(327) Characteristics of a population using anti-glaucoma therapy in the UK CPRD GOLD

Background: We previously reported on treatment rates for glaucoma or intraocular hypertension (IOH) in UK-based adults. There is little information on characteristics of such patients available.

Objectives: We aimed to describe the population with anti-glaucoma therapy included in our previous study in terms of demographics, comorbidities and drug use, compared with a random sample of glaucoma-free patients from the base population.

Methods: Using data from the UK-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Gold, we defined patients with anti-glaucoma therapy as individuals who received treatment for glaucoma or IOH (i.e., ≥ 2 prescriptions for anti-glaucoma medication, or glaucoma surgery) between 2000 and 2022. The earliest treatment prescription or surgery date served as the index date. Only patients 18 years or older and with ≥ 3 years of medical history in the database before the index date were included. Patients with anti-glaucoma therapy were matched 1:1 to glaucoma-free individuals from the CPRD population on age, sex, calendar time, general practice, and number of years of history in the CPRD prior to the index date. Characteristics of patients with and without anti-glaucoma treatment were compared using simple proportions. Differences between proportions were tested by Chi square tests.

Results: We found 120’804 patients with anti-glaucoma treatment, approximately half of whom were women. Mean age at start of anti-glaucoma treatment was 69.6 years. Women were slightly older than men at the start of treatment (mean age: 70.7 vs 68.4 years). The two groups had largely comparable proportions of comorbidities. However, proportionately more patients with anti-glaucoma therapy had a diagnosis of diabetes (15.3% vs 11.7%, p-value < 0.01) or prescriptions for antidiabetic drugs (patients with 10 or more prescriptions: 9.3% vs 7.4%, p-value < 0.01). They also had more GP visits in the year prior to starting anti-glaucoma therapy. There were fewer current smokers among patients with anti-glaucoma therapy (12% vs 13.9%, p-value < 0.01). A diagnosis of dementia was less prevalent among individuals with anti-glaucoma therapy (1.2% vs 2.1%, p-value < 0.01). This observation may be explained by surveillance bias due to less vigorous screening for glaucoma in such patients.

Conclusions: Our analyses show that patients with and without anti-glaucoma treatment were similar though women started receiving anti-glaucoma therapy at a slightly later age than men and a higher proportion of patients with glaucoma had a diagnosis of diabetes compared to patients not treated for glaucoma or IOH. Glaucoma may be detected more often in patients with diabetes as such patients receive regular ophthalmologic check-ups.