Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jun 23;18(6):e0287661. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287661

Effect of myopia on the progression of normal tension glaucoma

Chun-Mei Hsueh 1,2,*, Jong-Shiuan Yeh 3,4,5, Jau-Der Ho 1,2
Editor: Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi6
PMCID: PMC10289344  PMID: 37352291

Abstract

Purpose

Identify risk factors of progression in treated normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) in highly myopic and non-highly myopic eyes.

Methods

This retrospective, observational case series study included 42 highly myopic glaucoma (HMG, <-6D) eyes and 39 non-highly myopic glaucoma (NHG,≧-6D) eyes. Glaucoma progression was determined by serial visual field data. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression method were used to detect associations between potential risk factors and glaucoma progression.

Results

Among 81 eyes from 81 normal-tension glaucoma patients (mean follow-up, 3.10 years), 20 of 42 eye (45.24%) in the HMG and 14 of 39 eyes (35.90%) in the NHG showed progression. The HMG group had larger optic disc tilt ratio (p = 0.007) and thinner inferior macular thickness (P = 0.03) than the NHG group. Changes in the linear regression values for MD for each group were as follows: -0.652 dB/year for the HMG and -0.717 dB/year for the NHG (P = 0.298). Basal pattern standard deviation (PSD) (OR: 1.55, p = 0.016) and post treatment IOP (OR = 1.54, p = 0.043) were risk factors for visual field progression in normal tension glaucoma patients. In subgroup analysis of HMG patients, PSD (OR: 2.77, p = 0.017) was a risk factor for visual field progression.

Conclusion

Reduction IOP was postulated to be contributing in the prevention of visual field progression, especially in highly myopic NTG patients with large basal pattern standard deviation.

Introduction

There is a high prevalence of myopia, 22.9% of the world population had myopia and 163 million people with high myopia (2.7% of the world population). In east Asia, approximately one fifth of the myopic population has high myopia (≦-6 diopters), which is a common cause of visual impairment worldwide [1]. In a recent meta-analysis study which comprised 24 studies, the pooled odds ratio association with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) was 1.88 for any myopia degree and 4.1 for high myopia, with a cutoff value of -6D. For each unit (1-D) increase in myopia, the risk of glaucoma increases by approximately 20% [2]. More severe myopia was associated with greater odds of glaucoma [3–6], but the levels of myopia associated with glaucoma progression is still a subject of debate [7–11].

The POAG prevalence in Asian populations is between 1.0% and 3.9% and normal tension glaucoma (NTG) comprises the majority (46.9–92%) of open-angle glaucoma in Asian epidemiologic studies, whereas the calculated mean proportion of NTG was 33.7% in white population [12]. Intraocular ocular pressure(IOP)-independent risk factors, such as ocular structural (myopia [5]) and systemic vascular factors (migraine, hypertension, hypotension, diabetes mellitus [13]) have presented associations with NTG. IOP is an important risk factor for NTG progression [14], but glaucoma progression still develop in 37–59% of treated NTG patients during follow up [15–18]. Myopic NTG have characteristic structural change, like tilt and torsion, and atypical retinal nerve fiber layer defect, especially in highly myopic eyes with early glaucoma [19]. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors of progression in treated NTG between highly myopic and non-highly myopic eyes.

Materials and methods

In this retrospective, observational case series study, 42 highly myopic normal tension glaucoma (HMG, <-6D) eyes and 39 non-highly myopic normal tension glaucoma (NHG, ≧-6D) eyes treated from Jan. 2013 to Jun. 2021 were studied. Refractive status was measured via a manifest refraction test using a spherical equivalent. Non-high myopia group include emmetropia and hypermetropia if it’s open angle and normal tension glaucoma. All participants received a complete ophthalmic examination which included best-corrected visual acuity, non-contact tonometry (TONOREF III, NIDEK, Japan) and iCare tonometer (TA01i), gonioscopy, central corneal thickness with specular microscope (EM 3000, Tomey, USA), slit-lamp biomicroscopy, stereoscopic disc photography (Canon. CR-2 AF, Japan); and a VF test (Kowa AP-5000c, Japan). Peripapillary RNFL thickness was measured using Spectralis SD-OCT (Heidelberg Engineering, Germany). SD-OCT scans acquire a total of 1536 A-scan points from a 3.45-mm circle centered on the optic disc. Images with non-centered scans or signal strength 15 or less were excluded. For assessment of total macular layer (TML) thickness asymmetry, the posterior pole asymmetry analysis (PPAA) scan was performed. The superior and inferior hemisphere thickness were automatically generated and the macular asymmetry which was assessed by TML thickness differences between the superior and inferior hemispheres were calculated from the PPAA report.

Patient inclusion criteria were all participants at least 18 years old, best-corrected visual acuity of 20/40 or better, eyes had open angles on gonioscopic examinations and normal tension glaucoma was confirmed by optic nerve damage and VF defect. We excluded patients with history of secondary glaucoma (eg, steroid use, trauma, intraocular tumor) or other diseases known to affect the VF (eg, pituitary lesions, Alzheimer disease, stroke, and diabetic retinopathy), inability to perform perimetry reliably, or life-threatening disease. If both eyes of the same patient were found to be eligible, one eye was randomly selected for analysis. Patients were followed up every three months for at least two years. VF and OCT examinations were performed twice at 3-month intervals for baseline data and then 6-month intervals follow-up. Only reliable VF test results (false-positive errors <15%, false-negative errors<15%, and fixation loss <20%) were included in the analysis. VF progression was defined as a significant (P<0.01) sensitivity loss >1dB/year detected in≧2 adjacent test locations in the same fields [20].

All patients received only medical treatment. When NTG was diagnosed, the patients received Prostaglandin analogue. During the follow-up, if glaucoma progressed or patient can’t tolerate the side effects of Prostaglandin analogue, brimonidine 2mg/ml (Allergan, Inc, Irvine, California, USA) or Brinzolamide 1% (Alcon, Swiss) usually was added or replaced. The study design followed the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Taipei Medical University (TMU-N202203184), which also acts on behalf of its affiliated hospital, Taipei Medical University Hospital.

Tilt ratio was measured as the longest-to-shortest diameter ratio of the optic disc. The angle (in degrees) between the vertical meridian and the disc’s long axis was defined as the torsional angle. Blood pressure was measured with a digital automatic blood pressure monitor. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was calculated as 1/3 mean SBP + 2/3 mean DBP. Mean ocular perfusion pressure (MOPP) was calculated as 2/3 MAP-mean IOP. Systolic perfusion pressure (SOPP) was calculated as the mean SBP-mean IOP, and diastolic perfusion pressure (DOPP) was calculated as the mean DBP-mean IOP.

Statistical analysis

To calculate the sample size, a pilot study was conducted, which considered VF and RNFL thickness data from both the high myopia and no-high myopia groups, using the baseline and the end of the study as time points for the calculation. Successively, the differences between the time points for the variable (VF and RNFL thickness) in the no-high myopia and high myopia groups were calculated. Through this procedure, two sample t test for independent groups was estimated using the pooled standard deviation for VF and RNFL thickness (±3.58 and ±11.1, respectively). After establishing the pooled standard deviation, clinically meaningful differences of d = -2.9 and 4.2um was hypothesized for VF and RNFL thickness, respectively. Finally, use SPSS sample power3 to calculate the sample sizes, with α = 0.05 and power = 80% were applied, and a final sample size of n = 80 (no-high myopia = 40 and high myopia = 40) were estimated.

Independent t test was used to compare continuous variables between HMG and NHG. The chi-square test was used to compare categorical data. Changes of MD per year for each group were performed with linear regression analysis. Using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, the study assessed risk factors of NTG progression and subgroup analysis for HMG and NHG were performed. Covariates such as age, gender, DM, HTN, baseline IOP, post-treatment IOP, baseline MD, baseline PSD were controlled in the multivariate analysis. Risk factors associated with VF progression in patients with NTG without diabetes mellitus or hypertension were also analyzed with multivariate logistic regression.

The study used the SPSS (version 26.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA) to perform these analyses. Differences between the two groups were considered significant for p values of <0.05.

Results

Among 81 eyes from 81 normal-tension glaucoma patients (mean follow-up, 3.1 years), 19 of 42 eye (45.24%) in the HMG and 14 of 39 eyes (35.90%) in the NHG showed progression (P = 0.39). The HMG group was younger (47.4 ± 8.19 years) than the NHG group (56.54 ± 10.8 years, P = 0.07). Tilt ratio was larger in the HMG group than in the NMG group (P = 0.007). Total macular thickness (P = 0.05) and inferior macular thickness (P = 0.03) were significantly thinner in the HMG group. The patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. Changes in the linear regression values for MD for each group were as follows: -0.652 dB/year for the HMG and -0.717 dB/year for the NHG (P = 0.298). Pattern standard deviation (PSD) (OR: 1.55, p = 0.016) and post treatment IOP (OR = 1.54, p = 0.043) were risk factors for visual field progression in normal tension glaucoma patients (Table 2). In our subgroup analysis for HMG patients, progression group was male dominant (P<0.001) (Table 3) and PSD (OR: 2.77, p = 0.017) was a risk factor for visual field progression. But no such significant association in non-high myopic NTG patients. The highly-myopic NTG patients evidenced VF progression of 1.37-fold that per 1-D increased myopia (p = 0.388) (Table 4). Subgroup analysis was also performed for patients with NTG without DM or HTN, and PSD was a risk factor for VF progression (OR = 2.03, P = 0.017) (Table 5).

Table 1. Characteristic of participants.

HMG (n = 42) NHG (n = 39) P- value
Spherical equivalent(D) -8.37 ± 1.51 -3.30 ± 1.99 <0.001
Age 47.40 ± 8.19 56.54 ± 10.80 0.07
Gender (male: female) 20:22 22:17 0.43
Family history (n, %) 9 (21.43) 2 (5.13) 0.03
Diabetes mellitus (n, %) 7(16.67) 6(15.38) 0.88
Migraine (n, %) 6 (14.29) 10 (25.64) 0.20
Hyperlipidemia (n, %) 12(28.57) 9(23.08) 0.57
Hypertension (n, %) 10 (23.81) 9(23.08) 0.94
Arrythmia (n, %) 2(4.76) 6(15.38) 0.11
Baseline IOP (mmHg) 17.49 ± 2.05 17.65 ± 2.30 0.75
Post-treatment IOP (mmHg) 14.03 ± 2.01 13.28 ± 2.18 0.12
Systolic BP 120.79±15.70 123.22±16.89 0.51
Diastolic BP 75.79±10.09 77.11±13.75 0.63
MOPP 44.85±8.30 43.92±9.49 0.65
CCT (um) 546.90 ± 30.49 540.88 ± 40.21 0.47
Torsion degree -6.90 ± 3.70 -6.04 ± 5.14 0.39
Tilt ratio 1.48 ± 0.57 1.21 ± 0.18 0.007
Baseline VF MD (dB) -5.29 ± 3.65 -5.33 ± 2.60 0.95
Baseline PSD (dB) 4.81 ± 3.20 4.52 ± 2.43 0.67
Baseline RNFL (um) 75.05 ± 9.74 76.13 ± 12.27 0.67
Final MD (dB) -6.90 ± 3.79 -6.85 ± 3.49 0.96
Final PSD (dB) 4.59 ± 2.90 4.31 ± 2.38 0.70
Final RNFLT (um) 69.47 ± 10.47 73.31 ± 12.47 0.14
TMT (um) 268.50±13.24 274.53±10.88 0.05
Asymmetry (um) 19.77±8.97 17.97±8.83 0.44
Superior TMT (um) 278.30±12.37 283.16±13.64 0.15
Inferior TMT (um) 258.53±15.35 265.77±10.05 0.03
Drug number (PG %) 1.49±0.82 (66.7) 1.46±0.74 (76.9) 0.87
Progression/Non progression 19(45.24%)/23 14 (35.90%) /25 0.39
Following Time (year) 3.12 ± 1.08 2.94 ± 0.94 0.42
Open in a new tab

HMG indicates highly myopic glaucoma; NHG, non-highly myopic glaucoma; CCT, central corneal thickness; IOP, intraocular pressure; BP, blood pressure; MOPP, mean ocular perfusion pressure; VF MD, visual field mean deviation; PSD, pattern standard deviation; RNFLT, retinal nerve fiber layer thickness; TMT, total macular layer thickness; Asymmetry, superior and inferior total macular layer thickness difference; PG, prostaglandin analogue

Table 2. Prediction of progression in Myopic Normal-Tension Glaucoma.

Total (n = 81) Univariate Analysis Multivariate Analysis
Factors Odds Ratio (95% CI) P-valuea Odds Ratio (95% CI) P- valuea
Age, years 1.01 (0.97–1.05) 0.721
Myopia (1-D increase) 1.00 (0.87–1.16) 0.977
Gender 0.29 (0.11–0.77) 0.009
Diabetes mellitus 0.24 (0.07–0.87) 0.03
Hypertension 0.40 (0.14–1.14) 0.087
Baseline IOP 1.17 (0.94–1.47) 0.16
MD (1dB increase) 0.90 (0.77–1.05) 0.165 1.30 (0.94–1.79) 0.110
PSD (1dB increase) 1.25 (1.03–1.50) 0.022 1.55 (1.09–2.22) 0.016
Post-treatment IOP (1-mm Hg increase) 1.20 (0.96–1.50) 0.108 1.54 (1.01–2.35) 0.043
Open in a new tab

IOP indicated intraocular pressure; MD, mean deviation; PSD, pattern standard deviation; CI, confidence interval; TMT, total macular layer thickness; STMT: superior macular layer; ITMT: inferior macular layer; MOPP, mean ocular perfusion pressure

aP values were calculated using logistic regression model

Table 3. Characteristics of HMG progression in Normal-Tension Glaucoma.

Progression (n = 19) Non-progression (n = 23) P- value
Age 47.68 ± 7.54 47.17 ± 8.86 0.84
Spherical equivalent(D) -8.20±1.37 -8.51±1.63 0.51
Gender (male:female) 14: 5 6: 17 0.002
Baseline IOP 18.00 ± 1.91 17.09 ±2.11 0.16
Post-treatment IOP 14.56 ± 1.76 13.59 ± 2.13 0.13
VF MD (dB) -5.77±4.28 -4.85±3.01 0.45
VF PSD(dB) 5.72±3.63 4.13±2.73 0.15
Final VF MD (dB) -8.46±4.41 -5.65±2.72 0.025
Initial RNFL (um) 73.72±10.89 76.14±8.81 0.44
Final RNFL (um) 65.63±10.51 72.95±9.37 0.025
Final VF PSD (dB) 5.78±3.70 3.68±1.71 0.048
TMT(um) 263.25±11.98 274.50±12.35 0.017
Asymmetry (um) 20.56±9.30 18.86±8.84 0.61
STMT (um) 273.44±11.33 283.86±11.44 0.018
ITMT (um) 252.88±14.13 265.00±14.52 0.028
Final T RNFLT(um) 67.16±20.78 79.81±17.99 0.046
Final TI RNFLT(um) 63.42±28.45 80.81±25.62 0.049
Drug number (PG %) 2.00±1.155 (78.9) 1.19±0.402(56.5) 0.005
Open in a new tab

IOP, intraocular pressure; VF MD, visual field mean deviation; PSD, pattern standard deviation; RNFLT, retinal nerve fiber layer thickness; TMT, total macular layer thickness; Asymmetry, superior and inferior total macular layer thickness difference; STMT: superior total macular layer thickness; ITMT: inferior total macular layer thickness; TI: temporal-inferior; T: temporal; PG, prostaglandin analogue

Table 4. Multivariate risk factors associated with visual field progression in patients with highly myopic and non-highly Myopic Normal-Tension Glaucoma.

HMG (n = 42) NHG (n = 39)
Odds Ratio (95% CI) P- value Odds Ratio (95% CI) P- value
Age, years 1.04 (0.84–1.28) 0.752 1.02 (0.91–1.15) 0.705
Myopia (1-D increase) 1.37 (0.67–2.79) 0.388 1.16 (0.66–2.04) 0.597
Baseline IOP (1-mmHg increase) 1.28 (0.67–2.48) 0.456 0.83 (0.50–1.38) 0.470
MD (1dB increase) 2.06 (1.01–4.18) 0.046 1.34 (0.75–2.44) 0.311
PSD (1dB increase) 2.77 (1.20–6.39) 0.017 1.34 (0.76–2.33) 0.310
Post-treatment IOP (1-mm Hg increase) 1.64 (0.83–3.25) 0.155 1.74 (0.84–3.62) 0.138
Open in a new tab

CI, confidence interval; IOP indicated intraocular pressure; MD, mean deviation; PSD, pattern standard deviation

aP values were calculated using logistic regression model

Table 5. Multivariate risk factors associated with visual field progression in Normal-Tension Glaucoma patients without diabetes mellitus or hypertension.

n = 57 Odds Ratio (95%CI) P-value
Myopia (1-D increase) 1.06 (0.74–1.54) 0.748
Baselined IOP (1-mm Hg increase) 1.46 (0.86–2.50) 0.165
MD (dB) 1.67 (1.03–2.70) 0.038
PSD (1dB increase) 2.03 (1.14–3.63) 0.017
Post-IOP (mm Hg) 1.44 (0.85–2.44) 0.171
Open in a new tab

CI, confidence interval; IOP indicated intraocular pressure; MD, mean deviation; PSD, pattern standard deviation

aP values were calculated using logistic regression model

Discussion

In a study compared the visual field defect among primary angle-closure glaucoma, high-tension glaucoma and normal-tension glaucoma, the superior hemifield was affected more severely than the inferior hemifield in all three subtypes of primary glaucoma. This asymmetric tendency was more pronounced in NTG [21]. Myopic eye usually had optic nerve head deformity and peripapillary atrophy. Because the RNFL is thickest at the peripapillary retina, and 50% of the retinal ganglion cell is located within the macula [22], combined measurements of the structure changes and structure asymmetry in circmpapillary RNFL and macular area may be helpful in diagnosing glaucoma in high myopic eyes [23]. There was a strong correlation between RNFL defects and retinal thinning in the macula and asymmetry between the superior and inferior macula, correlation with a larger PSD [24]. In our study, PSD was the risk factor for NTG progression, especially in the highly myopic NTG (OR: 2.77, P = 0.017) In the European Glaucoma Prevention Study (EGPS) and Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS), higher PSD was a factor that predicted the development of open angle glaucoma (HR: 1.66 in EGPS; HR: 1.27 in OHTS) [25].

Temporal inferior RNFL is important in detecting progression, and the temporal RNFL, corresponding to the papillomacular bundle, is relatively well preserved along the course of glaucoma progression [26]. But high myopia and NTG eyes seem to have atypical RNFL defects. According to Kimura and associates [19], highly myopic eyes are more susceptible to papillomacular bundle damage in early glaucoma. One possible mechanism would be the mechanical stress from scleral stretching at the temporal area of lamina cribrosa associated with myopic eyeball elongation. Progressive tilting of the optic disc with nasal shift of temporal optic disc margin and concurrent development of peripapillary atrophy occurred in children with myopic shift [27]. Longer axial length, larger optic disc and NTG are risk factors for papillomacular bundle defects [28]. Our results showed that high myopic NTG patients have thinner final temporal and temporal-inferior RNFL thickness compared to non-highly myopic patients. Kim and associates [29] reported that RNFL defects were wider and closer to the macula in the high myopia compared with the low to moderate myopia and emmetropia group in NTG patients. High myopia group was younger (43.8±11.7 years) than low to moderate myopia group (48.1±10.5 years), and emmetropia group (55.8±10.2 years). Our result is similar. Glaucomatous damage develops at a younger age and more severe in patients with high myopia may be due to more aggressive pathological changes in the posterior pole of the high myopic eye.

The highly-myopic NTG patients evidenced VF progression of 1.37-fold that per 1-D increased myopia (p = 0.388) and 1.16-fold in non-highly myopic NTG patients (p = 0.597). But high myopia (less than -6D) was not a risk factor for glaucoma progression in this study. Several studies analyzed the risk factors of glaucoma progression showed the controversial results [7, 11, 30, 31]. E Chihara et al. reported that high mean intraocular pressure (p = 0.007) and large refractive error (< or = -4 diopters) (p = 0.023) were significant risk factors for visual field loss in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma [31]. But Naito T. et al. reported eyes with VF progression had significantly higher baseline refraction in primary open-angle glaucoma (-1.9±3.8 diopter [D] vs -3.5±3.4 D, P = 0.0048) [11].

In our study, 45.24% in the HMG and 35.90% in the NHG showed progression. The Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial (EMGT) reported progression in 45% treatment group and the Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study (CNTGS) reported progression in 12% treatment patients [32]. The reasons of higher progression rate in this study than CNTGS may due to different refractive errors and IOP lowered percentage. Refractive errors in the treated group in CNTGS is -1.09±3.3 D, and our non-high myopic group is -3.30 ± 1.99 D and high myopic group is -8.37 ± 1.51 D. The treated group in CNTGS have intraocular pressure lowered by 30% from baseline (16.9 ±2.1 to 10.6±2.7 mmHg), and our study have IOP lowered by 19.8% in HMG and 24.8% in NHG. Tezel et al. reported that diagnosed of NTG as independent risk factors for progression. 38% of eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma suffered progressive cupping at a mean IOP of 16.9mmHg, and 51% of eyes with NTG suffered progression at a mean IOP of 15mmHg [33]. Post-treatment IOP (OR: 1.54, P = 0.043) was associated with NTG progression in our study. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study [14] showed the importance of lowering IOP to slow down the progression rate in NTG patients. Lee JY et al. [7] reported that 32.5% in the mild to moderate myopic glaucoma and 20.0% in the highly myopic glaucoma showed progression. These results may be interpreted as a lower progression detection rate because of the difficulty in detecting changes in the optic disc/RNFL in HMG, or as a consequence of some of highly myopic eyes that may not be true cases of glaucoma. Studies reported the progression rate about treated normal tension glaucoma were about 45–59.7% in about 5–6 years follow-up [15, 17, 34].

In our study, changes in the linear regression values for MD were -0.652 dB/year for the HMG and -0.717 dB/year for the NHG (P = 0.298). This occurred more rapidly than in the EMGT treatment group (-0.36dB /year) [35] and CNTGS (-0.499 dB/year) [32]. SW Sohn et al. [9] reported changes in the linear regression values for MD were -0.912 dB /year for high myopic groups and -1.113dB for moderate myopia (-3 to -5.99D). High rate of progression (52%) was noted even after treatment. Higher basal PSD and lower ratio of IOP lowering rate than our study may explain the difference.

It is often a challenge to diagnose glaucoma by peripapillary RNFL in myopic eyes due to optic disc deformity. Structural asymmetry parameters performed well, identifying early POAG as well as RNFL thickness [36]. AROCs for thickness measurements tended to increase with increasing glaucoma severity (pre-perimetric, 0.746–0.808; early, 0.842–0.940; advanced, 0.943–0.995), whereas AROCs for asymmetry indices did not have distinct ranges according to glaucoma severity (pre-perimetric, 0.773–0.994; early, 0.861–0.998; advanced, 0.819–0.996) [37]. NTG patients with high myopia had retinal thickness asymmetry in peripapillary RNFL and total macular layer. Asymmetry analysis of retinal thickness can be an adjunctive tool for the early detection of highly-myopic NTG [23]. In our study, thinner total, superior and inferior macular layer thickness were noted in HMG progression group.

This study was subject to several limitations. First, our sample series of 81 patients was relatively small. Future studies with larger sample size are warranted. Second, this study is retrospective design, we cannot exclude the possibility of selection bias. Third, we use refractive error, not the axial length, for distinguish high myopia from non-high myopia, with a cutoff value of -6D. Axial length measurement may be a more direct assessment of the degree of myopia, as myopia can be induced by lens changes or corneal astigmatism. But eyes with visually significant lens changes and high corneal astigmatism were excluded from our analysis, so those effects might not be great. Fourth, patients with diabetes mellitus and hypertension (HTN) showed thinner peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL). Diabetes duration and HTN were significant factors affecting the pRNFL thickness [38]. The Low-Pressure Glaucoma Treatment Study reported that use of antihypertension medications was a risk factor for visual field progression [39]. More glaucoma patients with diabetes or HTN need to be analyzed in the future.

Conclusions

In conclusion, reduction IOP was postulated to be contributing in the prevention of visual field progression, especially in highly myopic NTG patients with large basal pattern standard deviation. Identifying risk factors for glaucoma, particularly normal tension glaucoma with high myopia, could improve disease detection and treatment initiation at earlier stages.

Supporting information

S1 Data set

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (247.7KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Wu PC, Huang HM, Yu HJ, Fang PC, Chen CT. Epidemiology of Myopia. Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa). 2016;5(6):386–93. Epub 2016/11/30. doi: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000236 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ha A, Kim CY, Shim SR, Chang IB, Kim YK. Degree of Myopia and Glaucoma Risk: A Dose-Response Meta-analysis. American journal of ophthalmology. 2022;236:107–19. Epub 2021/10/15. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2021.10.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chon B, Qiu M, Lin SC. Myopia and glaucoma in the South Korean population. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2013;54(10):6570–7. Epub 2013/09/12. doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-12173 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Xu L, Wang Y, Wang S, Wang Y, Jonas JB. High myopia and glaucoma susceptibility the Beijing Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(2):216–20. Epub 2006/11/25. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.06.050 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Suzuki Y, Iwase A, Araie M, Yamamoto T, Abe H, Shirato S, et al. Risk factors for open-angle glaucoma in a Japanese population: the Tajimi Study. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(9):1613–7. Epub 2006/07/11. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.03.059 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Jiang X, Varma R, Wu S, Torres M, Azen SP, Francis BA, et al. Baseline risk factors that predict the development of open-angle glaucoma in a population: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(11):2245–53. Epub 2012/07/17. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.05.030 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lee JY, Sung KR, Han S, Na JH. Effect of myopia on the progression of primary open-angle glaucoma. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2015;56(3):1775–81. Epub 2015/02/24. doi: 10.1167/iovs.14-16002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Song MK, Sung KR, Han S, Lee JE, Yoon JY, Park JM, et al. Progression of primary open angle glaucoma in asymmetrically myopic eyes. Graefe’s archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie. 2016;254(7):1331–7. Epub 2016/04/12. doi: 10.1007/s00417-016-3332-z . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sohn SW, Song JS, Kee C. Influence of the extent of myopia on the progression of normal-tension glaucoma. American journal of ophthalmology. 2010;149(5):831–8. Epub 2010/03/17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.12.033 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yanagisawa M, Yamashita T, Matsuura M, Fujino Y, Murata H, Asaoka R. Changes in Axial Length and Progression of Visual Field Damage in Glaucoma. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2018;59(1):407–17. Epub 2018/01/20. doi: 10.1167/iovs.17-22949 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Naito T, Yoshikawa K, Mizoue S, Nanno M, Kimura T, Suzumura H, et al. Relationship between visual field progression and baseline refraction in primary open-angle glaucoma. Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, NZ). 2016;10:1397–403. Epub 2016/08/19. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S109732 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kim KE, Park KH. Update on the Prevalence, Etiology, Diagnosis, and Monitoring of Normal-Tension Glaucoma. Asia-Pacific journal of ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa). 2016;5(1):23–31. Epub 2016/02/18. doi: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000177 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Funk RO, Hodge DO, Kohli D, Roddy GW. Multiple Systemic Vascular Risk Factors Are Associated With Low-Tension Glaucoma. Journal of glaucoma. 2022;31(1):15–22. Epub 2021/11/04. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001964 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.The effectiveness of intraocular pressure reduction in the treatment of normal-tension glaucoma. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. American journal of ophthalmology. 1998;126(4):498–505. Epub 1998/10/21. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(98)00272-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Seol BR, Kim S, Kim DM, Park KH, Jeoung JW, Kim SH. Influence of intraocular pressure reduction on progression of normal-tension glaucoma with myopic tilted disc and associated risk factors. Japanese journal of ophthalmology. 2017;61(3):230–6. Epub 2017/03/11. doi: 10.1007/s10384-017-0508-y . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lee K, Yang H, Kim JY, Seong GJ, Kim CY, Bae HW. Risk Factors Associated with Structural Progression in Normal-Tension Glaucoma: Intraocular Pressure, Systemic Blood Pressure, and Myopia. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2020;61(8):35. Epub 2020/07/28. doi: 10.1167/iovs.61.8.35 Kim, None; H.W. Bae, None. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Yoshikawa K, Santo K, Hizaki H, Hashimoto M. Long-term progression of visual field defects and related factors in medically treated normal tension glaucoma. Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, NZ). 2018;12:247–53. Epub 2018/02/15. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S146455 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Komori S, Ishida K, Yamamoto T. Results of long-term monitoring of normal-tension glaucoma patients receiving medical therapy: results of an 18-year follow-up. Graefe’s archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie. 2014;252(12):1963–70. Epub 2014/08/19. doi: 10.1007/s00417-014-2767-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kimura Y, Hangai M, Morooka S, Takayama K, Nakano N, Nukada M, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer defects in highly myopic eyes with early glaucoma. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2012;53(10):6472–8. Epub 2012/08/24. doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-10319 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.De Moraes CG, Juthani VJ, Liebmann JM, Teng CC, Tello C, Susanna R Jr., et al. Risk factors for visual field progression in treated glaucoma. Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill: 1960). 2011;129(5):562–8. Epub 2011/05/11. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.72 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Jiang J, Ye C, Zhang C, Ye W, Wang X, Shang X, et al. Intraocular asymmetry of visual field defects in primary angle-closure glaucoma, high-tension glaucoma, and normal-tension glaucoma in a Chinese population. Scientific reports. 2021;11(1):11674. Epub 2021/06/05. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-91173-8 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Curcio CA, Allen KA. Topography of ganglion cells in human retina. The Journal of comparative neurology. 1990;300(1):5–25. Epub 1990/10/01. doi: 10.1002/cne.903000103 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lin PW, Chang HW, Poon YC. Retinal Thickness Asymmetry in Highly Myopic Eyes with Early Stage of Normal-Tension Glaucoma. Journal of ophthalmology. 2021;2021:6660631. Epub 2021/02/13. doi: 10.1155/2021/6660631 publication of this article. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mathers K, Rosdahl JA, Asrani S. Correlation of macular thickness with visual fields in glaucoma patients and suspects. Journal of glaucoma. 2014;23(2):e98–104. Epub 2013/05/11. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31829539c3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Miglior S, Pfeiffer N, Torri V, Zeyen T, Cunha-Vaz J, Adamsons I. Predictive factors for open-angle glaucoma among patients with ocular hypertension in the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(1):3–9. Epub 2006/10/31. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.05.075 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Leung CK, Cheung CY, Weinreb RN, Qiu K, Liu S, Li H, et al. Evaluation of retinal nerve fiber layer progression in glaucoma: a study on optical coherence tomography guided progression analysis. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2010;51(1):217–22. Epub 2009/08/18. doi: 10.1167/iovs.09-3468 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kim TW, Kim M, Weinreb RN, Woo SJ, Park KH, Hwang JM. Optic disc change with incipient myopia of childhood. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(1):21–6.e1-3. Epub 2011/10/08. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.07.051 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chihara E, Tanihara H. Parameters associated with papillomacular bundle defects in glaucoma. Graefe’s archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie. 1992;230(6):511–7. Epub 1992/01/01. doi: 10.1007/bf00181770 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kim JM, Park KH, Kim SJ, Jang HJ, Noh E, Kim MJ, et al. Comparison of localized retinal nerve fiber layer defects in highly myopic, myopic, and non-myopic patients with normal-tension glaucoma: a retrospective cross-sectional study. BMC ophthalmology. 2013;13:67. Epub 2013/11/06. doi: 10.1186/1471-2415-13-67 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sakata R, Aihara M, Murata H, Mayama C, Tomidokoro A, Iwase A, et al. Contributing factors for progression of visual field loss in normal-tension glaucoma patients with medical treatment. Journal of glaucoma. 2013;22(3):250–4. Epub 2012/10/13. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31823298fb . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Chihara E, Liu X, Dong J, Takashima Y, Akimoto M, Hangai M, et al. Severe myopia as a risk factor for progressive visual field loss in primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmologica Journal international d’ophtalmologie International journal of ophthalmology Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde. 1997;211(2):66–71. Epub 1997/01/01. doi: 10.1159/000310760 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Comparison of glaucomatous progression between untreated patients with normal-tension glaucoma and patients with therapeutically reduced intraocular pressures. Collaborative Normal-Tension Glaucoma Study Group. American journal of ophthalmology. 1998;126(4):487–97. Epub 1998/10/21. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(98)00223-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tezel G, Siegmund KD, Trinkaus K, Wax MB, Kass MA, Kolker AE. Clinical factors associated with progression of glaucomatous optic disc damage in treated patients. Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill: 1960). 2001;119(6):813–8. Epub 2001/06/19. doi: 10.1001/archopht.119.6.813 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kim YC, Koo YH, Jung KI, Park CK. Impact of Posterior Sclera on Glaucoma Progression in Treated Myopic Normal-Tension Glaucoma Using Reconstructed Optical Coherence Tomographic Images. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2019;60(6):2198–207. Epub 2019/05/21. doi: 10.1167/iovs.19-26794 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Heijl A, Leske MC, Bengtsson B, Hyman L, Bengtsson B, Hussein M. Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial. Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill: 1960). 2002;120(10):1268–79. Epub 2002/10/09. doi: 10.1001/archopht.120.10.1268 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sullivan-Mee M, Ruegg CC, Pensyl D, Halverson K, Qualls C. Diagnostic precision of retinal nerve fiber layer and macular thickness asymmetry parameters for identifying early primary open-angle glaucoma. American journal of ophthalmology. 2013;156(3):567–77.e1. Epub 2013/07/03. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.04.037 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Yamada H, Hangai M, Nakano N, Takayama K, Kimura Y, Miyake M, et al. Asymmetry analysis of macular inner retinal layers for glaucoma diagnosis. American journal of ophthalmology. 2014;158(6):1318–29.e3. Epub 2014/09/10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.08.040 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lee MW, Park GS, Lim HB, Lee WH, Kim MS, Lee YH, et al. Effect of Systemic Hypertension on Peripapillary RNFL Thickness in Patients With Diabetes Without Diabetic Retinopathy. Diabetes. 2021;70(11):2663–7. Epub 2021/09/04. doi: 10.2337/db21-0491 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.De Moraes CG, Liebmann JM, Greenfield DS, Gardiner SK, Ritch R, Krupin T. Risk factors for visual field progression in the low-pressure glaucoma treatment study. American journal of ophthalmology. 2012;154(4):702–11. Epub 2012/07/28. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2012.04.015 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi

17 Apr 2023

PONE-D-23-00521Effect of Myopia on the Progression of Normal Tension Glaucoma: A Retrospective Cohort StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hsueh,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:Thank you for this elaborate study. The manuscript is generally well written and the study design is robust. However, as noted by Reviewer #1 this idea and subject have been published in previous reports. Please highlight in the Discussion Section the additive information provided by this manuscript that adds to the already published reports.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 01 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi, M.D., FRCS (Glasgow)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately.

Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a)        Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b)        State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c)        If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d)        If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Study Title: “Effect of Myopia on the Progression of Normal Tension Glaucoma: A Retrospective

Cohort Study.”

Summary Review:

This is a retrospective non-interventional cohort study intended to the potential effect of the degree if myopia on the progression of NTG.

Analysis:

A. The study question and idea: the idea is not novel being previously addressed in literature with nearly the same design reaching the same conclusion

“Sohn SW, Song JS, Kee C. Influence of the extent of myopia on the progression of normal-tension glaucoma. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010 May;149(5):831-8”

“Ernest PJ, Schouten JS, Beckers HJ, Hendrikse F, Prins MH, Webers CA. An evidence-based review of prognostic factors for glaucomatous visual field progression. Ophthalmology. 2013 Mar;120(3):512-519“

B. The study design: “A retrospective cohort study”.

C. Points to consider:

1) Choosing patients with a wide significant difference in age (P<0.001) pose a source of bias even if statistically corrected particularly in relatively small samples in addition to concomitant presence of vascular diseases like diabetes for instance which per se could lead to decrease in the RNFLZ thickness

2) The authors did not mention the number of medications or the type of medications needed to control IOP and what about the effect of these drugs on RNFL or visual field.

3) Also was the effect of systemic treatment for controlling Diabetes mellitus or Hypertension on RNFL thickness evaluated??

“Lee MW, Park GS, Lim HB, Lee WH, Kim MS, Lee YH, Kim JY. Effect of Systemic Hypertension on Peripapillary RNFL Thickness in Patients with Diabetes without Diabetic Retinopathy. Diabetes. 2021 Nov; 70(11):2663-2667.”

Reviewer #2: The purpose of the study:

(Evaluate the risk factors of progression in treated normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) between highly myopic and non-highly myopic eyes.)

• Change (evaluate) to identify or detect risk factors…….change (between) to (in)

• Define in a clear manner (non-highly myopic eyes):

• Is it mild to moderate myopia as it appears from the spherical equivalent in this group of your results?

• The expression (non-high myopia) is not well-defined from another aspect as the term may include emmetropia and hypermetropia also.

Methods:

• The sentence (Among 81 eyes from 73 normal tension glaucoma patients ..) is in conflict with the other sentence you mentioned (If both eyes of the same patient were found to be eligible, one eye was randomly selected for analysis.)

Please clarify this point regarding the number of eyes included in the study and if “both eyes of the same patient” were included in the study in some situations.

• Please define the type of tonometers you used in the study.

• You included treated patients in the study, but you did not mention the type of treatment they received either medical, laser, or surgical which may affect the progression of glaucoma. Please explain this point.

Results:

• Regarding the baseline data in both groups, the age in the HMG group was significantly less (45.95 ± 9.04 years vs 57.35 ± 10.85 years, p < 0.001)

Did the significant difference in age affect the calculation of risk factors?

• The multivariate Cox proportional hazards model indicated that myopia (HR: 1.2, P=0.019) was risk factor for normal tension glaucoma progression.

• Also in conclusions (Myopia was risk factor for glaucoma progression in treated normal tension glaucoma patients).

Please add (a) before (risk factor)

Which degree of myopia you mean?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: comments 1.docx

Click here for additional data file. (14.9KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2023 Jun 23;18(6):e0287661. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287661.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

4 Jun 2023

The purpose of the study:

(Identify the risk factors of progression in treated normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) in highly myopic and non-highly myopic eyes.)

• Change (evaluate) to identify or detect risk factors…….change (between) to (in)

1. Define in a clear manner (non-highly myopic eyes): include emmetropia and hypermetropia if it’s open angle and normal tension glaucoma

• Is it mild to moderate myopia as it appears from the spherical equivalent in this group of your results? Yes

• The expression (non-high myopia) is not well-defined from another aspect as the term may include emmetropia and hypermetropia also.

Methods:

2. The sentence (Among 81 eyes from 73 normal tension glaucoma patients ..) is in conflict with the other sentence you mentioned (If both eyes of the same patient were found to be eligible, one eye was randomly selected for analysis.) Please clarify this point regarding the number of eyes included in the study and if “both eyes of the same patient” were included in the study in some situations.

After revision, we change to “Among 81 eyes from 81 normal-tension glaucoma patients”, so it’s not conflict with” If both eyes of the same patient were found to be eligible, one eye was randomly selected for analysis.”

3.

• Please define the type of tonometers you used in the study.

Non-contact tonometer ((TONOREF III, NIDEK, Japan) and i-Care tonometer (TA01i)

• You included treated patients in the study, but you did not mention the type of treatment they received either medical, laser, or surgical which may affect the progression of glaucoma. Please explain this point.

All patients received only medical treatment, and we analyzed the drug numbers, the percentage of prostaglandin analogue and the percentage of intraocular pressure decrease after treatment. When NTG was diagnosed, the patients received Prostaglandin analogue. During the follow-up, if glaucoma progressed or patient can’t tolerate the side effects of Prostaglandin analogue, brimonidine 2mg/ml (Allergan, Inc, Irvine, California, USA) usually was added or replaced.

Results:

• Regarding the baseline data in both groups, the age in the HMG group was significantly less (45.95 ± 9.04 years vs 57.35 ± 10.85 years, p < 0.001)

Did the significant difference in age affect the calculation of risk factors?

After the revision, the age difference was not significant. (P=0.07)

• The multivariate Cox proportional hazards model indicated that myopia (HR: 1.2, P=0.019) was risk factor for normal tension glaucoma progression.

• Also in conclusions (Myopia was risk factor for glaucoma progression in treated normal tension glaucoma patients).

Please add (a) before (risk factor)

Which degree of myopia you mean?

After revision, basal pattern standard deviation (PSD) (OR: 1.55, p=0.016) and post treatment IOP (OR=1.54, p=0.043) were risk factors for visual field progression in normal tension glaucoma patients. The highly-myopic NTG patients evidenced VF progression of 1.37-fold that per 1-D increased myopia. (p=0.388)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (17.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi

12 Jun 2023

Effect of Myopia on the Progression of Normal Tension Glaucoma

PONE-D-23-00521R1

Dear Dr. Hsueh,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi, M.D., FRCS (Glasgow)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have addressed all reviewers' comments and concerns. Although the article may be a recapitulation of previous research in the same field, the study is well designed and the conclusions are robust.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi

16 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-00521R1

Effect of Myopia on the Progression of Normal Tension Glaucoma

Dear Dr. Hsueh:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Nader Hussien Lotfy Bayoumi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data set

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (247.7KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: comments 1.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (14.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (17.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES