Ocular Hypertension

Back

Background

Ocular hypertension (OHT) can be used as a generic term referring to any situation in which intraocular pressure (IOP) is greater than 21 mm Hg, the widely accepted upper limit of normal intraocular pressure in the general population. (See the image below.) The term makes no mention of whether or not glaucomatous nerve damage is present. It also depicts no particular time frame during which the elevated pressure has been measured.



View Image

Diagram of intraocular pressure distribution. Used with permission from Survey of Ophthalmology.

The formal definition of ocular hypertension evolved in the latter part of the 20th century.[1] It was used as early as 1962 by Drance, but was not defined in English language publications until 1966 by Perkins and others.

Ocular hypertension is a condition in which the following criteria are met:

Despite early definitions, ocular hypertension has historically meant different things to different ophthalmologists.[1] Some glaucoma experts such as Hitchings stressed the point of not reading too much into the term.[2] Others, including Spaeth, advocated total disuse of the term secondary to its inherent ambiguity, preferring the term glaucoma suspect to more adequately convey uncertainty regarding the diagnosis and prognosis.[3] (See the image below.)



View Image

Diagram showing the relative proportion of people in the general population who have elevated pressure (horizontally shaded lines) and/or damage from ....

The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS) is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial studying more than 1800 research subjects, evaluating the safety and efficacy of medical treatment in preventing or delaying the onset of visual-field loss and/or optic nerve damage in patients with ocular hypertension who are at moderate risk for developing primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).[4]

In this article, ocular hypertension refers to a state in which the eye(s) meet the above 5 criteria, in the absence of identifiable causes or cardinal signs of POAG.[5] Ocular hypertension is a condition requiring closer observation for the potential development of glaucomatous damage.[6, 7]

Pathophysiology

The exact pathophysiology of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) in ocular hypertension is not known. In primary open-angle glaucoma, myocilin (MYOC) gene mutations have been found and determined to cause protein misfolding, making trabecular meshwork cells dysfunctional, with subsequent decrease in outflow facility and marked elevation of IOP.[8]

Elevated IOP is of great concern because it is the most established risk factor for the development of glaucoma.[9] Two theories of how IOP initiates glaucomatous damage include (1) onset of vascular dysfunction causing ischemia to the optic nerve and (2) mechanical dysfunction via cribriform plate compression of the neuronal axons.

In addition to vascular compromise and mechanically impaired axoplasmic flow, contemporary hypotheses of possible pathogenic mechanisms that underlie glaucomatous optic neuropathy include excitotoxic damage from excessive retinal glutamate, deprivation of neuronal growth factors, peroxynitrite toxicity from increased nitric oxide synthase activity, immune-mediated nerve damage, and oxidative stress.[10, 11]

The exact role that IOP plays in combination with these other factors and its significance in the initiation and progression of subsequent glaucomatous neuronal damage and cell death over time is still under debate.[12]

Epidemiology

Prevalence

Population studies such as the Framingham, Beaver Dam, Baltimore, Rotterdam, Barbados, and Egna-Neumarkt studies have estimated that 4-10% of the population older than 40 years will have IOPs of 21 mm Hg or higher without detectable signs of glaucomatous damage.[13] Ocular hypertension has a 10-15 times greater prevalence than POAG.[14]

Race-related demographics

Although black individuals are considered to have a 3-4 times higher prevalence of POAG and larger cup-to-disc ratios compared with white individuals, the data are less clear concerning ocular hypertension. The Barbados Eye Study found the incidence of IOPs greater than 22 mm Hg to be 5 times higher in blacks than in whites.[13] The Baltimore Eye Survey found no difference in mean IOP between blacks and whites.[15] The Los Angeles Latino Eye Study found Latinos to be at higher risk of ocular hypertension than non-Latino whites but lower than blacks.[16]

Sex-related demographics

The Barbados Eye Study found ocular hypertension present more frequently in women.[13]

Age-related demographics

Mean IOP slowly rises with increasing age. Age older than 40 years is considered a risk factor for the development of ocular hypertension and POAG.[13]

Prognosis

Prospective studies in the 1980s showed that among patients with elevated IOP, roughly 0.5-1% per year developed glaucoma over a period of 5-10 years.[17] The OHTS suggests that progression to glaucoma increases with higher IOPs and lower central corneal thickness (CCT)[4] (see image below) and that certain patient characteristics are associated with a greater than 2% annual risk of developing glaucoma.[18] Patient characteristics associated with this increased risk include the following:

Morbidity and mortality

The Gutenberg Health Study found positive associations with higher IOP in an adult European cohort for systemic cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and obesity.[19]

Systemic morbidity and mortality can also result from the possible cardiopulmonary adverse effects of IOP-lowering medications.

With regard to ocular morbidity and mortality, retinal vascular occlusion may occur in approximately 3% of ocular hypertensive patients.[20]

Progression to glaucoma is the main source of ocular morbidity and mortality. Studies have shown that over a 5-year-period, the incidence of glaucomatous damage in ocular hypertensive patients increases with increasing IOP levels:

The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS) states that over a 5-year-period, patients with ocular hypertension and IOP levels of 24 mm Hg or more have a 10% overall risk of developing glaucoma. This risk can be cut in half by medical treatment. In 2004, more than 2 million individuals in the United States were diagnosed as having open-angle glaucoma. This number is projected to increase to more than 3 million by 2020.[21]

Patient Education

Patient education is essential to prevent possible progression to glaucoma. The patient who understands the chronic, potentially progressive nature of glaucoma is more likely to comply with therapy.[22, 23] Numerous handouts are available to patients, including the following:

For patient education information, see the Eye and Vision Center, as well as Ocular Hypertension and Normal-Tension Glaucoma.

History

In the evaluation of ocular hypertension, details should be obtained with respect to the following:

Physical Examination

A comprehensive eye examination, such as that outlined in the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Patterns, should be performed.[28] Emphasis should be on ruling out early POAG or secondary causes of glaucoma.[29] See the image below.



View Image

Flowchart for evaluation of a patient with suspected glaucoma. Used by permission of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Visual acuity should be assessed. In isolated ocular hypertension, vision remains normal.

Pupils should be assessed. Afferent pupillary defect (Marcus-Gunn) status should be determined. Ideally, pupil size should be documented at the time of visual-field testing since miosis may mimic early visual-field loss.

Slit-lamp examination of the anterior segment

With regard to the cornea, signs of microcystic edema can be found with a sudden elevation of IOP. Keratic precipitates, pigment on the endothelium (Krukenberg spindle), and congenital and other anomalies suggest a secondary cause of elevated IOP.

For the anterior chamber, assess for an absence of cell or flare, hyphema, foreign bodies, and angle closure.

For the iris, assess for an absence of transillumination defects, iris atrophy, synechiae, rubeosis, ectropion uveae, iris bombé, difference in iris coloration bilaterally (eg, Fuchs heterochromic iridocyclitis), or pseudoexfoliation (PXF) material.

For the lens, assess for an absence of phacomorphic, PXF, Morgagnian, or phacolytic cataract.

Gonioscopy

Gonioscopy should be performed to rule out angle closure or secondary causes of IOP elevation, such as angle recession, pigmentary glaucoma, or PXF.

Fundus examination

Stereoscopic examination of the optic nerves should be performed, looking for the following possible signs of glaucomatous damage[30] :

Note the images below.



View Image

Illustration of progressive optic nerve damage. Notice the deepening (saucerization) along the neural rim, along with notching and increased excavatio....



View Image

Example of optic nerve asymmetry in a patient with glaucomatous damage, left eye, showing optic nerve excavation inferiorly similar to Image 5. Used b....



View Image

Glaucomatous optic nerve damage, with sloping and nerve fiber layer rim hemorrhage at the 7-o'clock position. Hemorrhage is indicative of progressive ....



View Image

Advanced glaucomatous damage with increased cupping and substantial pallor of the optic nerve head. Courtesy of M. Bruce Shields.

Other fundus abnormalities that could account for any nonglaucomatous visual-field defects or vision loss (eg, disc drusen, optic pits, macular disease, retinopathy) should be noted.

Tonometry

When checking IOP, record measurements for both eyes, the method used (eg, Goldmann applanation, Tono-Pen, pneumotonometer), and the time the measurement was taken.

Considerations in assessing tonometry measurements are as follows:

In patients who are obese or anxious, consider the possibility of a Valsalva movement causing increased IOP when measured with the slit lamp by Goldmann applanation. If so, measurement should be tried via the Tono-Pen or Perkins tonometer or a pneumotonometer with the patient resting back in the examination chair.

Goldmann applanation is considered the criterion standard.[31, 32, 33, 34] However, in cases of increased corneal or scleral rigidity (eg, status post [S/P] keratoplasty, scleral buckle), pneumotonometry or a Tono-Pen measurement can be used and may be more accurate.[35]

IOP varies from hour to hour in any individual. The circadian rhythm of IOP usually causes it to rise in the early hours of the morning; IOP also rises with a supine posture, possibly more so in ocular hypertensive patients.

A difference between eyes of 3 mm Hg or more indicates a greater likelihood of glaucoma. Review previous tonometry readings, if available. Expect an average difference of 10% between individual measurements. Take the measurement in the morning and at night to check the diurnal variation, if possible. (A diurnal variation of more than 5-6 mm Hg may be suggestive of increased risk for POAG.) Early POAG is strongly suspected when a steadily increasing IOP is present.[29]

Studies such as the OHTS have suggested that applanation pressures vary significantly according to corneal thickness and that some patients diagnosed with ocular hypertension actually may be normotensive when correction is made for central corneal thicknesses CCTs.[36, 37, 38] IOP measurements should be interpreted in the context of pachymetry measurements.

Pachymetry

Pachymetry is used to measure CCT and is known to influence applanation tonometry values.[31, 39] (See the image below.)



View Image

Correction values according to corneal thickness.

According to the OHTS, pachymetry is now the criterion standard for every baseline examination in patients who are at risk for or are suspected of having glaucoma.[4, 40]

Visual-field/automated perimetry testing

Automated perimetry testing (eg, Humphrey 24-2 visual-field test) should be performed to rule out any glaucomatous visual-field defects. (See the image below.) If there are any visual-field or optic nerve changes consistent with early glaucoma, the patient should no longer be referred to as having ocular hypertension.[41, 42]



View Image

Humphrey visual field, right eye, showing patient with advanced glaucomatous field loss. Notice both the arcuate extension from the blind spot (Bjerru....

Considerations in visual-field testing

Visual-field defects may not be apparent until more than 40% loss of the nerve fiber layer has occurred. New-onset glaucomatous defects in an individual with previously diagnosed ocular hypertension are found most commonly as an early nasal step, a temporal wedge, or a paracentral scotoma (more frequently superiorly). Generalized depression also can be found. See the image below.



View Image

Example of progressive visual field loss over time (from top to bottom) in a patient with glaucoma. Notice the early appearance of an inferior nasal s....

Pupillary constriction can reduce retinal sensitivity and mimic field loss.

Software based on the Swedish interactive thresholding algorithm (SITA) may decrease testing time and boost reliability, especially in older patients. Short-wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) testing, or blue-yellow perimetry, has been proposed as a more sensitive method of detecting visual-field deficits in patients diagnosed with ocular hypertension. Some studies have suggested that SWAP may detect visual loss/progression up to 3-5 years earlier than conventional perimetry, as well as in 12-42% of patients previously diagnosed with only ocular hypertension.[43, 44, 45] Because testing time is lengthened, it may be tiring for some patients; newer SITA-SWAP software was developed to speed up the testing time and thus improve reliability.[46] Some studies have not found SITA-SWAP to be better than standard perimetry testing.[47]

The initial visual field may need to be repeated at least twice on successive visits if initial testing shows low reliability indices. Newer glaucoma progression analysis (GPA) software can help to identify reliable perimetric baselines, and probability-based analyses of subsequent fields can assist in determining if there is true progression over time versus artifact.[48] If the patient is unable to perform automated testing, manual Goldmann perimetry testing may be substituted.

Imaging Studies

Advances in computerized ocular imaging technology provide useful measures that can assist in glaucoma diagnosis and monitoring.

Imaging technologies such as confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (eg, Heidelberg retina tomogram-HRT), scanning laser polarimetry (GDx), and optical coherence tomography (OCT) provide objective and quantitative measurements of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) that are highly reproducible and show very good agreement with clinical estimates of optic nerve head structure and visual function. As with other technologies, imaging may produce false identification of glaucoma and its progression, thus management decisions should not be based solely on the results of one single test or technology.[49, 50]

In one prospective study of 24 matched eyes, Stratus OCT was found to detect significant differences in RNFL thickness between normal, ocular hypertensive, and glaucomatous eyes.[51]

In a longitudinal study of 857 eyes, the OHTS found HRT imaging to be as effective as stereophotographs for estimating risk of POAG development in ocular hypertensive patients.[52]

Current sensitivities and specificities in these modalities are continuing to improve.

Ultrasonographic Biomicroscopy

Ultrasonographic biomicroscopy (UBM) may prove helpful for obtaining a better view of the angle, iris, and ciliary body structures to rule out anatomic pathology and secondary causes of elevated IOP.[49]

Other Studies

Tonography, used to help determine trabecular outflow facility, is primarily a research tool used in testing pharmacologic agents. Fluorescein angiography, ocular blood flow analysis via laser Doppler flowmetry, color vision measurements, contrast sensitivity testing, and electrophysiologic tests (eg, pattern electroretinograms) currently are used as research tools in the management of ocular hypertension. Routine clinical use is not advocated at this time.[53]

Approach Considerations

A clinical management strategy that targets a 20% reduction in IOP in people with ocular hypertension has been shown to delay or prevent the onset of glaucoma.[54]

Considering the high average monthly cost of glaucoma medication, along with the possible risks of adverse effects or toxic reactions from drugs, inconvenience of use, and sometimes uncertainty of the overall efficacy of prophylactic therapy, there is strong reason not to treat indiscriminately.[55, 56, 57] The OHTS suggests that treatment of patients with IOP higher than 24 mm Hg among those who have a greater than 2% annual risk of developing glaucoma (see the Prognosis section) is cost-effective.[58]

Individualization of therapy is the key; an ideal pressure in one patient may cause glaucomatous damage in another person. Periodically reevaluating the target IOP and performing a review of IOP trends and optic nerve anatomy and function via visual-field testing is necessary to determine whether the patient is consistently maintaining his or her ideal pressure.

Medical care

When risk of progression to POAG is present, treatment with IOP-lowering medications is indicated. See Medication.

Surgical care

Generally, if control cannot be achieved with medications, reconsider the diagnosis of ocular hypertension as that of early POAG. Laser and surgical therapy are not viewed as mainstay treatments for ocular hypertension.

Consultations

Referral to a subspecialist fellowship trained in glaucoma and/or neuro-ophthalmology should be considered if there is continued inadequate pressure control, loss of visual acuity, visual-field constriction, optic nerve pallor or cupping, associated systemic conditions, or atypical findings.

Follow Up

Depending on the assessed annual risk of developing glaucoma and level of IOP control, patients may need to be seen at intervals ranging from yearly to every 2 months, or even more frequently if there is a marked lack of IOP control.[28]

Long-Term Monitoring

Patients should be observed regularly over their lifetime because some are at increased risk for the development of glaucomatous damage. If treated with medications, the potential for adverse effects or toxic reactions from topical medications exists (see Medication).

Medication Summary

The ideal drug for the treatment of ocular hypertension should effectively lower IOP, produce no adverse effects or systemic exacerbation of disease, be inexpensive, and have once-a-day dosing. Because no medicine currently possesses all of the above, these qualities should be prioritized based on the patient's individual needs and risks, and therapy should then be chosen accordingly.[59]

Older glaucoma medications such as cholinergics (ie, miotics, such as pilocarpine), osmotics, and nonselective adrenergic agonists have a limited role in the treatment of ocular hypertension. They should be considered only if contraindications prevent the use of preferred medications.

In December 2017, the FDA approved netarsudil, a first-in-class inhibitor of rho kinase and norepinephrine transporter, for the treatment of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) caused by open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Approval was based on two phase III clinical trials (Rocket 1 and Rocket 2) that enrolled 1,167 patients. Patients were randomized to receive netarsudil once daily (Rocket 1 or Rocket 2) or BID (Rocket 2 only). Timolol was dosed BID in both studies. Treatment with netarsudil once daily produced clinically and statistically significant reductions of IOP from baseline (P< 0.001) and was noninferior to timolol in the per-protocol population with maximum baseline IOP < 25 mm Hg in both studies.[60]

The fixed-dose combination of a Rho-kinase inhibitor and a prostaglandin F2-alpha analogue (netarsudil/latanoprost) was approved by the FDA in 2019. Approval of netarsudil/latanoprost ophthalmic was based on two phase 3 trials, MERCURY 1 (n=718) and MERCURY 2 (n=750). The studies compared the mean IOP after 3 months of once-daily ophthalmic administration of netarsudil/latanoprost, netarsudil, or latanoprost. Patients who received the netarsudil/latanoprost combination achieved an average of 1-3 mm Hg lower mean IOP compared with netarsudil or latanoprost monotherapy. Nearly twice as many patients taking the combination achieved a diurnal IOP of 16 mm Hg or less, and nearly three times as many reached 14 mm Hg or lower compared with latanoprost.[61]

Newer products with neuroprotective effects (eg, memantine, an N -methyl-D-aspartate [NMDA] receptor antagonist) may be available in the future.[62, 63, 64, 65, 66]

Assessment

Follow-up assessment should be performed 3-4 weeks after beginning therapy.[28] Observe the patient for signs of allergy (eg, hyperemia, rash, follicular reaction). Query patients about the presence of any systemic adverse effects and symptoms. Continue the treatment if effective lowering of IOP has been achieved without adverse effects.[67] Reevaluate the treatment 1-6 months later, depending on the clinical picture.[28]

Modifications in therapy

Some patients do not respond to the chosen therapy, necessitating initiation of another medication with or without discontinuation of the initial medication. When changing therapies, keep in mind that many drugs have a washout period of up to 2-4 weeks (especially beta-blockers), during which time they may still have some IOP-lowering effect or residual systemic response. In addition, some medications (eg, brimonidine) may have an effect that plateaus at 6-8 weeks in some patients.[68, 69]

If the addition of a second agent has been decided, choose one that has a different mechanism of action, so that the 2 drug therapies have an additive effect. Usually, no additive effect is seen if 2 medications from the same drug class are used. When more than 1 topical ophthalmic drug is being used, instruct the patient to administer them at least 10 minutes apart.

Latanoprost (Xalatan 0.005%)

Clinical Context:  Latanoprost may decrease IOP by increasing the outflow of aqueous humor. Patients should be informed about possible cosmetic effects to the eye/eyelashes, especially if uniocular therapy is to be initiated.[71]

Bimatoprost ophthalmic solution (Lumigan)

Clinical Context:  This agent is a prostamide analogue with ocular hypotensive activity. It mimics the IOP-lowering activity of prostamides via the prostamide pathway. Bimatoprost may achieve a large reduction in pressure in many patients, but it is known to cause significant conjunctival hyperemia.

Bimatoprost ophthalmic implant (Durysta)

Clinical Context:  Intracameral implant indicated to reduce IOP in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Provides sustained IOP lowering.

Travoprost ophthalmic solution (Travatan Z)

Clinical Context:  This agent is a prostaglandin F2-alpha analogue. It is a selective FP prostanoid receptor agonist that is believed to reduce IOP by increasing uveoscleral outflow. Travoprost has been purported to achieve lower IOPs, particularly in African American patients, but these data are the subject of controversy. It may also cause significant conjunctival hyperemia.[72]

Tafluprost (Zioptan)

Clinical Context:  Tafluprost is a topical, preservative-free, ophthalmic prostaglandin analogue indicated for elevated IOP associated with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The exact mechanism by which it reduces IOP is unknown, but it is thought to increase uveoscleral outflow.

Latanoprostene bunod ophthalmic (Vyzulta)

Clinical Context:  The first prostaglandin analog with one of its metabolites being nitric oxide (NO), is indicated for the reduction of intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Latanoprostene bunod is believed to lower intraocular pressure by increasing outflow of aqueous humor through the trabecular meshwork and uveoscleral routes. Intraocular pressure is a major risk factor for glaucoma progression. Reduction of intraocular pressure reduces risk of glaucomatous visual field loss.

Class Summary

These medications work by increasing uveoscleral outflow. Latanoprost, bimatoprost, travoprost, and tafluprost are examples of prostaglandin analogs that may help in IOP reduction.[70, 71, 72] Each of these drugs has its own set of characteristics that may be useful in the clinical setting.

Betaxolol ophthalmic (Betoptic, Betoptic S)

Clinical Context:  This agent selectively blocks beta1-adrenergic receptors, with little or no effect on beta2 receptors. It lowers IOP by reducing the production of aqueous humor. The drug may have less effect on the pulmonary system. Its IOP-lowering effect is slightly less than that of nonselective beta-blockers. It may increase optic nerve perfusion and confer neuroprotection.

Carteolol 1%

Clinical Context:  Carteolol has an intrinsic sympathomimetic activity (partial agonist activity), with possibly less adverse effect on cardiac and lipid profiles.

Timolol 0.25%, 0.5% (Timoptic XE, Istalol)

Clinical Context:  Timolol may reduce elevated and normal IOP, with or without glaucoma, by reducing the production of aqueous humor. Timolol gel-forming solution (Timoptic XE) usually is administered at night, unless it is used concurrently with latanoprost therapy. Timoptic XE and Istalol (an aqueous solution) are administered daily. Timolol is also available as a combination medication with dorzolamide (Cosopt) and brimonidine (Combigan).

Levobunolol 0.25%, 0.5% (Betagan)

Clinical Context:  Levobunolol is a nonselective beta-adrenergic blocking agent that lowers IOP by reducing aqueous humor production and possibly increasing the outflow of aqueous humor.

Metipranolol 0.3% (OptiPranolol)

Clinical Context:  Metipranolol is a beta-adrenergic blocker that has little or no intrinsic sympathomimetic effect and membrane-stabilizing activity. It also has little local anesthetic activity. The drug reduces IOP by reducing the production of aqueous humor.

Class Summary

These agents decrease aqueous production, possibly by blocking adrenergic beta receptors present in the ciliary body. The nonselective medications in this class can also interact with the beta-receptors in the heart and lungs, causing significant adverse effects.

Dorzolamide (Trusopt)

Clinical Context:  Dorzolamide is a reversible carbonic anhydrase inhibitor that may decrease aqueous humor secretion, causing a decrease in IOP. Presumably, it slows bicarbonate ion formation, producing a subsequent reduction in sodium and fluid transport.

Systemic absorption can affect carbonic anhydrase in the kidney, reducing hydrogen ion secretion at the renal tubule and increasing renal excretion of sodium, potassium bicarbonate, and water.

Brinzolamide (Azopt)

Clinical Context:  Brinzolamide catalyzes a reversible reaction involving hydration of carbon dioxide and dehydration of carbonic acid. It may be used concomitantly with other topical ophthalmic drug products to lower IOP. Brinzolamide is less stinging on instillation secondary to buffered pH.

Acetazolamide (Diamox)

Clinical Context:  Acetazolamide is primarily used for the treatment of refractory POAG and secondary glaucomas. Because of an increased incidence of adverse effects, it is rarely indicated for ocular hypertension.

Methazolamide

Clinical Context:  Methazolamide reduces aqueous humor formation by inhibiting the enzyme carbonic anhydrase, which results in decreased IOP.

Class Summary

By slowing the formation of bicarbonate ions, causing a reduction in sodium and fluid transport, these agents may inhibit carbonic anhydrase in the ciliary processes of the eye. This effect decreases aqueous humor secretion, reducing IOP. Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors typically have a weaker effect than beta-blockers.

Brimonidine (Alphagan-P)

Clinical Context:  Brimonidine is a relatively selective alpha2 adrenergic-receptor agonist that decreases IOP by dual mechanisms, reducing aqueous humor production and increasing uveoscleral outflow. Brimonidine has minimal effect on cardiovascular and pulmonary parameters. A moderate risk of allergic response to this drug exists. Caution should be used in individuals who have developed an allergy to Iopidine. IOP lowering of up to 27% has been reported.

Alphagan-P contains the preservative Purite and has been shown to be much better tolerated than its counterpart, Alphagan.

Apraclonidine 0.5%, 1% (Iopidine)

Clinical Context:  Apraclonidine is a potent alpha-adrenergic agent that is selective for alpha2 receptors, with minimal cross-reactivity with alpha1 receptors. It suppresses aqueous production and reduces elevated, as well as normal, IOP, whether accompanied by glaucoma or not. Apraclonidine does not have significant local anesthetic activity. It has minimal cardiovascular effects.

Class Summary

Within this class, the alpha2 selective agonist brimonidine is the most commonly used for the treatment of ocular hypertension.[68] Apraclonidine is another alpha2-selective agonist, but it is believed to have more of an allergic potential, so it rarely is used as a long-term medication. Less selective adrenergics, such as epinephrine and dipivefrin, can have a significantly higher allergic component and other substantial adverse effects, such as exacerbation of hypertension, angina, palpitations, and cystoid macular edema. Because these less selective agents are used infrequently in treating ocular hypertension, they are not discussed here. Alpha2 adrenergic agonists work by decreasing aqueous production.

Netarsudil ophthalmic (Rhopressa)

Clinical Context:  Indicated for the reduction of elevated IOP in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

Class Summary

These agents increase aqueous humor outflow through the trabecular meshwork route.

Brimonidine/timolol (Combigan)

Clinical Context:  This solution contains a selective alpha2 adrenergic-receptor agonist and a nonselective beta adrenergic-receptor inhibitor. Each drug decreases elevated IOP, whether or not it is associated with glaucoma.

Timolol/dorzolamide (Cosopt, Cosopt PF)

Clinical Context:  Timolol is a nonselective beta-adrenergic receptor blocker that reduces IOP by decreasing aqueous humor secretion. It may also slightly increase outflow facility.

Timolol and dorzolamide administered together twice daily may result in greater IOP reduction than either component would achieve alone. However, the reduction is not as much as it is when the drugs are taken concomitantly, with dorzolamide administered 3 times daily and timolol administered twice daily.

Brinzolamide/brimonidine (Simbrinza)

Clinical Context:  This combination product contains the carbonic anhydrase inhibitor brinzolamide and the alpha2 adrenergic receptor agonist brimonidine. It is indicated for reduction of elevated intraocular pressure in patients with ocular hypertension.

Latanoprost/netarsudil ophthalmic (Rocklatan)

Clinical Context:  Fixed-dose combination of a Rho-kinase inhibitor and a prostaglandin F2-alpha analogue. Each drug increases outflow of aqueous humor and thereby lowers IOP. The ophthalmic combination is indicated for reduction of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

Class Summary

A combination medication may decrease aqueous humor secretion more than each medication would if used independently as monotherapy and improves patient compliance.[73]

Author

Anne Chang-Godinich, MD, FACS, Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine; Physician, 1960 Eye Surgeons, PA; Attending Surgeon, Veterans Affairs Medical Center of Houston

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Hampton Roy, Sr, MD, Associate Clinical Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

Jerald A Bell, MD Staff Physician, Department of Ophthalmology, Billings Clinic

Jerald A Bell, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Ophthalmology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Judie F Charlton, MD Director, Division of Glaucoma, Professor and Chair, Department of Ophthalmology, West Virginia University School of Medicine

Judie F Charlton, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Ophthalmology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Medscape Salary Employment

References

  1. Bathija R, Gupta N, Zangwill L, et al. Changing definition of glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 1998 Jun. 7(3):165-9. [View Abstract]
  2. Eskridge JB. Ocular hypertension or early undetected glaucoma?. J Am Optom Assoc. 1987 Sep. 58(9):747-69. [View Abstract]
  3. Johnson TD, Zimmerman TJ. Ocular hypertension, glaucoma suspect, preglaucoma, or glaucoma? Synopsis of views. Ann Ophthalmol. 1986 Nov. 18(11):313-4. [View Abstract]
  4. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Jun. 120(6):714-20; discussion 829-30. [View Abstract]
  5. Chandler PA, Grant WM. Ocular hypertension' vs open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1977 Apr. 95(4):585-6. [View Abstract]
  6. Ritch R, Shields MB, Krupin T, eds. The Glaucomas. 2nd ed. 1992.
  7. Shields MB. Textbook of Glaucoma. 3rd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1992.
  8. Souzeau E, Burdon KP, Dubowsky A, Grist S, Usher B, Fitzgerald JT, et al. Higher prevalence of myocilin mutations in advanced glaucoma in comparison with less advanced disease in an Australasian disease registry. Ophthalmology. 2013 Jun. 120(6):1135-43. [View Abstract]
  9. Quigley HA, Enger C, Katz J, et al. Risk factors for the development of glaucomatous visual field loss in ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994 May. 112(5):644-9. [View Abstract]
  10. Grus F, Sun D. Immunological mechanisms in glaucoma. Semin Immunopathol. 2008 Apr. 30(2):121-6. [View Abstract]
  11. Grus FH, Joachim SC, Wuenschig D, et al. Autoimmunity and glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2008 Jan-Feb. 17(1):79-84. [View Abstract]
  12. Lee PP, Walt JW, Rosenblatt LC, et al. Association between intraocular pressure variation and glaucoma progression: data from a United States chart review. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Dec. 144(6):901-907. [View Abstract]
  13. Leske MC, Connell AM, Wu SY, et al. Distribution of intraocular pressure. The Barbados Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997 Aug. 115(8):1051-7. [View Abstract]
  14. Chihara E. Assessment of true intraocular pressure: the gap between theory and practical data. Surv Ophthalmol. 2008 May-Jun. 53(3):203-18. [View Abstract]
  15. Sommer A, Tielsch JM, Katz J, et al. Relationship between intraocular pressure and primary open angle glaucoma among white and black Americans. The Baltimore Eye Survey. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991 Aug. 109(8):1090-5. [View Abstract]
  16. Varma R, Wang D, Wu C, et al. Four-year incidence of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension: the los angeles latino eye study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012 Aug. 154(2):315-325.e1. [View Abstract]
  17. Colton T, Ederer F. The distribution of intraocular pressures in the general population. Surv Ophthalmol. 1980 Nov-Dec. 25(3):123-9. [View Abstract]
  18. Higginbotham EJ, Gordon MO, Beiser JA, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: topical medication delays or prevents primary open-angle glaucoma in African American individuals. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004 Jun. 122(6):813-20. [View Abstract]
  19. Hoehn R, Mirshahi A, Hoffmann EM, Kottler UB, Wild PS, Laubert-Reh D, et al. Distribution of intraocular pressure and its association with ocular features and cardiovascular risk factors: the Gutenberg Health Study. Ophthalmology. 2013 May. 120(5):961-8. [View Abstract]
  20. Luntz MH, Schenker HI. Retinal vascular accidents in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Surv Ophthalmol. 1980 Nov-Dec. 25(3):163-7. [View Abstract]
  21. Friedman DS, Wolfs RC, O'Colmain BJ, et al. Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004 Apr. 122(4):532-8. [View Abstract]
  22. Ashaye AO, Adeoye AO. Characteristics of patients who dropout from a glaucoma clinic. J Glaucoma. 2008 Apr-May. 17(3):227-32. [View Abstract]
  23. Rivera JL, Bell NP, Feldman RM. Risk factors for primary open angle glaucoma progression: what we know and what we need to know. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008 Mar. 19(2):102-6. [View Abstract]
  24. Lin SC. Endoscopic and transscleral cyclophotocoagulation for the treatment of refractory glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2008 Apr-May. 17(3):238-47. [View Abstract]
  25. Deokule S, Weinreb RN. Relationships among systemic blood pressure, intraocular pressure, and open-angle glaucoma. Can J Ophthalmol. 2008 Jun. 43(3):302-7. [View Abstract]
  26. Brandt JD, Beiser JA, Gordon MO, et al. Central corneal thickness and measured IOP response to topical ocular hypotensive medication in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Nov. 138(5):717-22. [View Abstract]
  27. Van Buskirk EM, Cioffi GA. Glaucomatous optic neuropathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1992 Apr 15. 113(4):447-52. [View Abstract]
  28. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Preferred Practice Pattern Guidelines: Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Suspect PPP - October 2010. Ophthalmic News and Education Network. Available at http://one.aao.org/CE/PracticeGuidelines/PPP_Content.aspx?cid=e2387c8a-e51c-4c21-be20-c30fbf4f3260. Accessed: August 6, 2012.
  29. Spaeth GL. Early primary open-angle glaucoma: diagnosis and management. Preface. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 1979 Spring. 19(1):vii-ix. [View Abstract]
  30. Tezel G, Kolker AE, Kass MA, et al. Parapapillary chorioretinal atrophy in patients with ocular hypertension. I. An evaluation as a predictive factor for the development of glaucomatous damage. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997 Dec. 115(12):1503-8. [View Abstract]
  31. Annette H, Kristina L, Bernd S, et al. Effect of central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis on tonometry as measured by dynamic contour tonometry, ocular response analyzer, and Goldmann tonometry in glaucomatous eyes. J Glaucoma. 2008 Aug. 17(5):361-5. [View Abstract]
  32. Brusini P, Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, et al. Comparison of ICare tonometer with Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma. 2006 Jun. 15(3):213-7. [View Abstract]
  33. Kaufmann C, Bachmann LM, Thiel MA. Comparison of dynamic contour tonometry with goldmann applanation tonometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Sep. 45(9):3118-21. [View Abstract]
  34. Ku JY, Danesh-Meyer HV, Craig JP, et al. Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by Pascal dynamic contour tonometry and Goldmann applanation tonometry. Eye. 2006 Feb. 20(2):191-8. [View Abstract]
  35. Sahin A, Niyaz L, Yildirim N. Comparison of the rebound tonometer with the Goldmann applanation tonometer in glaucoma patients. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2007 May-Jun. 35(4):335-9. [View Abstract]
  36. Brandt JD. Corneal thickness in glaucoma screening, diagnosis, and management. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004 Apr. 15(2):85-9. [View Abstract]
  37. Brandt JD, Beiser JA, Kass MA, et al. Central corneal thickness in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS). Ophthalmology. 2001 Oct. 108(10):1779-88. [View Abstract]
  38. Shih CY, Graff Zivin JS, Trokel SL, et al. Clinical significance of central corneal thickness in the management of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004 Sep. 122(9):1270-5. [View Abstract]
  39. Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000 Mar-Apr. 44(5):367-408. [View Abstract]
  40. Gordon MO, Kass MA. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: design and baseline description of the participants. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999 May. 117(5):573-83. [View Abstract]
  41. Hodapp EA, Anderson DR. Treatment of early glaucoma. In: Focal Points. 1986. 4(4).
  42. Lin SC, Singh K, Jampel HD, et al. Optic nerve head and retinal nerve fiber layer analysis: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2007 Oct. 114(10):1937-49. [View Abstract]
  43. Racette L, Sample PA. Short-wavelength automated perimetry. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2003 Jun. 16(2):227-36, vi-vii. [View Abstract]
  44. Reus NJ, Colen TP, Lemij HG. The prevalence of glaucomatous defects with short-wavelength automated perimetry in patients with elevated intraocular pressures. J Glaucoma. 2005 Feb. 14(1):26-9. [View Abstract]
  45. Landers JA, Goldberg I, Graham SL. Detection of early visual field loss in glaucoma using frequency-doubling perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003 Dec. 121(12):1705-10. [View Abstract]
  46. Bengtsson B, Heijl A. Normal intersubject threshold variability and normal limits of the SITA SWAP and full threshold SWAP perimetric programs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003 Nov. 44(11):5029-34. [View Abstract]
  47. Liu S, Lam S, Weinreb RN, et al. Comparison of standard automated perimetry, frequency-doubling technology perimetry, and short-wavelength automated perimetry for detection of glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Sep. 52(10):7325-31. [View Abstract]
  48. ElMallah MK, Asrani SG. New ways to measure intraocular pressure. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008 Mar. 19(2):122-6. [View Abstract]
  49. Greenfield DS, Weinreb RN. Role of optic nerve imaging in glaucoma clinical practice and clinical trials. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008 Apr. 145(4):598-603. [View Abstract]
  50. Medeiros FA, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, et al. Comparison of the GDx VCC scanning laser polarimeter, HRT II confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope, and stratus OCT optical coherence tomograph for the detection of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004 Jun. 122(6):827-37. [View Abstract]
  51. Gyatsho J, Kaushik S, Gupta A, Pandav SS, Ram J. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in normal, ocular hypertensive, and glaucomatous Indian eyes: an optical coherence tomography study. J Glaucoma. 2008 Mar. 17(2):122-7. [View Abstract]
  52. Weinreb RN, Zangwill LM, Jain S, et al. Predicting the onset of glaucoma: the confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy ancillary study to theOcular Hypertension Treatment Study. Ophthalmology. 2010 Sep. 117(9):1674-83. [View Abstract]
  53. Azuara-Blanco A, Burr JM. Assessment of glaucoma imaging technology. Ophthalmology. 2008 Jul. 115(7):1266-7; author reply 1267-8. [View Abstract]
  54. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Jun. 120(6):701-13; discussion 829-30. [View Abstract]
  55. Hernandez R, Rabindranath K, Fraser C, et al. Screening for open angle glaucoma: systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies. J Glaucoma. 2008 Apr-May. 17(3):159-68. [View Abstract]
  56. Bramley T, Peeples P, Walt JG, et al. Impact of vision loss on costs and outcomes in medicare beneficiaries with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008 Jun. 126(6):849-56. [View Abstract]
  57. Baudouin C, Renard JP, Nordmann JP, Denis P, Lachkar Y, Sellem E, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for ocular surface disease among patients treated over the long term for glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2012 Jun 11. [View Abstract]
  58. Kymes SM, Kass MA, Anderson DR, Miller JP, Gordon MO. Management of ocular hypertension: a cost-effectiveness approach from the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006 Jun. 141(6):997-1008. [View Abstract]
  59. Lacey J, Cate H, Broadway DC. Barriers to adherence with glaucoma medications: a qualitative research study. Eye. 2008 Apr 25. [View Abstract]
  60. Serle JB, Katz LJ, McLaurin E, Heah T, Ramirez-Davis N, Usner DW, et al. Two Phase 3 clinical trials comparing the safety and efficacy of netarsudil to timolol in patients with elevated intraocular pressure. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017 Nov 30. [View Abstract]
  61. Rocklatan (netarsudil and latanoprost ophthalmic solution) [package insert]. Irvine, CA: Aerie Pharmaceuticals. March, 2019. Available at
  62. Cheung W, Guo L, Cordeiro MF. Neuroprotection in glaucoma: drug-based approaches. Optom Vis Sci. 2008 Jun. 85(6):406-16. [View Abstract]
  63. Lebrun-Julien F, Di Polo A. Molecular and cell-based approaches for neuroprotection in glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci. 2008 Jun. 85(6):417-24. [View Abstract]
  64. Levin LA, Peeples P. History of neuroprotection and rationale as a therapy for glaucoma. Am J Manag Care. 2008 Feb. 14(1 Suppl):S11-4. [View Abstract]
  65. Lipton SA. Possible role for memantine in protecting retinal ganglion cells from glaucomatous damage. Surv Ophthalmol. 2003 Apr. 48 Suppl 1:S38-46. [View Abstract]
  66. Naskar R, Dreyer EB. New horizons in neuroprotection. Surv Ophthalmol. 2001 May. 45 Suppl 3:S250-5; discussion S273-6. [View Abstract]
  67. Beckers HJ, Schouten JS, Webers CA, et al. Side effects of commonly used glaucoma medications: comparison of tolerability, chance of discontinuation, and patient satisfaction. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008 Oct. 246(10):1485-90. [View Abstract]
  68. Schuman JS. Clinical experience with brimonidine 0.2% and timolol 0.5% in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996 Nov. 41:S27-37. [View Abstract]
  69. Serle JB. A comparison of the safety and efficacy of twice daily brimonidine 0.2% versus betaxolol 0.25% in subjects with elevated intraocular pressure. The Brimonidine Study Group III. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996 Nov. 41:S39-47. [View Abstract]
  70. Brubaker RF. Mechanism of action of bimatoprost (Lumigan). Surv Ophthalmol. 2001 May. 45 Suppl 4:S347-51. [View Abstract]
  71. Woodward DF, Krauss AH, Chen J, et al. The pharmacology of bimatoprost (Lumigan). Surv Ophthalmol. 2001 May. 45 Suppl 4:S337-45. [View Abstract]
  72. Yu DY, Su EN, Cringle SJ, et al. Comparison of the vasoactive effects of the docosanoid unoprostone and selected prostanoids on isolated perfused retinal arterioles. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001 Jun. 42(7):1499-504. [View Abstract]
  73. Craven ER, Walters TR, Williams R, et al. Brimonidine and timolol fixed-combination therapy versus monotherapy: a 3-month randomized trial in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Aug. 21(4):337-48. [View Abstract]
  74. Pacella F, Turchetti P, Santamaria V, Impallara D, Smaldone G, Brillante C, et al. Differential activity and clinical utility of latanoprost in glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012. 6:811-5. [View Abstract]
  75. Kahook MY, Noecker RJ. Comparison of corneal and conjunctival changes after dosing of travoprost preserved with sofZia, latanoprost with 0.02% benzalkonium chloride, and preservative-free artificial tears. Cornea. 2008 Apr. 27(3):339-43. [View Abstract]
  76. Aung T, Chew PT, Yip CC, et al. A randomized double-masked crossover study comparing latanoprost 0.005% with unoprostone 0.12% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001 May. 131(5):636-42. [View Abstract]

Diagram of intraocular pressure distribution. Used with permission from Survey of Ophthalmology.

Diagram showing the relative proportion of people in the general population who have elevated pressure (horizontally shaded lines) and/or damage from glaucoma (vertically shaded lines). Notice that most have elevated pressure but no sign of damage (ie, ocular hypertensives), but there are those with normal pressures who still have damage from glaucoma (ie, normal tension glaucoma). (Diagram used by permission of M. Bruce Shields.) OHT = horizontal lines only NTG = vertical lines only POAG and other glaucomas with both elevated intraocular pressure and damage = overlapping horizontal and vertical lines

Ocular hypertension study (OHTS). Percentage of patients who developed glaucoma during this study, stratified by baseline intraocular pressure (IOP) and central corneal thickness (CCT).

Flowchart for evaluation of a patient with suspected glaucoma. Used by permission of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Illustration of progressive optic nerve damage. Notice the deepening (saucerization) along the neural rim, along with notching and increased excavation/sloping of the optic nerve and circumlinear vessel inferiorly. Courtesy of M. Bruce Shields.

Example of optic nerve asymmetry in a patient with glaucomatous damage, left eye, showing optic nerve excavation inferiorly similar to Image 5. Used by permission of M. Bruce Shields.

Glaucomatous optic nerve damage, with sloping and nerve fiber layer rim hemorrhage at the 7-o'clock position. Hemorrhage is indicative of progressive damage, usually due to inadequate pressure control. Further notching and pallor corresponding to the area of hemorrhage usually is seen several weeks after resorption of the blood. Courtesy of M. Bruce Shields.

Advanced glaucomatous damage with increased cupping and substantial pallor of the optic nerve head. Courtesy of M. Bruce Shields.

Correction values according to corneal thickness.

Humphrey visual field, right eye, showing patient with advanced glaucomatous field loss. Notice both the arcuate extension from the blind spot (Bjerrum scotoma), as well as the loss nasally (nasal step), which often occurs early in the disease process. Courtesy of M. Bruce Shields.

Example of progressive visual field loss over time (from top to bottom) in a patient with glaucoma. Notice the early appearance of an inferior nasal step and arcuate loss, with progressive enlargement and increasing density of the scotomata over time. Humphrey visual field courtesy of M. Bruce Shields.

Diagram of intraocular pressure distribution. Used with permission from Survey of Ophthalmology.

Flowchart for evaluation of a patient with suspected glaucoma. Used by permission of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Diagram showing the relative proportion of people in the general population who have elevated pressure (horizontally shaded lines) and/or damage from glaucoma (vertically shaded lines). Notice that most have elevated pressure but no sign of damage (ie, ocular hypertensives), but there are those with normal pressures who still have damage from glaucoma (ie, normal tension glaucoma). (Diagram used by permission of M. Bruce Shields.) OHT = horizontal lines only NTG = vertical lines only POAG and other glaucomas with both elevated intraocular pressure and damage = overlapping horizontal and vertical lines

Humphrey visual field, right eye, showing patient with advanced glaucomatous field loss. Notice both the arcuate extension from the blind spot (Bjerrum scotoma), as well as the loss nasally (nasal step), which often occurs early in the disease process. Courtesy of M. Bruce Shields.

Illustration of progressive optic nerve damage. Notice the deepening (saucerization) along the neural rim, along with notching and increased excavation/sloping of the optic nerve and circumlinear vessel inferiorly. Courtesy of M. Bruce Shields.

Example of progressive visual field loss over time (from top to bottom) in a patient with glaucoma. Notice the early appearance of an inferior nasal step and arcuate loss, with progressive enlargement and increasing density of the scotomata over time. Humphrey visual field courtesy of M. Bruce Shields.

Example of optic nerve asymmetry in a patient with glaucomatous damage, left eye, showing optic nerve excavation inferiorly similar to Image 5. Used by permission of M. Bruce Shields.

Glaucomatous optic nerve damage, with sloping and nerve fiber layer rim hemorrhage at the 7-o'clock position. Hemorrhage is indicative of progressive damage, usually due to inadequate pressure control. Further notching and pallor corresponding to the area of hemorrhage usually is seen several weeks after resorption of the blood. Courtesy of M. Bruce Shields.

Advanced glaucomatous damage with increased cupping and substantial pallor of the optic nerve head. Courtesy of M. Bruce Shields.

Correction values according to corneal thickness.

Ocular hypertension study (OHTS). Percentage of patients who developed glaucoma during this study, stratified by baseline intraocular pressure (IOP) and central corneal thickness (CCT).