Background/aims Three types of open-angle glaucoma (OAG)—primary, pigmentary and pseudoexfoliative—are frequently encountered. The aim of this study was to compare demographic, ocular and systemic medical information collected on people with these three OAG types at diagnosis, and determine if the OAG type affected the prognosis.
Methods Information on 607 participants of the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study was accessed. Descriptive statistics characterised their demographic, ocular and medical status at diagnosis. Comparisons were made using analysis of variance and χ2 or Fisher's exact tests. Multinomial, mixed and logistic regression analyses were also performed.
Results Relative to people with primary OAG, those with pigmentary OAG were younger, more likely to be white, less likely to have a family history of glaucoma, and were more myopic. Those with pseudoexfoliative OAG were older, more likely to be white, more likely to be women, less likely to have bilateral disease, and presented with higher intraocular pressure (IOP) and better visual acuity. The type of glaucoma was not associated with IOP or visual field progression during follow-up.
Conclusion Characteristics of newly diagnosed enrollees differed by the type of OAG. While some of these differences relate to the pathogenesis of OAG type, other differences are noteworthy for further evaluation within population-based samples of subjects with newly diagnosed OAG.
- clinical trial
- intraocular pressure
Statistics from Altmetric.com
An additional table is published online only. To view this file please visit the journal online (http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-301820)
This research was presented in part at the annual meeting of ARVO, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, May 2010.
Funding This research was supported by NIH/NEI grant EY020912 and a departmental grant from Research to Prevent Blindness (RPB), New York, NY, USA. DCM is a recipient of the RPB Lew R. Wasserman Merit Award.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by UM Medical School Institutional Review Board (IRBMED), HUM00037985.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.