Overview

Glaucoma is a progressive disease that needs to be monitored over time. Once progression is detected, the clinician may need to encourage adherence rates, modify or add to the treatment plan. Detecting progression can also help confirm the diagnosis of glaucoma by distinguishing true glaucoma from other mimicking disorders causing RNFL or visual field defects.

Glaucomatous progression can be identified using any, but preferably all, of the following methods:

1. Optic nerve head changes including neuroretinal rim loss, increase in RNFL defects or the presence of a disc haemorrhage

2. Progression on imaging: OCT progression analysis requires 2 baseline scans, from which later scans are compared to. OCT-based progression detection requires a significant reduction or downward trend in RNFL or GCIPL thickness.

3. Visual field progression: Indicated by the deepening or widening of existing defects, or the development of new defects.

Risk Factors for Progression

A 2012 study by Heijl et al. conlcuded that older age, higher mean IOP and IOP range were all associated with significantly faster progression.

The Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial (EMGT) showed that IOP lowering treatment in early glaucoma reduced the risk of progression risk in half. The risk of progression however is not equal between different types of glaucoma. The Normal Tension Glaucoma Study for example showed that while IOP lowering treatment will have a beneficial effect on most normal tension glaucoma patients, 20% will still continue to progress despite achieving IOP targets.

Case Presentations

References

Anderson, DR. (2003) Collaborative Normal Tension Glaucoma Study, Current Opinion in Ophthalmology: April 2003 - Volume 14 - Issue 2 - p 86-90

Heijl A. Buchholz, P. Norrgren G. and Bengtsson B. (2013), Rates of visual field progression in clinical glaucoma care. Acta Ophthalmologica, 91: 406-412.

Leskea, M. Heijl A. Hyman, L. Bengtsson, B, Komaroff, E. (2004) Factors for progression and glaucoma treatment: The Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial, Current Opinion in Ophthalmology: Volume 15 - Issue 2 - p 102-106