Risk, Prevalence, and Progression of Glaucoma in Eyes With Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treated With Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Injections

PURPOSE: To examine the risk, prevalence, and progression of glaucoma development in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) eyes receiving intravitreal anti -vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections compared to controls. DESIGN: Retrospective clinical cohort study. METHODS: Retrospective review of eyes receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF injections from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2013, for exudative AMD. Age-and sex -matched control groups of eyes included eyes with nonexudative AMD (NEAMD) and no AMD. Eyes with a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspect were reviewed for injection details, type and date of glaucoma diagnosis, glaucoma treatments, standard automated perimetry (SAP), and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Qualitative progression was determined by indication of glaucoma progression in provider notes. Quantitative progression was assessed based on change in mean deviation (MD) on SAP, retinal nerve fiber layer thickness on SD-OCT, and intraocular pressure (IOP). RESULTS: There were 707 eyes of 504 patients treated with anti-VEGF injections and 1008 eyes in the NEAMD and no-AMD cohorts. There was no difference in glaucoma or suspect prevalence at initial presentation be-tween eyes treated with injections and NEAMD (6.9% vs 9.7%, P = .22) or no-AMD controls (vs 8.5%, P = .55). There was no difference in cumulative 5-year probability of new glaucoma diagnosis after anti-VEGF injections compared to NEAMD (1.9% vs 1.0%, P = .69) or no-AMD controls (vs 1.6%, P = .88). There was no difference in qualitative progression of glaucoma in the injection cohort vs NEAMD ( P = .19) or no-AMD controls ( P = .61). The rate of MD change in injection eyes was similar to NEAMD eyes ( P = .74) but greater than no-AMD eyes ( P = .02). Eyes receiving injections required more topical glaucoma medications compared with NEAMD ( P = .03) and more glaucoma laser treatments compared with no-AMD controls ( P = .009). Eyes receiving injections did not require more frequent incisional glaucoma surgery compared with NEAMD (21.0% vs 15.0%, P = .95) or no-AMD controls (vs 10.0%, P = .10). CONCLUSION: Eyes treated with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections for exudative AMD did not have in-creased risk of developing glaucoma compared with controls. Of those with a glaucoma diagnosis, exudative AMD eyes receiving injections required a greater number of topical glaucoma medications compared with NEAMD eyes and had a greater rate of MD loss than no-AMD controls.