The utility of the monocular trial: Data from the ocular hypertension treatment study

Anjali M. Bhorade, Bradley S. Wilson, Mae O. Gordon, Paul Palmberg, Robert N. Weinreb, Eydie Miller, Robert T. Chang, Michael A. Kass

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether adjusting the intraocular pressure (IOP) change of the trial eye for the IOP change of the fellow eye (i.e., monocular trial) is a better assessment of medication response than testing each eye independently. Design: Analysis of data from a prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Participants: Two hundred six participants with ocular hypertension randomized to the observation group and later started on a topical prostaglandin analog (PGA). Methods: Participants were started on a topical PGA in 1 eye and returned in approximately 1 month to determine medication response. The IOP response of the trial eye was determined by the IOP change between baseline and 1 month in the trial eye alone (unadjusted method) and by adjusting for the IOP change in the fellow eye between the same visits (adjusted method). Our "gold standard" for medication response was the IOP change in the trial eye between up to 3 pre- and 3 posttreatment visits on the same medication. Pearson correlation was used to compare the gold standard with the unadjusted and adjusted methods. In addition, symmetry of IOP response between trial and fellow eyes to the same medication was determined by correlating the trial eye IOP change between up to 3 pre- and 3 posttreatment visits to the fellow eye IOP change between the same visits. Main Outcome Measures: Correlations of IOP change of the trial eye using the gold standard to the IOP change of the trial eye using the unadjusted and adjusted methods. Results: The correlations of IOP change using the gold standard to the IOP change using the unadjusted and adjusted methods were r = 0.40 and r = 0.41, respectively. The correlation of IOP change of both eyes between the same pre- and posttreatment visits was r = 0.81. Conclusions: The monocular trial (i.e., adjusted method) appears equivalent to testing each eye independently (i.e., unadjusted method); however, neither method is adequate to determine medication response to topical PGAs. Both eyes have a similar IOP response to the same PGA. Further studies to understand IOP fluctuation are necessary to improve current methods of assessing medication response. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2047-2054
Number of pages8
JournalOphthalmology
Volume117
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2010

Fingerprint

Ocular Hypertension
Intraocular Pressure
Synthetic Prostaglandins
Disclosure
Prostaglandins A

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Bhorade, A. M., Wilson, B. S., Gordon, M. O., Palmberg, P., Weinreb, R. N., Miller, E., ... Kass, M. A. (2010). The utility of the monocular trial: Data from the ocular hypertension treatment study. Ophthalmology, 117(11), 2047-2054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.02.020

The utility of the monocular trial : Data from the ocular hypertension treatment study. / Bhorade, Anjali M.; Wilson, Bradley S.; Gordon, Mae O.; Palmberg, Paul; Weinreb, Robert N.; Miller, Eydie; Chang, Robert T.; Kass, Michael A.

In: Ophthalmology, Vol. 117, No. 11, 01.11.2010, p. 2047-2054.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bhorade, AM, Wilson, BS, Gordon, MO, Palmberg, P, Weinreb, RN, Miller, E, Chang, RT & Kass, MA 2010, 'The utility of the monocular trial: Data from the ocular hypertension treatment study', Ophthalmology, vol. 117, no. 11, pp. 2047-2054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.02.020
Bhorade, Anjali M. ; Wilson, Bradley S. ; Gordon, Mae O. ; Palmberg, Paul ; Weinreb, Robert N. ; Miller, Eydie ; Chang, Robert T. ; Kass, Michael A. / The utility of the monocular trial : Data from the ocular hypertension treatment study. In: Ophthalmology. 2010 ; Vol. 117, No. 11. pp. 2047-2054.
@article{c84bc590c5fe45888451762d4e6407ad,
title = "The utility of the monocular trial: Data from the ocular hypertension treatment study",
abstract = "Objective: To determine whether adjusting the intraocular pressure (IOP) change of the trial eye for the IOP change of the fellow eye (i.e., monocular trial) is a better assessment of medication response than testing each eye independently. Design: Analysis of data from a prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Participants: Two hundred six participants with ocular hypertension randomized to the observation group and later started on a topical prostaglandin analog (PGA). Methods: Participants were started on a topical PGA in 1 eye and returned in approximately 1 month to determine medication response. The IOP response of the trial eye was determined by the IOP change between baseline and 1 month in the trial eye alone (unadjusted method) and by adjusting for the IOP change in the fellow eye between the same visits (adjusted method). Our {"}gold standard{"} for medication response was the IOP change in the trial eye between up to 3 pre- and 3 posttreatment visits on the same medication. Pearson correlation was used to compare the gold standard with the unadjusted and adjusted methods. In addition, symmetry of IOP response between trial and fellow eyes to the same medication was determined by correlating the trial eye IOP change between up to 3 pre- and 3 posttreatment visits to the fellow eye IOP change between the same visits. Main Outcome Measures: Correlations of IOP change of the trial eye using the gold standard to the IOP change of the trial eye using the unadjusted and adjusted methods. Results: The correlations of IOP change using the gold standard to the IOP change using the unadjusted and adjusted methods were r = 0.40 and r = 0.41, respectively. The correlation of IOP change of both eyes between the same pre- and posttreatment visits was r = 0.81. Conclusions: The monocular trial (i.e., adjusted method) appears equivalent to testing each eye independently (i.e., unadjusted method); however, neither method is adequate to determine medication response to topical PGAs. Both eyes have a similar IOP response to the same PGA. Further studies to understand IOP fluctuation are necessary to improve current methods of assessing medication response. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.",
author = "Bhorade, {Anjali M.} and Wilson, {Bradley S.} and Gordon, {Mae O.} and Paul Palmberg and Weinreb, {Robert N.} and Eydie Miller and Chang, {Robert T.} and Kass, {Michael A.}",
year = "2010",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.02.020",
language = "English",
volume = "117",
pages = "2047--2054",
journal = "Ophthalmology",
issn = "0161-6420",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The utility of the monocular trial

T2 - Data from the ocular hypertension treatment study

AU - Bhorade, Anjali M.

AU - Wilson, Bradley S.

AU - Gordon, Mae O.

AU - Palmberg, Paul

AU - Weinreb, Robert N.

AU - Miller, Eydie

AU - Chang, Robert T.

AU - Kass, Michael A.

PY - 2010/11/1

Y1 - 2010/11/1

N2 - Objective: To determine whether adjusting the intraocular pressure (IOP) change of the trial eye for the IOP change of the fellow eye (i.e., monocular trial) is a better assessment of medication response than testing each eye independently. Design: Analysis of data from a prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Participants: Two hundred six participants with ocular hypertension randomized to the observation group and later started on a topical prostaglandin analog (PGA). Methods: Participants were started on a topical PGA in 1 eye and returned in approximately 1 month to determine medication response. The IOP response of the trial eye was determined by the IOP change between baseline and 1 month in the trial eye alone (unadjusted method) and by adjusting for the IOP change in the fellow eye between the same visits (adjusted method). Our "gold standard" for medication response was the IOP change in the trial eye between up to 3 pre- and 3 posttreatment visits on the same medication. Pearson correlation was used to compare the gold standard with the unadjusted and adjusted methods. In addition, symmetry of IOP response between trial and fellow eyes to the same medication was determined by correlating the trial eye IOP change between up to 3 pre- and 3 posttreatment visits to the fellow eye IOP change between the same visits. Main Outcome Measures: Correlations of IOP change of the trial eye using the gold standard to the IOP change of the trial eye using the unadjusted and adjusted methods. Results: The correlations of IOP change using the gold standard to the IOP change using the unadjusted and adjusted methods were r = 0.40 and r = 0.41, respectively. The correlation of IOP change of both eyes between the same pre- and posttreatment visits was r = 0.81. Conclusions: The monocular trial (i.e., adjusted method) appears equivalent to testing each eye independently (i.e., unadjusted method); however, neither method is adequate to determine medication response to topical PGAs. Both eyes have a similar IOP response to the same PGA. Further studies to understand IOP fluctuation are necessary to improve current methods of assessing medication response. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

AB - Objective: To determine whether adjusting the intraocular pressure (IOP) change of the trial eye for the IOP change of the fellow eye (i.e., monocular trial) is a better assessment of medication response than testing each eye independently. Design: Analysis of data from a prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Participants: Two hundred six participants with ocular hypertension randomized to the observation group and later started on a topical prostaglandin analog (PGA). Methods: Participants were started on a topical PGA in 1 eye and returned in approximately 1 month to determine medication response. The IOP response of the trial eye was determined by the IOP change between baseline and 1 month in the trial eye alone (unadjusted method) and by adjusting for the IOP change in the fellow eye between the same visits (adjusted method). Our "gold standard" for medication response was the IOP change in the trial eye between up to 3 pre- and 3 posttreatment visits on the same medication. Pearson correlation was used to compare the gold standard with the unadjusted and adjusted methods. In addition, symmetry of IOP response between trial and fellow eyes to the same medication was determined by correlating the trial eye IOP change between up to 3 pre- and 3 posttreatment visits to the fellow eye IOP change between the same visits. Main Outcome Measures: Correlations of IOP change of the trial eye using the gold standard to the IOP change of the trial eye using the unadjusted and adjusted methods. Results: The correlations of IOP change using the gold standard to the IOP change using the unadjusted and adjusted methods were r = 0.40 and r = 0.41, respectively. The correlation of IOP change of both eyes between the same pre- and posttreatment visits was r = 0.81. Conclusions: The monocular trial (i.e., adjusted method) appears equivalent to testing each eye independently (i.e., unadjusted method); however, neither method is adequate to determine medication response to topical PGAs. Both eyes have a similar IOP response to the same PGA. Further studies to understand IOP fluctuation are necessary to improve current methods of assessing medication response. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77958602046&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77958602046&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.02.020

DO - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.02.020

M3 - Article

C2 - 20619460

AN - SCOPUS:77958602046

VL - 117

SP - 2047

EP - 2054

JO - Ophthalmology

JF - Ophthalmology

SN - 0161-6420

IS - 11

ER -