Search

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; I 2 = 65%; 2598 eyes of 1299 participants; moderate certainty evidence) and five years (MD 0.12 mm Hg, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.35; I 2 = 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; I 2 = 69%; 2596 eyes of 1298 participants; moderate certainty evidence) and five years (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03; I 2 = 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; I 2 = 59%; 2598 eyes of 1299 participants at one year; MD 5.07, 95% CI 4.78 to 5.36; I 2 = 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; I 2 = 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; I 2 = 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; I 2 = 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., (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Importance: Glaucoma affects more than 75 million people worldwide. Intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering surgery is an important treatment for this disease. Interest in reducing surgical morbidity has led to the introduction of minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS). Understanding the comparative effectiveness and safety of MIGS is necessary for clinicians and patients., Objective: To summarize data from randomized clinical trials of MIGS for open-angle glaucoma, which were evaluated in a suite of Cochrane reviews., Data Sources: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews including studies published before June 1, 2021., Study Selection: Reviews of randomized clinical trials comparing MIGS with cataract extraction alone, other MIGS, traditional glaucoma surgery, laser trabeculoplasty, or medical therapy., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines by one investigator and confirmed by a second. Methodologic rigor was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 appraisal tool and random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted., Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of participants who did not need to use medication to reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) postsurgery (drop-free). Outcomes were analyzed at short-term (<6 months), medium-term (6-18 months), and long-term (>18 months) follow-up., Results: Six eligible Cochrane reviews were identified discussing trabecular bypass with iStent or Hydrus microstents, ab interno trabeculotomy with Trabectome, subconjunctival and supraciliary drainage devices, and endoscopic cyclophotocoagulation. Moderate certainty evidence indicated that adding a Hydrus safely improved the likelihood of drop-free glaucoma control at medium-term (relative risk [RR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.8) and long-term (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9) follow-up and conferred 2.0-mm Hg (95% CI, -2.7 to -1.3 mm Hg) greater IOP reduction at long-term follow-up, compared with cataract surgery alone. Adding an iStent also safely improved drop-free disease control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.6), but the short-term IOP-lowering effect of the iStent was not sustained. Addition of a CyPass microstent improved drop-free glaucoma control compared with cataract surgery alone (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5) but was associated with an increased risk of vraision loss. Network meta-analyses supported the direction and magnitude of these results., Conclusions and Relevance: Based on data synthesized in Cochrane reviews, some MIGS may afford patients with glaucoma greater drop-free disease control than cataract surgery alone. Among the products currently available, randomized clinical trial data associate the Hydrus with greater drop-free glaucoma control and IOP lowering than the iStent; however, these effect sizes were small.

Background: Many therapeutic options are available to glaucoma patients. One recent therapeutic option is minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) devices. It is unclear how patients view different treatments and which patient-reported outcomes would be most relevant in patients with mild to moderate glaucoma. We developed a questionnaire for patients eligible for MIGS devices and a patient preference study to examine the value patients place on certain outcomes associated with glaucoma and its therapies., Objectives: To summarize the progress to date., Methods: Questionnaire development: We drafted the questionnaire items based on input from one physician and four patient focus groups, and a review of the literature. We tested item clarity with six cognitive interviews. These items were further refined. Patient preference study: We identified important benefit and risk outcomes qualitatively using semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with patients who were eligible for MIGS devices. We then prioritized these outcomes quantitatively using best-worst scaling methods., Results: Questionnaire testing: Three concepts were deemed relevant for the questionnaire: functional limitations, symptoms, and psychosocial factors. We will evaluate the reliability and validity of the 52-item draft questionnaire in an upcoming field test. Patient preference study: We identified 13 outcomes that participants perceived as important. Outcomes with the largest relative importance weights were "adequate IOP control" and "drive a car during the day.", Conclusions: Patients have the potential to steer clinical research towards outcomes that are important to them. Incorporating patients' perspectives into the MIGS device development and evaluation process may expedite innovation and availability of these devices.

Importance: Minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) devices are one option for lowering intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma., Objective: To examine how often existing clinical studies of MIGS devices registered on ClinicalTrials.gov measure patient-centric outcomes that patients value directly., Design, Setting, and Participants: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, a registry of publicly and privately supported clinical studies, on February 20, 2015, for records of MIGS device studies involving patients with glaucoma. Two investigators independently abstracted study design and outcome details from eligible records. We classified outcomes as patient-centric or not patient-centric using a prespecified definition., Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of patient-centric and nonpatient-centric outcomes registered on ClinicalTrials.gov., Results: We identified 51 eligible studies specifying 127 outcomes. Reduction in intraocular pressure was the most frequent outcome specified (78/127; 61%) and a primary outcome in 41 studies. Patient-centric outcomes-such as adverse events (n = 19; 15%), topical medication use (n = 16; 13%), visual acuity (n = 4; 3%), and health-related quality of life (n = 1; 1%)-were less frequently specified (n = 40; 32%) and a primary outcome in only 12 studies., Conclusion and Relevance: Patient-centric outcomes that provide insight into the relative desirability and acceptability of the benefits and risks of MIGS devices are not well represented in current clinical studies., Competing Interests: Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.