Discovering the true diagnosis can be challenging when patients present with glaucoma-like findings. Here are some differentials to look out for.
By Justin Cole, OD, and Jarett Mazzarella, OD
Glaucoma is a pressing public health concern, specifically due to the asymptomatic nature of the disease, the increasing prevalence and the risk for blindness. Researchers estimate that approximately 2% of the US population aged 40 to 80 years have a diagnosis of glaucoma, with another 2% undiagnosed. Furthermore, studies estimate that the number of people with glaucoma in the United States is expected to increase to 6.3 million by 2050 and to 112 million worldwide by 2040.
Glaucoma is a pressing public health concern, specifically due to the asymptomatic nature of the disease, the increasing prevalence and the risk for blindness. Researchers estimate that approximately 2% of the US population aged 40 to 80 years have a diagnosis of glaucoma, with another 2% undiagnosed. Furthermore, studies estimate that the number of people with glaucoma in the United States is expected to increase to 6.3 million by 2050 and to 112 million worldwide by 2040.
With glaucoma on the rise, clinicians need to be prepared to diagnose these patients early and choose the best treatment plan. But making a diagnosis of glaucoma can be challenging—not only because glaucoma itself is complex and involves many variables, but also because many other pathologies can masquerade as glaucoma. This article discusses the various differential diagnoses to help clinicians properly identify the true disease process in play and plan a management strategy accordingly.
POAG vs. Secondary
First and foremost, practitioners must differentiate primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) from secondary glaucoma, as the different pathophysiology of the glaucomatous damage will dictate the first line of treatment.
Patient demographics are also important, as POAG is found more frequently in the older population. If a patient presents with signs consistent with glaucoma, is below the age of 40 and shows no signs of a secondary glaucomatous process, other diagnoses should be considered. In a review study that looked at primary open angle glaucoma prevalence across different ethnicities, researchers found that, most often, glaucoma prevalence was low below the age of 40, at about 2% to 3% across all ethnicities. The same study found that Americans of African decent had the highest prevalence, about 5%, at 60 years of age. The greatest increase of prevalence with age was in Hispanics and Caucasians. Therefore, it is vital for clinicians to be cognizant of the red flags that may elicit an alternative diagnosis.
Once clinicians have differentiated primary from secondary glaucoma, we must gain a firm understanding of the patient’s systemic health through a thorough examination, rule out therapeutic contraindications and tailor the topical therapy to best suit the initial target range. Clinicians must take into consideration ease of use, possible side effects, cost and the medication’s mechanism of action to determine the best topical management for each patient.
Glaucoma Masqueraders
Common masqueraders of glaucomatous optic neuropathy are usually ocular conditions or manifestations of ocular disease that can change the appearance of the optic nerve. Studies have shown that particular exam testing—specifically, visual acuity, visual field testing and serial retinal photography—can help differentiate between nonglaucomatous optic nerves and glaucomatous ones. As a primary eye care provider, recognizing a variance in the disease course is essential in properly taking care of patients. Clinicians should be on the lookout for these other differential diagnoses when a patient presents with findings consistent with glaucoma:
• Vascular Differentials. Often, patients with a history of ischemic optic neuropathy in one eye can be labeled glaucoma suspects based on what may be perceived as glaucomatous cupping. The visual field defect that classically accompanies an ischemic optic neuropathy is an inferior or superior altitudinal defect, which may be incomplete and can extend into the arcades or may be located within the central 10 degrees of the macula. However, variable visual field defects are possible and the disease process can be differentiated by the lack of optic nerve cupping or notching and, instead, the presence of pallor as the manifestation of the ischemic event.
• Retinal vascular occlusions. These can also complicate the clinician’s ability to diagnose a glaucomatous optic disc. Branch retinal artery occlusions can result in visual field defects that correspond to the damaged retinal tissue and can appear arcuate-like due to having the same vascular supply. Retinal emboli or atrophic sclerotic vessels may or may not accompany a past arterial occlusion; however, the optic nerve should reveal more pallor than cupping in the affected neuro retinal rim sector.
Branch retinal vein occlusions, however, would have additional retinal findings such as collateral retinal vessels bridging arteries and veins, which can cross the horizontal raphe. Residual retinal hemorrhages along the distribution of the occlusion may also be present, which helps confirm the diagnosis.
Knowing what to look for and understanding that glaucoma can arise in the presence of concurrent ocular vascular conditions ensure clinicians are prepared to monitor those patients who present with multiple comorbidities.
• Compressive nonglaucomatous optic neuropathy. A compressive lesion can be mistaken for glaucoma, especially when the field loss and glaucomatous damage is slow and insidious. Compressive optic neuropathy can mimic glaucomatous optic nerve changes early in the disease process. The unilateral nature of the optic nerve findings and the worsening visual field defects in the presence of controlled and often normal intraocular pressure (IOP) should increase suspicion of a masquerader. A study from a tertiary referral center evaluated patients with normal tension glaucoma and found that the two most common intracranial tumors noted to cause optic nerve changes were pituitary tumors and meningiomas.
However, several studies show that the visual field defects associated with compressive optic neuopathy most often exhibit patterns not clinically consistent with glaucomatous field loss, and the degree of optic nerve cupping can be disproportionate to the visual field defects. Researchers also discovered that, in forms of compressive optic neuropathy, nonglaucomatous optic nerve cupping and visual field loss was usually accompanied by decreased visual acuity and optic nerve head pallor.
• Traumatic optic neuropathy. A history of ocular or head trauma should be considered in the differential diagnosis in any case of asymmetric optic disc cupping or suspected optic nerve pallor. Traumatic optic neuropathy can be longstanding, and patients may recall an associated event with vision loss. These patients’ visual acuity would often, but not always, be reduced, and variable visual field defects are likely. In the case of unilateral trauma, an afferent pupillary defect may be present, which would likely be accompanied by optic nerve pallor and not cupping. The visual field exam would also produce variable visual field defects inconsistent with the early glaucomatous visual field loss.
• Optic disc swelling. Previous optic nerve swelling with resultant optic atrophy also needs to be considered when evaluating a patient who presents with findings consistent with glaucoma. An active inflammatory or swollen optic disc will intuitively lead to another diagnosis; however, optic atrophy from past events without active inflammation or disc swelling can be challenging to differentiate, even for the most seasoned clinician. Systemic diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, anemia, a history of lymphoma or leukemia, multiple sclerosis, neuromyelitis optica, or pseudotumor cerebri can help in the differential diagnosis, as past optic nerve swelling or inflammation can change the anatomic structure and appearance of the optic nerve.
Hints It May NOT Be Glaucoma
Acuity, pupillary function, optic nerve appearance, visual field and OCT of the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and ganglion cell complex are tests that assist in the differential between glaucoma and other masqueraders. Visual acuity is generally unaffected until late in the disease process in patients with POAG. The presence or absence of an RAPD is not necessarily pathognomonic for other optic neuropathies over a glaucomatous optic neuropathy, as studies have shown 25% to 30% of POAG patients have an +RAPD. However, the presence of an +RAPD can sometimes be attributed to the asymmetric presentation of POAG. Therefore, the presence of an +RAPD, outside the setting of asymmetrical visual field loss, asymmetrical cup-to-disc ratio and RNFL loss could potentially suggest a nonglaucomatous disease process.
It is essential to differentiate between optic nerve cupping and optic nerve pallor, as pallor is generally not present in early glaucomatous optic neuropathy. A more difficult task is recognizing a patient with large physiological optic nerve cupping in the presence of pallor from a nonglaucomatous optic neuropathy. Clinicians should compare the anatomy of one eye to that of the other to better evaluate any subtle anatomical changes; it is also important to take serial optic nerve head photos to assess change over time.
In a study from a tertiary referral center in which POAG patients showed progression on visual field exam, with otherwise controlled IOP, researchers noted patients with glaucomatous optic neuropathy had these common variables compared with patients with nonglaucomatous optic neuropathy: better visual acuity, history of an optic nerve hemorrhage, vertical elongation of the optic disc and visual field defects that respected the horizontal raphe of the RNFL. Clinicians should keep these variables in mind in cases where glaucoma patients continue to have progressive field loss in the presence of controlled IOP. Consider neuroimaging of the head and orbits to rule out other nonglaucomatous etiologies, especially in patients with normal tension and progressive visual field loss.
Visual field defects associated with glaucoma are known to respect the horizontal raphe of the retina, which is due to the anatomic distribution of the RNFL and is a reflection of how nerve fiber is lost in glaucoma. Nonglaucomatous optic neuropathies, however, can have a variety of visual field defects. Most importantly, they can cross the horizontal raphe and in some cases respect the vertical midline, which is not typical of glaucomatous field loss. Nonglaucomatous optic neuropathies often affect the papillomacular bundle, which will often give the funduscopic appearance of temporal optic nerve pallor and present as paracentral or cecocentral visual field defects early in the disease course.
The OCT RNFL findings of glaucoma vs. nonglaucomatous cupping can elicit overlap, making it difficult to distinguish one from the other. Glaucomatous damage noted on OCT RNFL is similar to quiescent forms of optic atrophy from past optic neuritis, ischemic optic neuropathy, optic disc drusen and loss from neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer's. Nonglaucomatous optic neuropathies will also have thinning of the RNFL; however, it is usually located temporally at the disc and should correspond to pallor of the optic nerve on exam.
In conclusion, differentiating glaucoma from other nonglaucomatous masqueraders can be difficult, but the astute optometrist should be able to recognize the red flags that could alter or change the diagnosis. Understanding the glaucomatous disease process, the pathophysiology of visual loss from glaucoma and distinguishing cases that fall outside of the predicted disease course is essential. Using imaging modalities such as optic nerve photos to look for subtle optic disc neuroretinal rim and color changes, OCT retinal nerve fiber layer, ganglion cell analyses and reviewing visual field data will help to distinguish those cases of nonglaucomatous cupping. The aforementioned variables should increase awareness of the accuracy of the diagnosis so that glaucomatous masqueraders are recognized early and alternative management is instituted, avoiding potential adverse patient outcomes.







No comments:
Post a Comment