Ophthalmology. Glaucoma · 2026
Comparing the Rate of Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer and Visual Field Loss as Outcomes in Glaucoma Trials.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Montesano Giovanni, Crabb David P, Ometto Giovanni, Garway-Heath David F
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the statistical power of structural and visual field (VF) outcomes for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in glaucoma.
DESIGN: Analysis of retrospectively collected data.
PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-two patients with glaucoma were recruited to a test-retest study, during which up to 10 24-2 Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Standard VF and circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (cpRNFL) Spectralis OCT scans were collected in separate sessions over 3 months.
METHODS: Eyes with at least 3 sessions with a reliable VF (false-positives < 15%) and cpRNFL scan (quality index ≥ 25 dB) were selected (127 eyes, 68 patients) to model the test-retest variability and the structural floor effect. These estimates were combined with a published realistic structure-function progression model from the United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study to simulate longitudinal RCTs (30% neuroprotective effect). Simulations only included data from eyes with early to moderate VF loss (mean deviation [MD], ≥-10 dB, 107 eyes, 65 patients). Simulations were repeated 5000 times to estimate sample size requirements to detect a significant difference (P < 0.05) in the rate of change of MD and average cpRNFL thickness, estimated with a linear mixed-effects model. We also tested the power of a significant outcome with either metric (P < 0.025). A supplementary analysis was performed including eyes with early VF loss only (MD ≥ -6 dB).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sample size at 80% power for the linear rate of MD, cpRNFL, and their combination.
RESULTS: At 80% power, the required sample size (patients [95% confidence interval]) was 38% smaller for the MD rate (292 [300-283]) than the cpRNFL rate (470 [481-459]). The sample size for the combined outcome was only marginally smaller than the MD alone (275 [283-268]). The supplementary analysis on eyes with early VF loss showed similar results.
CONCLUSIONS: Using realistic modeling of structure-function progression and test-retest data, MD progression showed higher statistical power cpRFNL as an outcome measure for clinical trials.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
DESIGN: Analysis of retrospectively collected data.
PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-two patients with glaucoma were recruited to a test-retest study, during which up to 10 24-2 Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm (SITA) Standard VF and circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (cpRNFL) Spectralis OCT scans were collected in separate sessions over 3 months.
METHODS: Eyes with at least 3 sessions with a reliable VF (false-positives < 15%) and cpRNFL scan (quality index ≥ 25 dB) were selected (127 eyes, 68 patients) to model the test-retest variability and the structural floor effect. These estimates were combined with a published realistic structure-function progression model from the United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study to simulate longitudinal RCTs (30% neuroprotective effect). Simulations only included data from eyes with early to moderate VF loss (mean deviation [MD], ≥-10 dB, 107 eyes, 65 patients). Simulations were repeated 5000 times to estimate sample size requirements to detect a significant difference (P < 0.05) in the rate of change of MD and average cpRNFL thickness, estimated with a linear mixed-effects model. We also tested the power of a significant outcome with either metric (P < 0.025). A supplementary analysis was performed including eyes with early VF loss only (MD ≥ -6 dB).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sample size at 80% power for the linear rate of MD, cpRNFL, and their combination.
RESULTS: At 80% power, the required sample size (patients [95% confidence interval]) was 38% smaller for the MD rate (292 [300-283]) than the cpRNFL rate (470 [481-459]). The sample size for the combined outcome was only marginally smaller than the MD alone (275 [283-268]). The supplementary analysis on eyes with early VF loss showed similar results.
CONCLUSIONS: Using realistic modeling of structure-function progression and test-retest data, MD progression showed higher statistical power cpRFNL as an outcome measure for clinical trials.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.