Leslie Hyman

Bio: Leslie Hyman is an academic researcher from Stony Brook University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Glaucoma. The author has an hindex of 49, co-authored 96 publications receiving 17613 citations. Previous affiliations of Leslie Hyman include State University of New York System.

Reduction of intraocular pressure and glaucoma progression: results from the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial.

Abstract: Objective To provide the results of the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial, which compared the effect of immediately lowering the intraocular pressure (IOP), vs no treatment or later treatment, on the progression of newly detected open-angle glaucoma. Design Randomized clinical trial. Participants Two hundred fifty-five patients aged 50 to 80 years (median, 68 years) with early glaucoma, visual field defects (median mean deviation, −4 dB), and a median IOP of 20 mm Hg, mainly identified through a population screening. Patients with an IOP greater than 30 mm Hg or advanced visual field loss were ineligible. Interventions Patients were randomized to either laser trabeculoplasty plus topical betaxolol hydrochloride (n = 129) or no initial treatment (n = 126). Study visits included Humphrey Full Threshold 30-2 visual field tests and tonometry every 3 months, and optic disc photography every 6 months. Decisions regarding treatment were made jointly with the patient when progression occurred and thereafter. Main Outcome Measures Glaucoma progression was defined by specific visual field and optic disc outcomes. Criteria for perimetric progression were computer based and defined as the same 3 or more test point locations showing significant deterioration from baseline in glaucoma change probability maps from 3 consecutive tests. Optic disc progression was determined by masked graders using flicker chronoscopy plus side-by-side photogradings. Results After a median follow-up period of 6 years (range, 51-102 months), retention was excellent, with only 6 patients lost to follow-up for reasons other than death. On average, treatment reduced the IOP by 5.1 mm Hg or 25%, a reduction maintained throughout follow-up. Progression was less frequent in the treatment group (58/129; 45%) than in controls (78/126; 62%) ( P =.007) and occurred significantly later in treated patients. Treatment effects were also evident when stratifying patients by median IOP, mean deviation, and age as well as exfoliation status. Although patients reported few systemic or ocular conditions, increases in clinical nuclear lens opacity gradings were associated with treatment ( P = .002). Conclusions The Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial is the first adequately powered randomized trial with an untreated control arm to evaluate the effects of IOP reduction in patients with open-angle glaucoma who have elevated and normal IOP. Its intent-to-treat analysis showed considerable beneficial effects of treatment that significantly delayed progression. Whereas progression varied across patient categories, treatment effects were present in both older and younger patients, high- and normal-tension glaucoma, and eyes with less and greater visual field loss.

Factors for glaucoma progression and the effect of treatment: the early manifest glaucoma trial.

Abstract: Objective: To assess factors for progression in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial (EMGT), including the effect of EMGT treatment. Setting/Participants: Two hundred fifty-five open-angle glaucoma patients randomized to argon laser trabeculoplasty plus topical betaxolol or no immediate treatment (129 treated; 126 controls) and followed up every 3 months. Methods: Progression was determined by perimetric and photographic optic disc criteria. Patient-based risk of progression was evaluated using Cox proportional hazard regression models and was expressed as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: After 6 years, 53% of patients progressed. In multivariate analyses, progression risk was halved by treatment (HR=0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71). Predictive baseline factors were higher intraocular pressure (IOP) (ie, the higher the baseline IOP, the higher the risk), exfoliation, and having both eyes eligible (each of the latter 2 factors doubled the risk), as well as worse mean deviation and older age. Progression risk decreased by about 10% with each millimeter of mercury of IOP reduction from baseline to the first follow-up visit (HR=0.90 per millimeter of mercury decrease; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94). The first IOP at that visit (3 months' follow-up) was also related to progression (HR=1.11 per millimeter of mercury higher; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17), as was the mean IOP at follow-up (HR=1.13 per millimeter of mercury higher; 95% CI, 1.07-1.19). The percent of patient follow-up visits with disc hemorrhages was also related to progression (HR=1.02 per percent higher; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03). No other factors were identified. Conclusions: Patients treated in the EMGT had half of the progression risk of control patients. The magnitude of initial IOP reduction was a major factor influencing outcome. Progression was also increased with higher baseline IOP, exfoliation, bilateral disease, worse mean deviation, and older age, as well as frequent disc hemorrhages during follow-up. Each higher (or lower) millimeter of mercury of IOP on follow-up was associated with an approximate 10% increased (or decreased) risk of progression.

Age-Related Macular Degeneration and Blindness due to Neovascular Maculopathy

Abstract: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is one of the four most common causes of blindness in the United States. Retinal manifestations of AMD can be categorized as either atrophic or neovascular/exudative. To the best of our knowledge, the proportion of patients legally blind due to the neovascular/exudative manifestations of this disease has not been previously reported. Data from two studies, the Framingham Eye Study and a large case-control study, demonstrate that the vast majority of patients with legal blindness due to AMD have the neovascular/exudative form of the disease. Seventy-nine percent of eyes legally blind due to AMD in the Framingham population and 90% of eyes legally blind due to AMD in the case-control study had neovascular/exudative retinopathy. This is in spite of the fact that neovascular/exudative retinopathy is a relatively infrequent complication of AMD.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

The number of people with glaucoma worldwide in 2010 and 2020

Abstract: Aim: To estimate the number of people with open angle (OAG) and angle closure glaucoma (ACG) in 2010 and 2020. Methods: A review of published data with use of prevalence models. Data from population based studies of age specific prevalence of OAG and ACG that satisfied standard definitions were used to construct prevalence models for OAG and ACG by age, sex, and ethnicity, weighting data proportional to sample size of each study. Models were combined with UN world population projections for 2010 and 2020 to derive the estimated number with glaucoma. Results: There will be 60.5 million people with OAG and ACG in 2010, increasing to 79.6 million by 2020, and of these, 74% will have OAG. Women will comprise 55% of OAG, 70% of ACG, and 59% of all glaucoma in 2010. Asians will represent 47% of those with glaucoma and 87% of those with ACG. Bilateral blindness will be present in 4.5 million people with OAG and 3.9 million people with ACG in 2010, rising to 5.9 and 5.3 million people in 2020, respectively. Conclusions: Glaucoma is the second leading cause of blindness worldwide, disproportionately affecting women and Asians.

Number of people with glaucoma worldwide.

Abstract: AIM: To estimate the prevalence of glaucoma among people worldwide. METHODS: Available published data on glaucoma prevalence were reviewed to determine the relation of open angle and angle closure glaucoma with age in people of European, African, and Asian origin. A comparison was made with estimated world population data for the year 2000. RESULTS: The number of people with primary glaucoma in the world by the year 2000 is estimated at nearly 66.8 million, with 6.7 million suffering from bilateral blindness. In developed countries, fewer than 50% of those with glaucoma are aware of their disease. In the developing world, the rate of known disease is even lower. CONCLUSIONS: Glaucoma is the second leading cause of vision loss in the world. Improved methods of screening and therapy for glaucoma are urgently needed.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

Abstract: D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.