Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35932820›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of ophthalmology2022

Risk, Prevalence, and Progression of Glaucoma in Eyes With Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treated With Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections.

Saumya M Shah, Nithya Boopathiraj, Matthew R Starr, Lauren A Dalvin, Jackson AbouChehade, Gena Damento, Maria D Garcia, David O Hodge, Sophie J Bakri, Arthur J Sit and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Saumya M ShahFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (S.M.S., N.B., M.R.S., L.A.D., J.A., G.D., M.D.G., S.J.B., A.J.S., R.I.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Nithya BoopathirajFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (S.M.S., N.B., M.R.S., L.A.D., J.A., G.D., M.D.G., S.J.B., A.J.S., R.I.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Matthew R StarrFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (S.M.S., N.B., M.R.S., L.A.D., J.A., G.D., M.D.G., S.J.B., A.J.S., R.I.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Lauren A DalvinFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (S.M.S., N.B., M.R.S., L.A.D., J.A., G.D., M.D.G., S.J.B., A.J.S., R.I.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Jackson AbouChehadeFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (S.M.S., N.B., M.R.S., L.A.D., J.A., G.D., M.D.G., S.J.B., A.J.S., R.I.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Gena DamentoFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (S.M.S., N.B., M.R.S., L.A.D., J.A., G.D., M.D.G., S.J.B., A.J.S., R.I.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Maria D GarciaFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (S.M.S., N.B., M.R.S., L.A.D., J.A., G.D., M.D.G., S.J.B., A.J.S., R.I.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
David O HodgeDepartment of Health Sciences Research/Biomedical Statistics and Informatics (D.O.H.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Sophie J BakriFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (S.M.S., N.B., M.R.S., L.A.D., J.A., G.D., M.D.G., S.J.B., A.J.S., R.I.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Arthur J SitFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (S.M.S., N.B., M.R.S., L.A.D., J.A., G.D., M.D.G., S.J.B., A.J.S., R.I.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Raymond IezziFrom the Department of Ophthalmology (S.M.S., N.B., M.R.S., L.A.D., J.A., G.D., M.D.G., S.J.B., A.J.S., R.I.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. Electronic address: iezzi.raymond@mayo.edu.
Mayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Florida · US

Funding

Rochester Epidemiology ProjectR01AG034676 · NIA · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI ROCCA, WALTER A, ST SAUVER, JENNIFER LYNN · 2010 to 2019
$9.5M
Interdisciplinary Infrastructure for Aging Research: Rochester Epidemiology ProjectR33AG058738 · NIA · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI LEBRASSEUR, NATHAN K, OLSON, JANET E · 2020 to 2022
$2.4M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG034676NIA NIH HHS R33 AG058738
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo examine the risk, prevalence, and progression of glaucoma development in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) eyes receiving intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections compared to controls.

designRetrospective clinical cohort study.

methodsRetrospective review of eyes receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF injections from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2013, for exudative AMD. Age- and sex-matched control groups of eyes included eyes with nonexudative AMD (NEAMD) and no AMD. Eyes with a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspect were reviewed for injection details, type and date of glaucoma diagnosis, glaucoma treatments, standard automated perimetry (SAP), and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Qualitative progression was determined by indication of glaucoma progression in provider notes. Quantitative progression was assessed based on change in mean deviation (MD) on SAP, retinal nerve fiber layer thickness on SD-OCT, and intraocular pressure (IOP).

resultsThere were 707 eyes of 504 patients treated with anti-VEGF injections and 1008 eyes in the NEAMD and no-AMD cohorts. There was no difference in glaucoma or suspect prevalence at initial presentation between eyes treated with injections and NEAMD (6.9% vs 9.7%, P = .22) or no-AMD controls (vs 8.5%, P = .55). There was no difference in cumulative 5-year probability of new glaucoma diagnosis after anti-VEGF injections compared to NEAMD (1.9% vs 1.0%, P = .69) or no-AMD controls (vs 1.6%, P = .88). There was no difference in qualitative progression of glaucoma in the injection cohort vs NEAMD (P = .19) or no-AMD controls (P = .61). The rate of MD change in injection eyes was similar to NEAMD eyes (P = .74) but greater than no-AMD eyes (P = .02). Eyes receiving injections required more topical glaucoma medications compared with NEAMD (P = .03) and more glaucoma laser treatments compared with no-AMD controls (P = .009). Eyes receiving injections did not require more frequent incisional glaucoma surgery compared with NEAMD (21.0% vs 15.0%, P = .95) or no-AMD controls (vs 10.0%, P = .10).

conclusionEyes treated with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections for exudative AMD did not have increased risk of developing glaucoma compared with controls. Of those with a glaucoma diagnosis, exudative AMD eyes receiving injections required a greater number of topical glaucoma medications compared with NEAMD eyes and had a greater rate of MD loss than no-AMD controls.

Indexed as

GlaucomaMacular DegenerationWet Macular DegenerationAngiogenesis InhibitorsCohort StudiesEndothelial Growth FactorsHumansIntravitreal InjectionsPrevalenceRanibizumabRetrospective StudiesTomography, Optical CoherenceVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AAngiogenesis InhibitorsEndothelial Growth FactorsRanibizumabVascular Endothelial Growth Factor A

Identifiers

PMID35932820
PMCPMC10107401
OpenAlexW4289528472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.