Background: The main objective of this analysis was to assess the impact of severity of disease on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with ocular hypertension (OHT) and early, moderate, or advanced primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Methods: This multicenter study was conducted at 2 university hospitals and 13 ophthalmology practices in Germany. QoL data were assessed by the Health Utility Index (HUI3) and the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25). Results: 154 patients (17.5% OHT, 27.9% early, 22.7% moderate, and 31.8% advanced POAG) were included. The HUI3 scores for OHT, early, moderate, and advanced POAG were 0.87 ± 0.09, 0.85 ± 0.15, 0.75 ± 0.23, and 0.58 ± 0.32, respectively. Compared to a normal population matched by age and gender, for moderate and severe POAG a difference of -0.06 ± 0.24 and -0.19 ± 0.28, respectively, was observed. NEI-VFQ-25 scores illustrate different dimensions of the impact on QoL; reduced peripheral vision or difficulties to drive a car were more crucial to glaucoma patients than social factors. Conclusions: The key difference for QoL impairment in glaucoma lies between OHT/early POAG versus moderate/severe POAG, hence every possible effort needs to be made to prevent disease progression over this threshold.

Keywords:
Glaucoma, Quality of life, Patient-reported outcomes, Germany
1.
Buch H, et al: The prevalence and causes of bilateral and unilateral blindness in an elderly urban Danish population. The Copenhagen City Eye Study. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2001;79:441-449.
2.
Klaver CC, et al: Age-specific prevalence and causes of blindness and visual impairment in an older population: the Rotterdam Study. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116:653-658.
3.
Quigley HA, Broman AT: The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol 2006;90:262-267.
4.
Thygesen J, et al: Late-stage, primary open-angle glaucoma in Europe: social and health care maintenance costs and quality of life of patients from 4 countries. Curr Med Res Opin 2008;24:1763-1770.
5.
Dietlein TS, Hermann MM, Jordan JF: The medical and surgical treatment of glaucoma. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2009;106:597-605, quiz 606.
6.
European Glaucoma Society (EGS): Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma, ed 3. 2008.
7.
Friedman DS, et al: Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:532-538.
8.
Leske MC, et al: Risk factors for incident open-angle glaucoma: the Barbados Eye Studies. Ophthalmology 2008;115:85-93.
9.
Tielsch JM, et al: Family history and risk of primary open angle glaucoma. The Baltimore Eye Survey. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:69-73.
10.
Tielsch JM, et al: Racial variations in the prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma. The Baltimore Eye Survey. JAMA 1991;266:369-374.
11.
Leske MC, et al: Predictors of long-term progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology 2007;114:1965-1972.
12.
Topouzis F, et al: Factors associated with undiagnosed open-angle glaucoma: the Thessaloniki Eye Study. Am J Ophthalmol 2008;145:327-335.
13.
Weinreb RN, Kaufman PL: The glaucoma research community and FDA look to the future: a report from the NEI/FDA CDER Glaucoma Clinical Trial Design and Endpoints Symposium. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:1497-1505.
14.
Quigley HA: Number of people with glaucoma worldwide. Br J Ophthalmol 1996;80:389-393.
15.
Henahan S: European Glaucoma Society Congress Report: new paradigm for glaucoma management. Eurotimes 2011.
16.
Dietlein TS: Glaucoma in the aged - barriers to understanding and compliance (article in German). Ophthalmologe 2006;103:755-758.
17.
Gupta V, et al: Utility values among glaucoma patients: an impact on the quality of life. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89:1241-1244.
18.
Kobelt G, et al: Cost-effectiveness analysis in glaucoma: what drives utility? Results from a pilot study in Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2006;84:363-371.
19.
Freeman EE, et al: Glaucoma and quality of life: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation. Ophthalmology 2008;115:233-238.
20.
Hirneiss C, et al: Health-economic aspects of glaucoma screening (article in German). Ophthalmologe 2010;107:143-149.
21.
Mills T, et al: Quality of life in glaucoma and three other chronic diseases: a systematic literature review. Drugs Aging 2009;26:933-950.
22.
Warrian KJ, Altangerel U, Spaeth GL: Performance-based measures of visual function. Surv Ophthalmol 2010;55:146-161.
23.
Felder-Puig R, et al: German cross-cultural adaptation of the Health Utilities Index and its application to a sample of childhood cancer survivors. Eur J Pediatr 2000;159:283-288.
24.
Furlong WJ, et al: The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med 2001;33:375-384.
25.
Drummond M: Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med 2001;33:344-349.
26.
Horsman J, et al: The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:54.
27.
College voor zorgverzekeringen (Health care insurance board): Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Research. Diemen, 2006.
28.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. 2008.
29.
Mangione CM, et al: Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:1050-1058.
30.
Che Hamzah J, et al: Choosing appropriate patient-reported outcomes instrument for glaucoma research: a systematic review of vision instruments. Qual Life Res 2011;20:1141-1158.
31.
Vandenbroeck S, et al: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO's) in glaucoma: a systematic review. Eye (Lond) 2011;25:555-577.
32.
Statistics Canada: Canadian Community Health Survey 2005, Cycle 3.1. Public Use Microdata File User Guide. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2006.
33.
Stein JD: Disparities between ophthalmologists and their patients in estimating quality of life. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2004;15:238-243.
34.
Aspinall PA, et al: Evaluation of quality of life and priorities of patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:1907-1915.
35.
Ramulu P: Glaucoma and disability: which tasks are affected, and at what stage of disease? Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2009;20:92-98.
36.
van Gestel A, et al: The relationship between visual field loss in glaucoma and health-related quality-of-life. Eye (Lond) 2010;24:1759-1769.
37.
Nelson P, et al: Quality of life in glaucoma and its relationship with visual function. J Glaucoma 2003;12:139-150.
38.
Sawka AM, et al: Health-related quality of life measurements in elderly Canadians with osteoporosis compared to other chronic medical conditions: a population-based study from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Osteoporos Int 2005;16:1836-1840.
39.
Wu SY, et al: Impact of glaucoma, lens opacities, and cataract surgery on visual functioning and related quality of life: the Barbados Eye Studies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:1333-1338.
40.
Hyman LG, et al: Treatment and vision-related quality of life in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology 2005;112:1505-1513.
41.
Nordmann JP, et al: Vision related quality of life and topical glaucoma treatment side effects. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:75.
42.
Jampel HD, et al: Depression and mood indicators in newly diagnosed glaucoma patients. Am J Ophthalmol 2007;144:238-244.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.