Trends in use of ancillary glaucoma tests for patients with open-angle glaucoma from 2001 to 2009

Abstract

Purpose: To assess trends in the use of ancillary diagnostic tests in the evaluation of patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and glaucoma suspects over the past decade.

Design: Retrospective, longitudinal cohort analysis.

Participants: A total of 169 917 individuals with OAG and 395 721 individuals with suspected glaucoma aged ≥40 years enrolled in a national United States managed care network between 2001 and 2009.

Methods: Claims data were analyzed to assess trends in visual field (VF) testing, fundus photography (FP), and other ocular imaging (OOI) testing for patients with OAG or suspected glaucoma between 2001 and 2009. Repeated-measures logistic regression was performed to identify differences in the odds of undergoing these procedures in 2001, 2005, and 2009 and whether differences exist for patients under the exclusive care of optometrists versus ophthalmologists.

Main outcome measures: Odds and annual probabilities of undergoing VF testing, FP, and OOI for OAG from 2001 to 2009.

Results: For patients with OAG, the odds of undergoing VF testing decreased by 36% from 2001 to 2005, by 12% from 2005 to 2009, and by 44% from 2001 to 2009. By comparison, the odds of having OOI increased by 100% from 2001 to 2005, by 24% from 2005 to 2009, and by 147% from 2001 to 2009. Probabilities of undergoing FP were relatively low (13%-25%) for both provider types and remained fairly steady over the decade. For patients cared for exclusively by optometrists, the probability of VF testing decreased from 66% in 2001 to 44% in 2009. Among those seen exclusively by ophthalmologists, the probability of VF testing decreased from 65% in 2001 to 51% in 2009. The probability of undergoing OOI increased from 26% in 2001 to 47% in 2009 for patients of optometrists and from 30% in 2001 to 46% in 2009 for patients of ophthalmologists. By 2008, patients with OAG receiving care exclusively by optometrists had a higher probability of undergoing OOI than VF testing.

Conclusions: From 2001 to 2009, OOI increased dramatically whereas VF testing declined considerably. Because OOI has not been shown to be as effective at detecting OAG or disease progression compared with VF testing, increased reliance on OOI technology, in lieu of VF testing, may be detrimental to patient care.