The accuracy and clinical application of predictive models for primary open-angle glaucoma in ocular hypertensive individuals.
OBJECTIVE
This report compares the accuracy of 3 prediction models for the development of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). The models differ primarily in their handling of these eye-specific variables: intraocular pressure (IOP), central corneal thickness (CCT), vertical cup-to-disc ratio (VCD), and visual field pattern standard deviation (PSD). The "means" model includes age and the means of right and left eyes; the "means plus asymmetry" model includes age, the means of right and left eyes as well as the absolute difference between eyes for eye-specific variables; and the "worse" eye model includes age and values from the eye at higher risk for developing POAG.


METHODS
This report uses data from the observation group of the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS) and the placebo group of the European Glaucoma Prevention Study (EGPS) who have complete data on both eyes at baseline. Performance of the prediction models is assessed using the c-statistic, calibration chi-square, and Pearson correlation coefficient.


METHODS
The OHTS observation group (n = 717; 6.7 years median follow-up) and the EGPS placebo group (n = 324; 4.9 years median follow-up).


METHODS
Baseline data included demographic characteristics, medical history, ocular examination, visual fields, and optic disc photographs.


METHODS
Development of reproducible visual field abnormality or optic disc deterioration as determined by masked readers and attributed to POAG by a masked end point committee.


RESULTS
Baseline factors that were statistically significant in all predictive models were age, IOP, CCT, VCD, and PSD. Also, statistically significant were baseline asymmetry in IOP and asymmetry in VCD. The c-statistics for the "means" model, "means plus asymmetry" model, and "worse" eye model were 0.74, 0.77, and 0.75, respectively. The calibration chi-square values were 7.32, 11.19, and 1.81, respectively. Correlation coefficients between risk estimates calculated by different models ranged from 0.94 to 0.98.


CONCLUSIONS
The high agreement between the risk estimates from 3 different predictive models for the development of POAG suggests little difference in their statistical or clinical performance. The predictive model that uses the means of both eyes for eye-specific variables is the simplest to use and the most robust to measurement variability and error.
D003315:Cornea / Q000473:pathology; D005902:Glaucoma, Open-Angle / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000209:etiology*; D006801:Humans; D007429:Intraocular Pressure; D008875:Middle Aged; D008954:Models, Biological; D009798:Ocular Hypertension / Q000150:complications* / Q000175:diagnosis; D009898:Optic Disk / Q000473:pathology*; D009901:Optic Nerve Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000209:etiology*; D010781:Photography; D016016:Proportional Hazards Models; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012307:Risk Factors; D014065:Tonometry, Ocular; D014786:Vision Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000209:etiology*; D014794:Visual Fields
J Glaucoma. 2000 Feb;9(1):10-9
10708226
Ophthalmology. 2007 Jan;114(1):10-9
17095090
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Jun;120(6):701-13; discussion 829-30
12049574
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Jun;120(6):714-20; discussion 829-30
12049575
Ophthalmology. 2002 Sep;109(9):1612-21
12208707
Eye (Lond). 2003 Aug;17(6):747-53
12928689
Can J Ophthalmol. 2004 Apr;39(3):240-4
15180140
Br J Ophthalmol. 1980 Nov;64(11):858-62
7426557
JAMA. 1982 May 14;247(18):2543-6
7069920
Ophthalmology. 1988 Mar;95(3):350-6
3174002
Arch Ophthalmol. 1989 Apr;107(4):526-9
2705920
Eye (Lond). 1991;5 ( Pt 6):674-7
1800165
Ophthalmology. 1992 Feb;99(2):215-21
1553210
Arch Ophthalmol. 1994 May;112(5):644-9
8185522
Am J Ophthalmol. 1995 Apr;119(4):415-21
7709966
Am J Ophthalmol. 1996 May;121(5):502-10
8610793
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999 Apr;40(5):849-57
10102281
Arch Ophthalmol. 1999 May;117(5):573-83
10326953
Ophthalmology. 2005 Mar;112(3):366-75
15745761
J Glaucoma. 2005 Oct;14(5):358-63
16148583
J Glaucoma. 2005 Oct;14(5):375-83
16148586
Arch Ophthalmol. 2005 Oct;123(10):1351-60
16219726
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006 Sep;47(9):3896-903
16936102
Ophthalmology. 2007 Jan;114(1):3-9
17070596
JAMA. 2001 Jul 11;286(2):180-7
11448281