advertisement
Abstract #57001 Published in IGR 16-2
Using filtered forecasting techniques to determine personalized monitoring schedules for patients with open-angle glaucoma
Schell GJ; Lavieri MS; Helm JE; Liu X; Musch DC; Van Oyen MP; Stein JDOphthalmology 2014; 121: 1539-1546
PURPOSE: To determine whether dynamic and personalized schedules of visual field (VF) testing and intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements result in an improvement in disease progression detection compared with fixed interval schedules for performing these tests when evaluating patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG). DESIGN: Secondary analyses using longitudinal data from 2 randomized controlled trials. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 571 participants from the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS) and the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS). METHODS: Perimetric and tonometric data were obtained for AGIS and CIGTS trial participants and used to parameterize and validate a Kalman filter model. The Kalman filter updates knowledge about each participant's disease dynamics as additional VF tests and IOP measurements are obtained. After incorporating the most recent VF and IOP measurements, the model forecasts each participant's disease dynamics into the future and characterizes the forecasting error. To determine personalized schedules for future VF tests and IOP measurements, we developed an algorithm by combining the Kalman filter for state estimation with the predictive power of logistic regression to identify OAG progression. The algorithm was compared with 1-, 1.5-, and 2-year fixed interval schedules of obtaining VF and IOP measurements. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Length of diagnostic delay in detecting OAG progression, efficiency of detecting progression, and number of VF and IOP measurements needed to assess for progression. RESULTS: Participants were followed in the AGIS and CIGTS trials for a mean (standard deviation) of 6.5 (2.8) years. Our forecasting model achieved a 29% increased efficiency in identifying OAG progression (P<0.0001) and detected OAG progression 57% sooner (reduced diagnostic delay) (P = 0.02) than following a fixed yearly monitoring schedule, without increasing the number of VF tests and IOP measurements required. The model performed well for patients with mild and advanced disease. The model performed significantly more testing of patients who exhibited OAG progression than nonprogressing patients (1.3 vs. 1.0 tests per year; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of dynamic and personalized testing schedules can enhance the efficiency of OAG progression detection and reduce diagnostic delay compared with yearly fixed monitoring intervals. If further validation studies confirm these findings, such algorithms may be able to greatly enhance OAG management.
Full article
Classification:
6.20 Progression (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods)
6.6.2 Automated (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.6 Visual field examination and other visual function tests)
6.1.3 Factors affecting IOP (Part of: 6 Clinical examination methods > 6.1 Intraocular pressure measurement; factors affecting IOP)