Association Between Intraocular Pressure Variation
and Glaucoma Progression: Data from a United States
Chart Review PAUL P. LEE, JOHN W. WALT, LISA C. ROSENBLATT, LISA R. SIEGARTEL, AND LEE S. STERN, ON BEHALF OF THE GLAUCOMA CARE STUDY GROUP
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether greater intraocular
pressure (IOP) variation between visits was associated with higher likelihood of glaucoma progression.
DESIGN: Cohort study.
METHODS: A ve-year minimum of data (June 1, 1990
through January 22, 2002) was collected on 151 patients (302 eyes) from 12 United States specialty centers. A post hoc analysis of visual eld (VF) progression, glau- coma medication, intraocular pressure (IOP), and other ocular data was conducted for two nonmutually exclusive cohorts based on retrospective data abstracted well after actual patient visits. Mean IOP and standard deviations (SD) were calculated before treatment (medication or surgery) or progression, whichever occurred rst, and before progression regardless of treatment. IOP variables were assessed in a univariate fashion; Cox proportional hazards models evaluated glaucoma progression as an outcome measure and IOP SD as a main predictor, controlling for covariates.
RESULTS: In cohort 1 (55 patients; 84 eyes), mean age
was 63 years (range, 37 to 85 years), 58% were female, and 19% of eyes underwent VF progression. In cohort 2 (129 patients; 251 eyes), mean age was 66 years (range, 19 to 88 years), 55% were female, and 27% of eyes underwent VF progression. Mean IOP was 16.5 mm Hg (IOP SD, 2.0 mm Hg), and 16.4 mm Hg (IOP SD, 2.7 mm Hg) in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Controlling for age, mean IOP, VF stage, and other covariates, each unit increase in IOP SD resulted in a 4.2 times and 5.5 times higher risk of glaucoma progression for cohort 1 (95% condence interval [CI], 1.3 to 12.9) and cohort 2 (95% CI, 3.4 to 9.1), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: IOP variability is an important predic-
tor of glaucoma progression; SD is a convenient measure of variability to assess glaucoma progression risk. (Am J Ophthalmol 2007;144:901907. 2007 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.) G LAUCOMA CURRENTLY AFFECTS MORE THAN TWO million people in the United States. This number is expected to grow as the number of aging individuals rises steadily in the United States, with an estimated 3.36 million individuals affected by 2020. 1 Although it is known that old age, thin corneas, and elevated or variable intraocular pressure (IOP) are factors associated with the progression of visual eld loss (VFL) from glaucoma, 1 half of the individuals affected with glaucoma are not aware that they have the disease, leaving them at greater risk for vision loss. 1 Better detection of the disease and an understanding of what contributes to progression of glaucoma are needed to prevent vision loss effectively. The course of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) has been associated largely with IOP, with the progression of POAG directly related to elevated IOP. 25 Numerous studies have explored the predictors for progression of POAG. The degree of optic nerve damage, resulting from factors such as varying optic nerve sensitivities to IOP and vascular insufciencies, has been noted as a key predictor of glaucoma progression. 6 Other factors such as age, type and length of treatment provided, and existing visual eld (VF) damage also are among the prominent predictors of POAG progression. 4,68 The Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial (EMGT) was de- signed to evaluate the effect of immediate treatment on glaucoma progression compared with no initial treatment or later treatment. 4 The EMGT showed an association between higher baseline IOP and an increased rate of glaucoma progression. 1 Specic IOP parameters, such as mean IOP and IOP variability, recently were examined for their inuence on POAG progression. 6,7 Continuous sup- pression of IOP has been found necessary in those with POAG to minimize disease progression that eventually can lead to blindness. 9 Various medical and surgical treatments have focused on lowering a subjects IOP. Nonetheless, studies have indicated that, although a lower IOP exhibits a protective effect regarding glaucoma progression, it does not necessarily indicate that one is free of risk. In a study by Oliver and associates, patients becoming legally blind from glaucoma were compared with those who did not go blind. 6 It was found that progression Accepted for publication Jul 30, 2007. From the Duke University Eye Center, Durham, North Carolina (P.P.L.); Allergan, Inc, Irvine, California (J.W.W.); and Analytica International, New York, New York (L.C.R., L.R.S., L.S.S.). Inquiries to Lee S. Stern, Analytica International, 450 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10016; e-mail: lstern@analyticaintl.com 2007 BY ELSEVIER INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 0002-9394/07/$32.00 901 doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2007.07.040 to blindness was not associated with the mean level of IOP, but rather with the baseline degree of VF damage and increased uctuation in IOP levels across visits. 1 Nouri- Mahdavi and associates investigated glaucoma risk factors associated with VF progression. 7 Using data from the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS 7), 2 they evaluated sequential VFs for clinically and statistically signicant change and similarly found that the odds of VF progression increased by 30% with a one-unit increase in intervisit IOP variation. 7 Other studies also have found that rates of glaucoma progression are associated with variability of IOP, 10 both across visits on different days and within the same day. 6,1114 Thus, the purpose of this study was to conrm the ndings that IOP variation (as measured by standard deviation [SD]) from visit to visit inuences the progres- sion of VFL among patients cared for by leading glaucoma specialists. 6,7 A second objective of the study was to determine how the relationship between IOP variation and glaucoma progression may differ between naturalistic (i.e., this study) and clinical trial (i.e., AGIS) settings. METHODS
STUDY POPULATION: In this retrospective cohort
study, medical charts of 151 patients were reviewed. Records from June 1, 1990 to January 22, 2002 for patients 18 years of age and older with POAG, normal-tension glaucoma, ocular hypertension (OHT), or glaucoma sus- pect diagnosis were selected randomly from 12 specialist practices across the United States. 15 Institutional review board exemptions and approvals were obtained for 10 sites and two sites, respectively. As described in an earlier study examining resource consumption and direct costs of treat- ing glaucoma at different levels of disease severity, 15 patient charts were selected randomly from those with at least ve years of continuous follow-up and International Classication of Diseases Ninth Edition diagnosis codes 16 for the above conditions. A minimum of ve years of both clinical and Humphrey VF (HVF) examinations were required. Initial glaucoma stage was determined based on the aforementioned developed glaucoma severity system (Table 1). 17 Medical records were collected from each site TABLE 1. Criteria for Assigning Glaucoma Stage to Patients MD Score Probability Plot (Pattern Deviation) Decibel Plot (Stages 2 to 4) or CPSD/PSD (Stage 1) Decibel Plot (Stages 2 to 4) or Glaucoma Hemield Test (Stage 1) Stage 0: OHT/earliest glaucoma 00 Does not meet any criteria for stage 1 Stage 1: early VF loss 0.01 to 6.00 Points 5%: three contiguous and one of the points is 1% CPSD/PSD signicant at P .05 Glaucoma hemield test results outside normal limits Stage 2: moderate VF loss 6.01 to 12 Points 5%: 19 to 36; and points 1%: 12 to 18 Point(s) within central 5 degrees with sensitivity of 15 dB: one; and point(s) within central 5 degrees with sensitivity of 0 dB: zero Point(s) with sensitivity 15 dB within 5 degrees of xation: only in one hemield (one or two) Stage 3: advanced VF loss 12.01 to 20 Points 5%: 37 to 55; and points 1%: 19 to 36 Point(s) within central 5 degrees with sensitivity of 0 dB: one only Point(s) with sensitivity 15 dB within 5 degrees of xation: both hemields, at least one in each Stage 4: severe VF loss 20.01 Points 5%: 56 to 74; and points 1%: 37 to 74 Point(s) within central 5 degrees with sensitivity of 0 dB: two to four Point(s) with sensitivity 15 dB within 5 degrees of xation: both hemields, two in each (all) Stage 5: end-stage glaucoma/blind No static threshold perimetry in worst eye Static threshold perimetry not possible because of central scotoma in worst eye or worst eye acuity of 20/200 because of glaucoma. Best eye may fall into any of earlier stages. CPSD corrected pattern standard deviation; MD mean deviation; OHT ocular hypertension; PSD pattern standard deviation; VF visual eld. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 902 DECEMBER 2007 and patients were staged according to glaucoma severity using this system (from 0 OHT to 5 end-stage glaucoma). Charts were collected until the group of records from each site included at least two medical records per stage for stages 0 to 4 and one record for stage 5.
STAGING SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEFINITION
OF PROGRESSION: The Bascom Palmer (Hodapp-Ander- son-Parrish) glaucoma staging system (GSS) was selected from among several staging systems as the basis for a six-stage GSS and denition of glaucoma progression. Based on the actual data elements available in patient chart data and on expert opinion, modications were made to the Bascom Palmer GSS to allow it to encompass the complete range of disease severity to ensure that respective threshold values within each stage were consistent with typical VF progression patterns. In particular, visual acuity was found to be an important addition in assigning end-stage categorization. To facilitate ease of GSS use, staging tables were created and were customized for various types of HVF, including 10-2, 24-2, and 30-2. 17 Staging criteria for the nal, six-stage GSS are based on HVF, with mean deviation (MD) as the primary measure. 17 Adjust- ments can be made depending on corrected pattern stan- dard deviation or pattern standard deviation and hemield test results for stages 0 and 1, the numeric (decibel) plot for stages 2 through 4, and the pattern deviation plot for stages 1 through 4. 17 Stage 5 is based solely on visual acuity and inability to perform VF testing because of severe loss of VF. 17 Decision rules used to stage patients, in addition to the modied GSS staging table, are dened as follows: if a patient meets the MD criteria for a particular stage (stages 1 to 4) but does not meet one of the additional criteria for that stage, the patient is categorized in the preceding stage; if a patient meets the MD criteria for a particular stage (stages 1 to 4) and meets one of the additional criteria for a succeeding stage, then the patient is categorized in the succeeding stage; if a patient meets the MD criteria for a particular stage (stages 1 to 4) and meets one or more of the additional criteria for a preceding stage as well as one or more of the criteria for a succeeding stage, then the patient is categorized based on MD criteria. 17
DATA ANALYSIS: A Microsoft Access (Microsoft, Inc,
Redmond, Washington, USA) electronic database was created for data collection purposes; the database included elds for patient demographic information, past medical and ocular history including glaucoma risk factors, oph- thalmologist visits, medications, surgical procedures, and HVF data. Fields also were created for relevant clinical examinations and tests and their respective ndings, in- cluding IOP assessments and diurnal curves, slit-lamp examinations, gonioscopies, optic nerve assessments, reti- nal and macular examinations, nerve ber thickness assessments, optic disk photographs, and dilated eye examination results. Both eye-level and patient-level variables were measured. Eye-level IOP variables consisted of SD of IOP (the variability of serial IOP measurements), mean IOP (tested as continuous and categorical), change between best and worst (highest and lowest) IOP, and change between rst and last IOP. If more than one IOP measurement was obtained for an eye on a given day (e.g., for diurnal curve evaluation), the average of the IOP measurements for that day was used. Other eye-level variables considered were: whether there was VFL progres- sion, stage before progression, presence of surgery before progression, medication use before progression (tested as number of medications and yes vs no), and whether treatment with medication preceded surgery. Patient-level variables included age, gender, lowest overall VFL stage, and rst calendar year of follow-up. Treatment was dened as either receipt of an IOP- lowering medication (-agonist, -blocker, carbonic an- hydrase inhibitor, combination -blocker and carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, sympathomimetic, parasympathomi- metic, prostaglandin and prostamide) or surgery (laser trabeculoplasty or trabeculectomy). Patients were grouped by those who were treated (surgery or medication) before progression (VFL stage progression) and those who pro- gressed before receiving treatment (to establish the end of IOP data collection for each patient). All analyses beyond descriptive analyses were conducted with the eye as the unit of analysis (n 302 eyes). Data analysis was performed using SAS software version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA).
UNIVARIATE ANALYSES: Analyses were conducted on
two types of cohorts: cohort 1 had two or more IOP measurements before treatment or progression (whichever occurred rst), and cohort 2 had two or more IOP measure- ments before progression, regardless of whether they had undergone treatment. These cohorts were not mutually ex- clusive; that is, all patients in cohort 1 fullled criteria for cohort 2 and therefore were included in cohort 2 analyses. Both cohorts were based on retrospective and post hoc analyses, with data abstracted well after the actual patient visits. In cohort 1, the IOP measurements on dates before treatment or progression, whichever event occurred rst, were used to determine mean IOP and SD of IOP. Patients who did not receive treatment and did not progress had IOP measurements collected until the end of follow-up. Each eye in these analyses required a minimum of two dates before the event on which IOP readings occurred, because multiple IOP measurements in one day were averaged into a single IOP value. In cohort 2, the IOP measurements on dates before progression were used to determine mean IOP and SDof IOP. Patients who did not progress had IOP measurements col- lected until the end of follow-up. Each eye in these analyses required a minimum of two dates before progression on which IOP readings occurred, because multiple IOP measurements in one day were averaged into a single IOP value. IOP VARIATION AND GLAUCOMA PROGRESSION VOL. 144, NO. 6 903
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES: A multivariate model was
developed for cohort 1 with POAG VFL progression as the outcome variable and SD of IOP as a key predictor variable. Several eye- and patient-level variables were tested in the model. Eye-level variables included SD of IOP, mean IOP, absolute difference between best (lowest) and worst (highest) IOP (also referred to as range of IOP in the literature), absolute difference between rst and last IOP, stage before progression, medication use before pro- gression (tested as two variables: yes or no and number of medications), and whether treatment with medication preceded surgery. Patient-level variables tested were age, gender, lowest overall VFL stage per person, and rst calendar year of follow-up. The nal model was a Cox proportional hazards model with progression (time to progression) as the outcome measure and SD of IOP as the main predictor, while controlling for covariates. Mean IOP was included as a continuous variable in the model. All independent variables of interest with adequate sample size were tested in a model. Variables with P .2 were removed from the nal model. Although nonsignicant in the cohort 1 model, gender was retained because of previously demonstrated associations between gender and glaucoma treatment. The Cox proportional hazards model for cohort 2 was based on the same variables as were used in cohort 1 as a means of comparison. RESULTS
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: This study evaluated data
from a chart review of 302 eyes among 151 patients. Mean age was 66.3 years (SD, 11.9 years). Sixty-three individuals (42%) in the study population were male, and 86 (57%) were female. Breakdown by race revealed that 70 patients (46%) were White, 33 (22%) were Black, and seven (5%) were Asian; no data on race were available for the remaining 27%. Of those patients with data available on family history of glaucoma (n 109, or 72%), 53% had a positive family history for the disease.
UNIVARIATE ANALYSES: Univariate analyses of cohort
1 were performed to determine IOP variation, as measured by SD of IOP, before treatment or VF progression, whichever occurred rst; this cohort consisted of 55 patients (84 eyes). More than half of these individuals (58.2%) were female. The patients ranged in age from 37 to 85 years, with the mean age of this population being 62.9 years (SD, 11.4 years). Among the eyes examined, 19% were found to have had VF progres- sion (Table 2). Before progression or treatment, mean IOP was found to be 16.5 mm Hg, with a mean SD of IOP of 2.0 mm Hg (range, 14.2 to 22.1 mm Hg; Table 2). Univariate analyses of cohort 2 were performed to determine IOP variation, as measured by SD of IOP, before VF progression, regardless of treatment; this cohort consisted of 129 patients (251 eyes). Demographics were similar to those of cohort 1: 55% were female, and mean age was 66 years (SD, 12 years; range, 19 to 88 years). Among these eyes, 27% were found to have had VF progression (Table 3). Before progression, mean IOP was found to be 16.4 mm Hg, with a mean SD of IOP of 2.7 mm Hg (range, 4.6 to 27.3 mm Hg; Table 3).
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES: The Cox proportional haz-
ards model for cohort 1, with VF progression (time to progression) as the outcome measure and SD of IOP as the main predictor while controlling for key covariates, found both the mean and SDof IOP before treatment or progression to be associated signicantly with the likelihood of progres- sion. Each 1-mm Hg unit increase in IOP SD increased the likelihood for glaucoma progression by a factor of 4.2 (95% condence interval [CI], 1.3 to 12.9). Each 1-mmHg increase in mean IOP resulted in a 20% increase in likelihood of glaucoma progression (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.4). An increased difference between highest and lowest IOP was associated with a decreased likelihood of progression (odds ratio [OR], TABLE 2. Demographic Characteristics and Baseline Ophthalmic Measures of Cohort 1 Descriptive statistics Mean age (range), yrs 62.9 (37 to 85) Proportion of females 58.2% Visual eld progression among the eyes examined 19% IOP analyses (mm Hg) Mean IOP (before progression or treatment) 16.5 Mean SD of IOP (before progression or treatment) 2.0 IOP intraocular pressure; SD standard deviation. Cohort 1 consisted of patients with two or more IOP measure- ments before treatment or progression (whichever occurred rst); n 55 patients, 84 eyes. TABLE 3. Demographic Characteristics and Baseline Ophthalmic Measures of Cohort 2 Descriptive statistics Mean age (range), yrs 66 (19 to 88) Proportion of females 55% Visual eld progression among the eyes examined 27% IOP analyses (mm Hg) Mean IOP (before progression or treatment) 16.4 Mean SD of IOP (before progression or treatment) 2.7 IOP intraocular pressure; SD standard deviation. Cohort 2 consisted of patient with two or more IOP measure- ments before progression, regardless of whether they had undergone treatment; n 129 patients, 251 eyes. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 904 DECEMBER 2007 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.7; Table 4). This did not take into account direction of change, that is, whether a patient had the lowest IOP before or after the highest IOP. The Cox proportional hazards model for cohort 2 based on IOP values before progression demonstrated results similar to those of cohort 1. Although mean IOP was less strongly associated with progression, SD of IOP was more strongly associated with progression in this model; each 1-mm Hg unit increase in IOP SD increased the likelihood of progression by a factor of 5.5 (95% CI, 3.4 to 9.1), and each 1-mm Hg increase in mean IOP resulted in a 10% increase in likelihood of glaucoma progression (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.2). An increased difference between highest and lowest IOP was associated with a decreased likelihood of progression (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4 to 0.6; Table 5). Other signicant predictors of glaucoma progression in this model were increasing age (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.1), male gender (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.9), and receiving medication in baseline stage (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3 to 5.4). However, 79% of eyes received medication in baseline stage, compared with 37% of eyes in cohort 1, making it difcult to interpret this result in this model. DISCUSSION CONSISTENT WITH PRIOR RESEARCH, 7 THIS STUDY DEMON- strated that variability in IOP from visit to visit is a signicant predictor of VFL progression. Specically, the results of the multivariate analysis indicated that with each 1-mm Hg increase in SD of IOP, glaucoma progression was 4.2 times more likely. Together with results obtained from the AGIS data showing that IOP variation increased the odds of VF progression by 30% for each 1-mm Hg increase in SD of IOP, 7 these results suggest that IOP variation between visits is a signicant predictor of disease progression in both clinical trial and naturalistic settings. Unlike patients seen in AGIS, 2 there were no study protocols determining the minimum frequency or extent of care, extending the potential generalizability of the prior ndings. This study also found evidence for an association be- tween mean IOP and progression. After controlling for several key covariates, the multivariate analysis demon- strated a signicant association between mean IOP and progression (hazard ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.4). Of note, this nding contrasts with that of the AGIS analysis, although the AGIS results did approach signicance. 2 Differences in the different study populations, with less severely affected patients included prominently in this study, may help account for the difference. Interestingly, IOP range, often used as a measure of variation, was associated signicantly with a decreased likelihood of progression in both models. It is important to note, however, that this measurement was based on abso- lute difference and does not take into account chronology of highest vs lowest IOP; it is entirely possible that many patients had wide IOP ranges because of large decreases in IOP, and therefore had less likelihood of POAG progres- sion. Further, this may reect the benets of treatment in lowering IOP in cohort 2, although not in cohort 1. Based on the results of our analyses, the associated impact of SD of IOP on VF progression was evident; this was not the TABLE 4. Cox Proportional Hazards Model Determining Likelihood of Progression for Cohort 1 Variable Hazard Ratio 95% CI P value Mean IOP (increase in mm Hg) 1.2 1.0 to 1.4 .03 SD of IOP (increase in mm Hg) 4.2 1.3 to 12.9 .01 Absolute difference between lowest and highest IOP (increase in mm Hg) 0.4 0.3 to 0.7 .001 Age (increase in yr) 1.1 1.0 to 1.1 .02 Gender (male vs female) 0.8 0.2 to 2.4 .63 Baseline glaucoma stage (higher vs lower) 0.3 0.1 to 1.4 .12 Received medication in baseline stage (yes vs no) 0.1 0.03 to 0.5 .004 Best overall stage of patient (higher vs lower) 4.1 0.8 to 22.6 .10 CI condence interval; IOP intraocular pressure; SD standard deviation. Cohort 1 consisted of patients with two or more IOP measure- ments before treatment or progression (whichever occurred rst); n 84. TABLE 5. Cox Proportional Hazards Model Determining Likelihood of Progression for Cohort 2 Variable Hazard Ratio 95% CI P value Mean IOP (increase in mm Hg) 1.1 1.0 to 1.2 .02 SD of IOP (increase in mm Hg) 5.5 3.4 to 9.1 .001 Absolute difference between lowest and highest IOP (increase in mm Hg) 0.5 0.4 to 0.6 .001 Age (increase in yr) 1.1 1.0 to 1.1 .001 Gender (male vs female) 1.7 1.1 to 2.9 .03 Baseline glaucoma stage (higher vs lower) 0.8 0.6 to 1.2 .37 Received medication in baseline stage (yes vs no) 2.6 1.3 to 5.4 .01 Best overall stage of patient (higher vs lower) 1.1 0.7 to 1.7 .62 CI condence interval; IOP intraocular pressure; SD standard deviation. Cohort 2 consisted of patients with two or more IOP measure- ments before progression, regardless of whether they had undergone treatment; n 251. IOP VARIATION AND GLAUCOMA PROGRESSION VOL. 144, NO. 6 905 case with IOP range. One also may consider SD of IOP to be a more accurate measure of variation than range, because it can capture better the impact of small variations over time, which range cannot do. There were important limitations in this study. One limitation was the relatively small sample size in both cohorts. However, the study sample is quite diverse, given the gender proportions and the mix of ethnicities consti- tuting the sample population. In addition, even with a small sample size, we were able to detect a statistically signicant association between IOP variation and glau- coma progression. Another possible limitation is that of selection bias. Five or six or more IOP measurements before treatment or progression were not available for many participants. In cohort 1, only patients with a minimum of two IOP readings before progression or treatment and patients with minimum two years of follow-up were included in all analyses. Patients with only one IOP measurement may have been more or less likely to progress than patients who had multiple IOP measurements. For example, it is possible that patients who progressed more rapidly may have had the opportunity to receive only one IOP measurement before progression. It therefore is possible that we are missing a large proportion of patients who progressed from both model populations. However, the progression rates noted in our samples here are quite similar to the progres- sion rates reported with the overall study sample in our earlier paper with this cohort. 7 Also, it is possible that patients with at least two readings may have been receiv- ing better care and therefore were less likely to progress. The criteria of requiring at least two years overall of follow-up also may have introduced selection bias. For example, it is possible that patients with the required follow-up may have been more likely to progress than those not included in the study population. Although we could not account for patients with follow-up of less than two years, controlling for follow-up time in preliminary models did not change results signicantly. Another important factor to consider when looking at SD of IOP as a measure of variation is the number of IOP readings used in the calculation. For example, a patient with the minimum of two visits with IOP readings may have a large SD, whereas a patient with multiple visits may end up with a smaller SD because of an increased number of measurements contributing to the estimate. However, the number of visits was controlled for in a preliminary model, and it was nonsignicant, whereas SD of IOP remained a signicant predictor of progression. In cohort 2, where the sample size was increased because of more opportunity for patients to have two dates with IOP measurements, the results for SD of IOP were even more signicant than for cohort 1. However in cohort 2, most patients were taking medication; therefore, looking at medication use at baseline was not very telling regarding progression in this population and likely should be elimi- nated from this nal model. A major advantage of this study is its real-world study population. Prior studies of long-term IOP variability have been clinical trials in which patients tend to receive better health care than the general population. This chart review therefore may be even more generalizable than a clinical trial because of its basis in a real-world patient population with routine care. Further, it demonstrates that analysis of intermittent visits carried out in routine care can be assessed in a meaningful way for variation, such that variation analyses need not be limited to study-driven follow-up schedules. This study demonstrated that SD of IOP is an important factor related to POAG progression that should be inves- tigated further. These results indicate that the stability of IOP over time has an inuence on disease progression that may be on par or even greater than other parameters such as mean IOP, age, or glaucoma stage. Monitoring SD of IOP measurements is a practical method that can be used to measure potential for disease progression. Practitioners should consider monitoring patient SD of IOP over the long-term to ensure that proper treatments are implemented for preven- tion of POAG progression, whereas other parties may wish to explore means of making these data easily accessible and interpretable while seeing patients. THIS STUDY WAS SUPPORTED BY AN UNRESTRICTED GRANT FROM ALLERGAN, INC, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA. DR LEE IS A consultant and has received research support and travel funds from Allergan, Inc. Dr Walt is an employee of Allergan, Inc. Drs Rosenblatt and Stern are employees of Analytica International and were employed by Allergan, Inc, to conduct research and analyses. Dr Siegartel was an employee of Analytica International at the time this study was conducted. Involved in the design of study (P.P.L., J.W.W.); conduct of study (P.P.L., J.W.W., L.C.R.); data collection (P.P.L., L.C.R.); management (J.W.W., L.S.S.); and analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, review, and approval (P.P.L., J.W.W., L.C.R., L.R.S., L.S.S.). THE GLAUCOMA CARE STUDY GROUP Paul P. Lee, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC John G. Walt, Allergan, Inc, Irvine, CA John J. Doyle, The Analytica Group, New York, NY Sameer V. Kotak, The Analytica Group, New York, NY Stacy J. Evans, The Analytica Group, New York, NY Donald L. Budenz, University of Miami, Miami, FL Philip P. Chen, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Anne L. Coleman, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Robert M. Feldman, University of Texas, Houston, TX Henry D. Jampel, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD L. Jay Katz, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA Richard P. Mills, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY Jonathan S. Myers, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA Robert J. Noecker, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ Jody R. Piltz-Seymour, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA Robert R. Ritch, New York Eye & Ear Inrmary, New York, NY Paul N. Schacknow, Palm Beach Eye Foundation, Lake Worth, FL Janet B. Serle, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY Gary L. Trick, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 906 DECEMBER 2007 REFERENCES 1. Friedman DS, Wolfs RC, OColmain BJ, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:532538. 2. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 7. The relationship between control of intraocular pressure and visual eld deterioration. The AGIS Investigators. Am J Ophthalmol 2000;130:429440. 3. Landers J, Goldberg I, Graham SL. Analysis of risk factors that may be associated with progression from ocular hyper- tension to primary open-angle glaucoma. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2002;30:242247. 4. Leske MC, Heijl A, Hussein M, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Komaroff E. Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial. Arch Oph- thalmol 2003;121:4856. 5. Suzuki Y, Shirato S, Adachi M, Hamada C. Risk factors for the progression of treated primary open-angle glaucoma: a multivariate life-table analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Oph- thalmol 1999;237:463467. 6. Oliver JE, Hattenhauer MG, Herman D, et al. Blindness and glaucoma: a comparison of patients progressing to blindness from glaucoma with patients maintaining vision. Am J Ophthalmol 2002;133:764772. 7. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Coleman AL, et al. Predic- tive factors for glaucomatous visual eld progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology 2004;111:16271635. 8. Kim J, Dally LG, Ederer F, et al. The Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS): 14. Distinguishing progression of glaucoma from visual eld uctuations. Ophthalmology 2004;111:21092116. 9. Grant WM, Burke JF Jr. Why do some people go blind from glaucoma? Ophthalmology 1982;89:991998. 10. Stewart WC, Hunt HH. Threshold variation in automated perimetry. Surv Ophthalmol 1993;37:353361. 11. Asrani S, Zeimer R, Wilensky J, Gieser D, Vitale S, Linden- muth K. Large diurnal uctuations in intraocular pressure are an independent risk factor in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2000;9:134142. 12. Bergea B, Bodin L, Svedbergh B. Impact of intraocular pressure regulation on visual elds in open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1999;106:9971004; discussion 10041005. 13. Sacca SC, Rolando M, Marletta A, Macri A, Cerqueti P, Ciurlo G. Fluctuations of intraocular pressure during the day in open-angle glaucoma, normal-tension glaucoma and nor- mal subjects. Ophthalmologica 1998;212:115119. 14. Wilensky JT. The role of diurnal pressure measurements in the management of open-angle glaucoma. Curr Opin Oph- thalmol 2004;15:9092. 15. Lee PP, Walt JG, Doyle JJ, et al. A multi-center, retrospec- tive pilot study of resource utilization and costs associated with severity of disease in glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124:1219. 16. Swanson K. International Classication of Diseases, 9th Revision. Clinical Modication, 5th ed., Vols. 1 to 3. Los Angeles, California, Practice Management Information Corp, 1998:1700. 17. Mills RP, Budenz DL, Lee PP, et al. Categorizing the stage of glaucoma from pre-diagnosis to end-stage disease. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;141:2430. IOP VARIATION AND GLAUCOMA PROGRESSION VOL. 144, NO. 6 907 Biosketch Paul P. Lee is the James Pitzer Gills III, MD, and Joy Gills Professor of Ophthalmology, Vice Chair at Duke Medical School, Senior Fellow in Duke Center on Aging and Human Development and of Duke Center for Clinical Health Policy Research, and a glaucoma specialist at Duke, Durham, North Carolina. Dr Lee service activities include Associate Examiner for the American Board of Ophthalmology, section Editor for several journals, Chair of the AGS Quality of Care Subcommittee, and Co-Chair of an AMA taskforce. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY 907.e1 DECEMBER 2007