SALUS-a non-inferiority trial to compare self-tonometry in glaucoma patients with regular inpatient intraocular pressure controls: study design and set-up

Kristina Oldiges, Maren Steinmann, Juliane Andrea Duevel, Sebastian Gruhn, Raphael Diener, Martin Dominik Leclaire, Sami Al-Nawaiseh, Nicole Eter, SALUS study group, W Greiner, B Behm, D Kisielinski, K Schwarze, F Meyer, S Warkentin, R Hammerschmidt, M Luzius, T Berlage, M Becker, A Charles, R Heitkaemper, B Weingarten, T Boeker, M Hermel, S Kaskel-Paul, M Kohlhaas, M Alnawaiseh, V C Brücher, P Czapski, L Holtrup, R-L Merté, J J Storp, M Treder, J A Zimmermann, Kristina Oldiges, Maren Steinmann, Juliane Andrea Duevel, Sebastian Gruhn, Raphael Diener, Martin Dominik Leclaire, Sami Al-Nawaiseh, Nicole Eter, SALUS study group, W Greiner, B Behm, D Kisielinski, K Schwarze, F Meyer, S Warkentin, R Hammerschmidt, M Luzius, T Berlage, M Becker, A Charles, R Heitkaemper, B Weingarten, T Boeker, M Hermel, S Kaskel-Paul, M Kohlhaas, M Alnawaiseh, V C Brücher, P Czapski, L Holtrup, R-L Merté, J J Storp, M Treder, J A Zimmermann

Abstract

Purpose: The SALUS study aims to improve the healthcare situation for glaucoma patients in Germany. In order to detect diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP) fluctuations, inpatient monitoring of IOP in an eye hospital for a minimum of 24 h is the current standard. SALUS assesses the benefits of a new form of outpatient care, where IOP can be measured by the patients themselves at home using a self-tonometer. This approach should promote the patient's health competence and empowerment within the healthcare system while reducing treatment costs.

Methods: The SALUS study is a randomized controlled, open non-inferiority trial, alongside an economic analysis, determining whether outpatient monitoring of IOP with self-tonometry is at least as effective as current standard care and would reduce treatment costs. Participants (n = 1980) will be recruited by local ophthalmologists in the area of Westphalia-Lippe, Germany, and randomized to receive 7-day outpatient or 24-h inpatient monitoring. Participants in both study arms will also receive 24-h blood pressure monitoring. Furthermore, patient data from both study groups will be collected in an electronic case file (ECF), accessible to practitioners, hospitals, and the study participants. The primary endpoint is the percentage of patients with IOP peaks, defined as levels 30% above the patient-specific target pressure. Data will also be collected during initial and final examinations, and at 3, 6, and 9 months after the initial examination.

Results: The study implementation and trial management are represented below.

Conclusion: SALUS is a pioneering prospective clinical trial focused on the care of glaucoma patients in Germany. If SALUS is successful, it could improve the healthcare situation and health literacy of the patients through the introduction of various telemedical components. Furthermore, the approach would almost certainly reduce the treatment costs of glaucoma care.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04698876, registration date: 11/25/2020.

Drks-id: DRKS00023676, registration date: 11/26/2020.

Keywords: Data transfer; Glaucoma; Intraocular pressure; Non-inferiority trial; Reading center; Self-tonometry.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow chart
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
CONSORT statement

References

    1. Quigley HA, Broman AT. The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(3):262–267. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2005.081224.
    1. Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, Parrish RK, 2nd, Wilson MR, Gordon MO (2002) The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill: 1960) 120 (6):701–713; discussion 829–730. 10.1001/archopht.120.6.701
    1. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group (1998) The effectiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the treatment of normal-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol 126 (4):498–505. 10.1016/s0002-9394(98)00272-4
    1. Koeller AU, Boehm AG, Paul D, Pillunat LE. Frequency of intraocular pressure spikes in primary open–angle glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45(13):953–953.
    1. Weinreb RN, Khaw PT. Primary open-angle glaucoma. Lancet (London, England) 2004;363(9422):1711–1720. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16257-0.
    1. Tan S, Baig N, Hansapinyo L, Jhanji V, Wei S, Tham CC. Comparison of self-measured diurnal intraocular pressure profiles using rebound tonometry between primary angle closure glaucoma and primary open angle glaucoma patients. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(3):e0173905. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173905.
    1. Ho CH, Wong JKW. Role of 24-hour intraocular pressure monitoring in glaucoma management. J Ophthalmol. 2019;2019:3632197. doi: 10.1155/2019/3632197.
    1. Hughes E, Spry P, Diamond J. 24-hour monitoring of intraocular pressure in glaucoma management: a retrospective review. J Glaucoma. 2003;12(3):232–236. doi: 10.1097/00061198-200306000-00009.
    1. Termühlen J, Mihailovic N, Alnawaiseh M, Dietlein TS, Rosentreter A. Accuracy of measurements with the iCare HOME rebound tonometer. J Glaucoma. 2016;25(6):533–538. doi: 10.1097/ijg.0000000000000390.
    1. Mihailovic N, Termühlen J, Alnawaiseh M, Eter N, Dietlein TS, Rosentreter A. Handhabung von Reboundselbsttonometern der ersten und zweiten Generation. Ophthalmologe. 2016;113(4):314–320. doi: 10.1007/s00347-015-0153-0.
    1. Lämmer R, Groh MEM, Michelson G. Telematisch assistierte Selbsttonometrie (TAS) Ophthalmologe. 2004;101(8):813–818. doi: 10.1007/s00347-003-0986-9.
    1. Jürgens C, Antal S, Heydenreich F, Sell C, Tost F. Elektronische Patientenakte zum telemedizinischen Monitoring von Augeninnendruck, Blutdruck und Blutzucker (Digital patient record for remote monitoring of intraocular pressure, blood pressure and serum glucose) Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 2006;223(09):757–764. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-926810.
    1. Dietlein TS, Jordan JF, Krieglstein GK. Wie gut kennen wir unsere Glaukompatienten? Z prakt Augenheilkd. 2005;26:351–353.
    1. Dietlein TS, Jordan JF, Dinslage S, Jacobi PC, Krieglstein GK. Profil einer universitären Glaukomsprechstunde. Objektive Behandlungsumstände und subjektive Einstellungen der Patienten. Ophthalmologe. 2005;102:502–506. doi: 10.1007/s00347-004-1134-x.
    1. Matlach J, Bender S, König J, Binder H, Pfeiffer N, Hoffmann EM. Investigation of intraocular pressure fluctuation as a risk factor of glaucoma progression. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019;13:9–16. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S186526.
    1. Nouri-Mahdavi K, Hoffman D, Coleman AL, Liu G, Li G, Gaasterland D, Caprioli J, Study AGI (2004) Predictive factors for glaucomatous visual field progression in the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study. Ophthalmology 111(9):1627–1635.10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.02.017
    1. Caprioli J, Coleman AL. Intraocular pressure fluctuation a risk factor for visual field progression at low intraocular pressures in the advanced glaucoma intervention study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(7):1123–1129.e1123. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.10.031.
    1. Hong S, Seong GJ, Hong YJ. Long-term intraocular pressure fluctuation and progressive visual field deterioration in patients with glaucoma and low intraocular pressures after a triple procedure. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(8):1010–1013. doi: 10.1001/archopht.125.8.1010.
    1. NICE (2016) Icare rebound tonometer to measure intraocular pressure. Medtech innovation briefing. .
    1. Kastner A, King AJ. Advanced glaucoma at diagnosis: current perspectives. Eye (Lond) 2020;34(1):116–128. doi: 10.1038/s41433-019-0637-2.
    1. Hyman LG, Komaroff E, Heijl A, Bengtsson B, Leske MC, Group EMGT (2005) Treatment and vision-related quality of life in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology 112(9):1505–1513.10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.03.028
    1. Spaeth GL, Reddy SC. Imaging of the optic disk in caring for patients with glaucoma: ophthalmoscopy and photography remain the gold standard. Surv Ophthalmol. 2014;59(4):454–458. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2013.10.004.
    1. Caprioli J, Coleman AL, Discussion BFiG Blood pressure, perfusion pressure, and glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149(5):704–712. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2010.01.018.
    1. Ludwig K, Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Greiner W. German Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):663–674. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0615-8.
    1. Group E EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.
    1. Jung KI, Park CK. Mental health status and quality of life in undiagnosed glaucoma patients: a nationwide population-based study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95(19):e3523. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003523.
    1. Tosh J, Brazier J, Evans P, Longworth L. A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health. 2012;15(1):118–127. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.002.
    1. Macedo AF, Ramos PL, Hernandez-Moreno L, Cima J, Baptista AMG, Marques AP, Massof R, Santana R. Visual and health outcomes, measured with the activity inventory and the EQ-5D, in visual impairment. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017;95(8):e783–e791. doi: 10.1111/aos.13430.
    1. Kobelt G, Jonsson B, Bergström A, Chen E, Lindén C, Alm A. Cost-effectiveness analysis in glaucoma: what drives utility? Results from a pilot study in Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84(3):363–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2005.00621.x.
    1. Traverso CE, Walt JG, Kelly SP, Hommer AH, Bron AM, Denis P, Nordmann JP, Renard JP, Bayer A, Grehn F, Pfeiffer N, Cedrone C, Gandolfi S, Orzalesi N, Nucci C, Rossetti L, Azuara-Blanco A, Bagnis A, Hitchings R, Salmon JF, Bricola G, Buchholz PM, Kotak SV, Katz LM, Siegartel LR, Doyle JJ. Direct costs of glaucoma and severity of the disease: a multinational long term study of resource utilisation in Europe. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(10):1245–1249. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2005.067355.
    1. Sharafeldin N, Kawaguchi A, Sundaram A, Campbell S, Rudnisky C, Weis E, Tennant MTS, Damji KF. Review of economic evaluations of teleophthalmology as a screening strategy for chronic eye disease in adults. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;102(11):1485–1491. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311452.
    1. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425–478. doi: 10.2307/30036540.
    1. Jürgens C, Antal S, Henrici K, Grossjohann R, Tost FH. Fluctuation of intraocular pressure in 24-hour telemonitoring compared to tonometry during normal office hours. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2009;226(1):54–59. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1027730.
    1. D’Agostino RB, Massaro JM, Sullivan LM. Non-inferiority trials: design concepts and issues - the encounters of academic consultants in statistics. Stat Med. 2003;22(2):169–186. doi: 10.1002/sim.1425.
    1. Hahn S. Understanding noninferiority trials. Korean. J Pediatr. 2012;55(11):403–407. doi: 10.3345/kjp.2012.55.11.403.
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG, Group CSoRT CONSORT 2010 Explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):e1–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004.
    1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357(9263):1191–1194. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04337-3.
    1. White IR, Carpenter J, Horton NJ. Including all individuals is not enough: lessons for intention-to-treat analysis. Clin Trials. 2012;9(4):396–407. doi: 10.1177/1740774512450098.
    1. McCoy CE. Understanding the intention-to-treat principle in randomized controlled trials. West J Emerg Med. 2017;18(6):1075–1078. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2017.8.35985.
    1. Heritier SR, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Inclusion of patients in clinical trial analysis: the intention-to-treat principle. Med J Aust. 2003;179(8):438–440. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05627.x.
    1. Care GIfQaEiH (2017) General methods. 5.0 edn., Cologne
    1. Swart E, Gothe H, Geyer S, Jaunzeme J, Maier B, Grobe TG, Ihle P, Prevention GSfSMa, Epidemiology GSf Good Practice of Secondary Data Analysis (GPS): guidelines and recommendations. Gesundheitswesen. 2015;77(2):120–126. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1396815.
    1. Neugebauer EA, Icks A, Schrappe M. Memorandum III: Methods for Health Services Research (Part 2) Gesundheitswesen. 2010;72(10):739–748. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1262858.
    1. DeGEval – Gesellschaft für Evaluation e.V. (2008) Standards für Evaluation. 4 edn., Mainz

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi