Ophthalmologists Blast Federal Review of Glaucoma Screening
James Brice
November 10, 2011 — Ophthalmologists are crying foul after a draft review from the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) questioned the effectiveness of glaucoma screening in the general and asymptomatic at-risk populations.
The American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) and American Glaucoma Society (AGS) issued a joint statement November 3 criticizing the draft analysis for overlooking the value of screening in specific at-risk groups and ignoring published studies and anecdotal experience demonstrating the clinical benefits of screening.
"We know that early detection is beneficial compared to treating the disease once it gets advanced," said Cynthia Maddox, MD, chair of the glaucoma society’s patient care committee, in an interview with Medscape Medical News. "Glaucoma is an asymptomatic disease, which disproportionately affects groups of patients who should have [access to] early detection. To me, this is a formula that calls for screening."
The AHRQ draft review concludes that no published evidence exists to establish a link between screening for glaucoma and its early detection and effective treatments. Analysts found promise in new screening devices, such as frequency-doubling technology and optical coherence tomography, but they failed to find convincing evidence that screening leads to less visual impairment and better clinical outcomes for asymptomatic adults who undergo the procedures.
The AHRQ review focused on screening both general and at-risk populations for open-angle glaucoma, the most common form of the disease. The analysts identified 72 primary studies that consider the efficacy of glaucoma screening. Of that total, all but 12 were set aside because of statistical bias or methodologic problems. No randomized controlled clinical trials or professional consensus statements about the appropriate use of glaucoma screening were available to guide the AHQR panel's findings.
The joint AAO/AGS statement stressed the importance of screening for open-angle glaucoma because patients remain asymptomatic until late in disease progression, when visual loss and functional impairment are irreversible.
Open-angle glaucoma affects more than 2.2 million people in the United States, although only half of the prevalent cases have been identified. Definitive diagnosis is difficult and involves multiple ocular exams, such as ocular tonometry, perimetry, and direct ophthalmoscopy. The limitations of intraocular pressure tests alone for diagnosis have led the AAO and AGS to remain neutral about screening a general population. However, Dr. Maddox and other ophthalmologists are adamant about the need to screen at-risk populations, including African Americans, Latinos, people with a family history of open-angle glaucoma, and individuals who are receiving long-term corticosteroid therapy or have a history of blunt trauma to the eye.
African Americans have a 3-fold higher incidence of open-angle glaucoma and a 6-fold higher incidence of glaucoma-related blindness, relative to non-Hispanic whites in the United States, according to the joint statement. Hispanics have a similar incidence and morbidity as African Americans, it said.
The negative AHRQ draft has also led ophthalmologists to worry that the findings may influence future recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force, the federal agency responsible in 2009 for controversial guidelines recommending against screening mammography for women before age 50. The Task Force last assessed glaucoma screening in March 2005. At that time, it concluded that not enough data were available to recommend for or against screening.
Now, a negative recommendation from the Task Force could create an additional disincentive for at-risk individuals (who have relatively less access to healthcare than the general population) for undergoing glaucoma screening, Dr. Maddox noted.
"Our concern is that having a negative record from AHRQ saying that screening has no value will create a disincentive for patients to be evaluated," she said.
Additionally, a negative review from AHRQ may have implications for Medicare and private insurance payers coverage decision. Such decisions could reduce access to care for at-risk populations, according to the advocacy groups.
The joint statement also faults the draft report for not comparing the costs of screening against the benefits of early detection and treatment. It criticized the review for allegedly overlooking the burden that untreated glaucoma and associated blindness has on individuals.
The AHRQ had no immediate response to the AAO/AGS critique, said Karen J. Migdail, senior policy advisor. It will be evaluated with other material submitted to the agency during the draft's 30-day public comment period, which ended October 12.
AHRQ is a branch of the US Department of Health and Human Services. It gained authority from Congress in 2003 to conduct clinical effectiveness research to advise Medicare and other federal health insurance programs about the performance of medical diagnostics, therapies, and preventive practices. Its mandate was expanded in 2009 to include comparative effectiveness research.
Sources for this article have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Medscape Medical News © 2011 WebMD, LLC
Send comments and news tips to news@medscape.net.