ABSTRACT
Purpose We used an autonomous algorithm to classify incident visual field (VF) loss patterns in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Subsequently, we compared racial differences in the risk of these regional VF loss patterns.
Design/Participants Participants (n=209,036) from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) (follow-up: 1980-2018); NHS2 (1989-2019); and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS; 1986-2018), aged ≥40 years and free of glaucoma.
Methods Demographics, medical and lifestyle information was assessed on biennial questionnaires. Incident POAG cases (n=1946) with reproducible Humphrey VF loss were confirmed with medical records. The total deviation information of the earliest reliable VF for each eye with POAG (n=2564) was extracted, and a statistical learning method was used to identified optimal solutions for regional vision loss patterns. Each POAG eye was assigned the VF pattern (“archetype”) based on the highest weighting coefficient.
Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for POAG of various archetypes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using per-eye Cox proportional hazards models. Covariates included cohort, age, glaucoma family history, socioeconomic status, lifestyle parameters, number of eye exams during follow-up, and medical conditions. False discovery rate (FDR) was used for multiple comparisons.
Main outcome measures POAG based on VF patterns.
Results Mean age was 58 years; 1.3% were Black, 1.2% were Asian, 1.1% were Hispanic-White and 96.4% were non-Hispanic White. We identified 14 archetypes: 1 representing no VF loss, 9 of early loss and 4 of advanced loss patterns. Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks were at significantly higher risk of POAG with early VF loss archetypes collectively (Blacks: HR=1.96, 95% CI=1.46, 2.63) and at even higher risk for POAG with advanced loss archetypes collectively (Blacks: HR=6.07, 95% CI=3.61, 10.21; p=0.0002 for the two estimates being different); no differences were observed for Asians or Hispanic Whites. For individual VF archetypes, Hispanic-Whites had FDR-significant higher risks of POAG of archetypes showing early paracentral defects and advanced superior loss while Blacks had FDR-significant higher risks of all advanced loss archetypes and 3 early loss patterns, including early paracentral defects.
Conclusion Among health professionals, compared to non-Hispanic-Whites, Blacks and Hispanic-Whites had higher risks of incident POAG with central and advanced VF loss.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr. Pasquale is a consultant to Eyenovia, Twenty and Skye Biosciences. Dr. Wiggs has received research support from NIH/NEI and Aerpio pharmaceuticals and has served as a consultant to Allergan, Editas, Maze, Regenxbio and Avellino. Other authors do not have any conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by NCI UM1 CA186107, U01 CA176726, U01 CA167552, NEI R01 EY015473 (LRP), NEI K99 EY028631, NEI R00 EY028631 (MW), an unrestricted challenge grant to Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Department of Ophthalmology from Research to Prevent Blindness (LRP), The Glaucoma Foundation (LRP), and unrestricted challenge grant to Harvard Medical School, Department of Ophthalmology from Research to Prevent Blindness (MW). The sponsors had no role in the design or conduct of this research.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee/IRB of Brigham and Women's Hospital gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Financial Support: This work was supported by NCI UM1 CA186107, U01 CA176726, U01 CA167552, NEI R01 EY015473 (LRP), NEI K99 EY028631, NEI R00 EY028631 (MW), an unrestricted challenge grant to Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Department of Ophthalmology from Research to Prevent Blindness (LRP), The Glaucoma Foundation (LRP), and unrestricted challenge grant to Harvard Medical School, Department of Ophthalmology from Research to Prevent Blindness (MW). The sponsors had no role in the design or conduct of this research.
Conflicts of Interest: Dr. Pasquale is a consultant to Eyenovia, Twenty and Skye Biosciences. Dr. Wiggs has received research support from NIH/NEI and Aerpio pharmaceuticals and has served as a consultant to Allergan, Editas, Maze, Regenxbio and Avellino. Other authors do not have any conflicts of interest.
Data Availability
Information including the procedures to obtain and access data from the Nurses Health Studies and Health Professionals Follow-up Study is described at https://www.nurseshealthstudy.org/researchers (contact email: nhsaccess{at}channing.harvard.edu) and https://sites.sph.harvard.edu/hpfs/for-collaborators/
