Group . The effectiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the treatment of normal tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126(4):498–505.

28. Collaborative Normal Tension Glaucoma Study Group. Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126(4):487–97.

29. Mikelberg F.S., Drance S.M. The mode of progression of visual field defects in glaucoma. Am J Opththalmol. 1984;98(4):443 445.

30. Miglior S., Pfeiffer N., Torri V., Zeyen T., Cunha Vaz J., Adamsons I. Predictive factors for open angle glaucoma among patients with ocular hypertension in the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:3–9.

31. Heijl A., Buchholz P., Norrgren G., et al. Rates of visual field progression in clinical glaucoma care. Acta Ophthalmology. 2013;91(5):406–12.

32. Medeiros F.A., Alencar L.M., Zangwill L.M., Bowd C., Sample P.A., Weinreb R.N. Prediction of functional loss in glaucoma from progressive optic disc damage. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:1250–1256.

33. Chauhan B.C., Mikelberg F.S., Balaszi A.G., LeBlanc R.P., Lesk M.R., Trope G.E. Canadian Glaucoma Study: 2. risk factors for the progression of open angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126:1030–1036.

34. Gordon M.O., Beiser J.A., Brandt J.D. et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmology 2002; 120:714–720; discussion 829–730.

35. Kovalska M, Grieshaber MC, Schötzau A, Katamay R, Hauenstein D, Flammer J, Orgül S. Detection of visual field progression in glaucoma. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2008 May;225(5):342–5.

36. Medeiros F.A., Weinreb R.N. Visual field progression. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:851– 852.

37. Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Leske MC. Natural history of open angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 2009;116:2271–2276.

38. Chauhan B.C., Garway Heath D.F., Goni F.J., et al. Practical recommendations for measuring rates of visual field change in glaucoma. Br J Opthalmol. 2008;92(4):569– 573.

39. Drance S., Anderson D.R., Schulzer M. Risk factors for progression of visual field abnormalities in normal tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;131(6):699– 708.

40. Forchheimer I, de Moraes C.G., Teng C.C., Folgar F., Tello C., Ritch R., Liebmann J.M. Baseline mean deviation and rates of visual field change in treated glaucoma patients. Eye. 2011;25:626–632.

41. Bengtsson B., Leske M.C., Hyman L. Heijl A. Fluctuation of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:205–209.

42. Musch DC, Lichter PR, Guire KE, Standardi CL. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. Ophthalmology. 1999 Apr;106(4):653 62.

43. Heijl A., Bengtson B., Hyman L., et al. Natural history of open angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(12):2271–2276.

44. Miglior S, Zeyen T, Pfeiffer N, Cunha Vaz J, Torri V, Adamsons I; European Glaucoma Prevention Study (EGPS) Group. Results of the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. Ophthalmology. 2005 Mar;112(3):366 75.

45. Medeiros F.A., Weinreb R.N. Visual field progression. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:851– 852.

46. Keltner J.L., Johnson C.A., Quigg J.M., et al. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45: E Abstract 2134. Presented at 76th ARVO meeting.

47. Ng M., Sample P.A., Pascual J.P., et al. Comparison of visual field severity classification systems. J Glaucoma. 2012;21(9):586–589.

48. Ernest P., Viechtbauer W., Schouten J. et al. The influence of the assessment method on the incidence of visual field progression in glaucoma: a network metaanalysis. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90:10–19.

49. Sekhar G.C., Naduvilath T.J., Lakkai M., et al. Sensitivity of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(7):1303 1308.

50. Musch DC, Lichter PR, Guire KE, Standardi CL. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients. Ophthalmology. 1999 Apr;106(4):653–62.

51. Sekhar G.C., Naduvilath T.J., Lakkai M., et al. Sensitivity of Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm in Humphrey visual field testing. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(7):1303–1308.

52. Forchheimer I, de Moraes C.G., Teng C.C., Folgar F., Tello C., Ritch R., Liebmann J.M. Baseline mean deviation and rates of visual field change in treated glaucoma patients. Eye. 2011;25:626–632.

53. Strömberg U. Ocular hypertension. Frequency, course and relation to other disorders occuring in glaucoma, as seen from mass survey of all inhabitants over forty years of age in a Swedish town. Acta Ophthalmol Suppl. 1962;69:1–75.

54. Brusini P., Johnson C.A. Staging functional damage in glaucoma: review of different classification methods. Surv Ophthalmol. 2007;52(2):156–179.

55. Martinez A., Sanchez Salorio M. Predictors for visual field progression and the effects of treatment with dorzolamide 2% or brinzolamide 1% each added to timolol 0.5% in primary open angle glaucoma. Acta Ophthalmol. 2010;88:541–552.

56. Kurysheva N.I., Irtegova E.Y., Parshunina O.A., Kiseleva T.H., Ardzevnishvili T.D.[New technology in diagnosis of primary open angle glaucoma]. Novye tekhnologii v diagnostike pervichnoĭ otkrytougol’noĭ glaukomy. [National Journal glaucoma]. Nacional’nyĭ zhurnal glaucoma. 2015;14:22−31. (in Russ.).

57. Rossetti L., Goni F., Denis P., Bengtsson B., A Martinez and Heijl A. Focusing on glaucoma progression and the clinical importance of progression rate measurement: a review Eye. 2010;24:1– 7.

58. Garway Heath D., Crabb D., Bunce C., Lascaratos G. et al. Latanoprost for open angle glaucoma (UKGTS): a randomised, multicentre, placebo controlled trial. Published Online December 19, 2014:(14)62111–5.

59. Siderov J., Tiu Al. Variability of measurements of visual acuity in a large eye clinic. Acta Ophthalmology Scand. 1999;77:673–676.