Comparing Perimetric Loss at Different Target Intraocular Pressures for Patients with High-Tension and Normal-Tension Glaucoma

Purpose: To compare forecasted changes in mean deviation (MD) for patients with normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) and high-tension open-angle glaucoma (HTG) at different target intraocular pressures (IOPs) using Kalman filtering, a machine learning technique. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Participants: From the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study or Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study, 496 patients with HTG; from Japan, 262 patients with NTG. Methods: Using the first 5 sets of tonometry and perimetry measurements, each patient was classified as a fast progressor, slow progressor, or nonprogressor. Using Kalman filtering, personalized forecasts of MD changes over 2.5 years' follow-up were generated for fast and slow progressors with HTG and NTG with IOPs maintained at hypothetical IOP targets of 9 to 21 mmHg. Future MD loss with different percentage IOP reductions from baseline (0%–50%) were also assessed for the groups. Main Outcome Measures: Mean forecasted MD change at different target IOPs. Results: The mean (± standard deviation) patient age was 63.5 ± 10.5 years for NTG and 66.5 ± 10.9 years for HTG. Over the 2.5-year follow-up, at target IOPs of 9, 15, and 21 mmHg, respectively, the mean forecasted MD losses for fast progressors with NTG were 2.3 ± 0.2, 4.0 ± 0.2, and 5.7 ± 0.2 dB; for slow progressors with NTG, losses were 0.63 ± 0.02, 1.02 ± 0.03, and 1.49 ± 0.07 dB; for fast progressors with HTG, losses were 1.8 ± 0.1, 3.4 ± 0.1, and 5.1 ± 0.1 dB; and for slow progressors with HTG, losses were 0.55 ± 0.06, 1.04 ± 0.08, and 1.59 ± 0.10 dB. Fast progressors with NTG had greater MD decline than fast progressors with HTG at each target IOP (P ≤ 0.007 for all). The MD decline for slow progressors with HTG and NTG were similar (P ≥ 0.24 for all target IOPs). Fast progressors with HTG had greater MD loss than those with NTG with 0%–10% IOP reduction since baseline (P ≤ 0.01 for all), but not 25% (P = 0.07) or 50% (P = 0.76) reduction since baseline. Conclusions: Machine learning algorithms using Kalman filtering techniques demonstrate promise at forecasting future MD values at different target IOPs for patients with NTG and HTG.