Global rates of glaucoma surgery

Purpose: To estimate global rates of glaucoma surgery. Methods: National glaucoma and national ophthalmology societies were contacted to obtain rates of glaucoma surgery for the preceding 5years. In countries without a professional society, leading ophthalmologists or non-governmental organizations (NGO) were approached. When available, published literature was used for the estimates. Three levels of evidence were assigned: published data from central government or insurance registries (level I), estimates provided by a national professional society based on survey of members (level II), and estimates based on data from individual glaucoma surgeons (level III). Glaucoma surgical rate (GSR) was defined as the annual number of total glaucoma surgeries performed per million population. Linear regression analysis was performed between GSR and the following parameters: population per ophthalmologist, per capita gross domestic product (GDP), and per capita health expenditures. Results: Seventy-three glaucoma societies, 35 ophthalmology societies, as well as six NGOs and 37 leading ophthalmologists (11 other countries) were contacted. Data were obtained from 38 countries (10 level I, 23 level II, and 5 lev el III) with a total population of 1.723 billion. The average GSR was 139.2 ± 113.1 (range, 2.9-500.0). There was a positive correlation between GSR and GDP (r2 = 0.309, P = 0.0004) and GSR and the number of ophthalmologists (r2 = 0.476, P < 0.0001). Conclusion: There is a paucity of data on rates of glaucoma surgery, particularly from developing countries. The new metric GSR may be useful for the allocation of healthcare resources, as well as for planning and monitoring public health interventions in glaucom

Implanted Microsensor Continuous IOP Telemetry Suggests Gaze and Eyelid Closure Effects on IOP-A Preliminary Study

PurposeTo explore the effect of gaze direction and eyelid closure on intraocular pressure (IOP).MethodsEleven patients with primary open-angle glaucoma previously implanted with a telemetric IOP sensor were instructed to view eight equally-spaced fixation targets each at three eccentricities (10°, 20°, and 25°). Nine patients also performed eyelid closure. IOP was recorded via an external antenna placed around the study eye. Differences of mean IOP between consecutive gaze positions were calculated. Furthermore, the effect of eyelid closure on gaze-dependent IOP was assessed.ResultsThe maximum IOP increase was observed at 25° superior gaze (mean ± SD: 4.4 ± 4.9 mm&nbsp;Hg) and maximum decrease at 25° inferonasal gaze (-1.6 ± 0.8 mm&nbsp;Hg). There was a significant interaction between gaze direction and eccentricity (P = 0.003). Post-hoc tests confirmed significant decreases inferonasally for all eccentricities (mean ± SEM: 10°: -0.7 ± 0.2, P = 0.007; 20°: -1.1 ± 0.2, P = 0.006; and 25°: -1.6 ± 0.2, P = 0.006). Eight of 11 eyes showed significant IOP differences between superior and inferonasal gaze at 25°. IOP decreased during eyelid closure, which was significantly lower than downgaze at 25° (mean ± SEM: -2.1 ± 0.3 mm&nbsp;Hg vs. -0.7 ± 0.2 mm&nbsp;Hg, P = 0.014).ConclusionsOur data suggest that IOP varies reproducibly with gaze direction, albeit with patient variability. IOP generally increased in upgaze but decreased in inferonasal gaze and on eyelid closure. Future studies should investigate the patient variability and IOP dynamics

Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Global and regional prevalence estimates for blindness and vision impairment are important for the development of public health policies. We aimed to provide global estimates, trends, and projections of global blindness and vision impairment. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based datasets relevant to global vision impairment and blindness that were published between 1980 and 2015. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate the prevalence (by age, country, and sex), in 2015, of mild visual impairment (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12 to 6/18 inclusive), moderate to severe visual impairment (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/18 to 3/60 inclusive), blindness (presenting visual acuity worse than 3/60), and functional presbyopia (defined as presenting near vision worse than N6 or N8 at 40 cm when best-corrected distance visual acuity was better than 6/12). Findings: Globally, of the 7·33 billion people alive in 2015, an estimated 36·0 million (80% uncertainty interval [UI] 12·9–65·4) were blind (crude prevalence 0·48%; 80% UI 0·17–0·87; 56% female), 216·6 million (80% UI 98·5–359·1) people had moderate to severe visual impairment (2·95%, 80% UI 1·34–4·89; 55% female), and 188·5 million (80% UI 64·5–350·2) had mild visual impairment (2·57%, 80% UI 0·88–4·77; 54% female). Functional presbyopia affected an estimated 1094·7 million (80% UI 581·1–1686·5) people aged 35 years and older, with 666·7 million (80% UI 364·9–997·6) being aged 50 years or older. The estimated number of blind people increased by 17·6%, from 30·6 million (80% UI 9·9–57·3) in 1990 to 36·0 million (80% UI 12·9–65·4) in 2015. This change was attributable to three factors, namely an increase because of population growth (38·4%), population ageing after accounting for population growth (34·6%), and reduction in age-specific prevalence (–36·7%). The number of people with moderate and severe visual impairment also increased, from 159·9 million (80% UI 68·3–270·0) in 1990 to 216·6 million (80% UI 98·5–359·1) in 2015. Interpretation: There is an ongoing reduction in the age-standardised prevalence of blindness and visual impairment, yet the growth and ageing of the world’s population is causing a substantial increase in number of people affected. These observations, plus a very large contribution from uncorrected presbyopia, highlight the need to scale up vision impairment alleviation efforts at all levels

Trends in prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment over 30 years: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study

Background: To contribute to the WHO initiative, VISION 2020: The Right to Sight, an assessment of global vision impairment in 2020 and temporal change is needed. We aimed to extensively update estimates of global vision loss burden, presenting estimates for 2020, temporal change over three decades between 1990–2020, and forecasts for 2050. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys of eye disease from January, 1980, to October, 2018. Only studies with samples representative of the population and with clearly defined visual acuity testing protocols were included. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate 2020 prevalence (with 95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) of mild vision impairment (presenting visual acuity ≥6/18 and <6/12), moderate and severe vision impairment (<6/18 to 3/60), and blindness (<3/60 or less than 10° visual field around central fixation); and vision impairment from uncorrected presbyopia (presenting near vision <N6 or <N8 at 40 cm where best-corrected distance visual acuity is ≥6/12). We forecast estimates of vision loss up to 2050. Findings: In 2020, an estimated 43·3 million (95% UI 37·6–48·4) people were blind, of whom 23·9 million (55%; 20·8–26·8) were estimated to be female. We estimated 295 million (267–325) people to have moderate and severe vision impairment, of whom 163 million (55%; 147–179) were female; 258 million (233–285) to have mild vision impairment, of whom 142 million (55%; 128–157) were female; and 510 million (371–667) to have visual impairment from uncorrected presbyopia, of whom 280 million (55%; 205–365) were female. Globally, between 1990 and 2020, among adults aged 50 years or older, age-standardised prevalence of blindness decreased by 28·5% (–29·4 to −27·7) and prevalence of mild vision impairment decreased slightly (–0·3%, −0·8 to −0·2), whereas prevalence of moderate and severe vision impairment increased slightly (2·5%, 1·9 to 3·2; insufficient data were available to calculate this statistic for vision impairment from uncorrected presbyopia). In this period, the number of people who were blind increased by 50·6% (47·8 to 53·4) and the number with moderate and severe vision impairment increased by 91·7% (87·6 to 95·8). By 2050, we predict 61·0 million (52·9 to 69·3) people will be blind, 474 million (428 to 518) will have moderate and severe vision impairment, 360 million (322 to 400) will have mild vision impairment, and 866 million (629 to 1150) will have uncorrected presbyopia. Interpretation: Age-adjusted prevalence of blindness has reduced over the past three decades, yet due to population growth, progress is not keeping pace with needs. We face enormous challenges in avoiding vision impairment as the global population grows and ages

Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study

Background: Many causes of vision impairment can be prevented or treated. With an ageing global population, the demands for eye health services are increasing. We estimated the prevalence and relative contribution of avoidable causes of blindness and vision impairment globally from 1990 to 2020. We aimed to compare the results with the World Health Assembly Global Action Plan (WHA GAP) target of a 25% global reduction from 2010 to 2019 in avoidable vision impairment, defined as cataract and undercorrected refractive error. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based surveys of eye disease from January, 1980, to October, 2018. We fitted hierarchical models to estimate prevalence (with 95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) of moderate and severe vision impairment (MSVI; presenting visual acuity from <6/18 to 3/60) and blindness (<3/60 or less than 10° visual field around central fixation) by cause, age, region, and year. Because of data sparsity at younger ages, our analysis focused on adults aged 50 years and older. Findings: Global crude prevalence of avoidable vision impairment and blindness in adults aged 50 years and older did not change between 2010 and 2019 (percentage change −0·2% [95% UI −1·5 to 1·0]; 2019 prevalence 9·58 cases per 1000 people [95% IU 8·51 to 10·8], 2010 prevalence 96·0 cases per 1000 people [86·0 to 107·0]). Age-standardised prevalence of avoidable blindness decreased by −15·4% [–16·8 to −14·3], while avoidable MSVI showed no change (0·5% [–0·8 to 1·6]). However, the number of cases increased for both avoidable blindness (10·8% [8·9 to 12·4]) and MSVI (31·5% [30·0 to 33·1]). The leading global causes of blindness in those aged 50 years and older in 2020 were cataract (15·2 million cases [9% IU 12·7–18·0]), followed by glaucoma (3·6 million cases [2·8–4·4]), undercorrected refractive error (2·3 million cases [1·8–2·8]), age-related macular degeneration (1·8 million cases [1·3–2·4]), and diabetic retinopathy (0·86 million cases [0·59–1·23]). Leading causes of MSVI were undercorrected refractive error (86·1 million cases [74·2–101·0]) and cataract (78·8 million cases [67·2–91·4]). Interpretation: Results suggest eye care services contributed to the observed reduction of age-standardised rates of avoidable blindness but not of MSVI, and that the target in an ageing global population was not reached. Funding: Brien Holden Vision Institute, Fondation Théa, The Fred Hollows Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lions Clubs International Foundation, Sightsavers International, and University of Heidelberg

The Road Ahead to Continuous 24-Hour Intraocular Pressure Monitoring in Glaucoma

Intraocular pressure (IOP) is the only treatable risk factor for glaucoma. Yet, current glaucoma management usually relies on single IOP measurements during clinic hours despite the fact that IOP is a dynamic parameter with individual rhythms. Single IOP measurements underpin all major clinical guidelines on treatment of glaucoma. Other potentially informative parameters, such as IOP fluctuations and peak IOP, have been neglected, and effects of IOP-lowering interventions on such measures are largely unknown. The search for continuous 24-hour IOP monitoring started over 50 years ago, but only recent technological advances have provided clinician-researchers with devices for continuous IOP monitoring. Herein, we discuss innovative approaches with permanent and temporary devices for 24-hour IOP monitoring, such as a contact lens sensor. Despite being in their infancy, these devices may soon enable clinicians to use 24-hour IOP data to improve glaucoma management and reduce the glaucoma-related burden of disease