Discussion
The current survey was the largest nationwide, population-based survey of glaucoma in Bangladesh and aimed to give precise estimates of the disease burden in the general population. Because the study clusters were randomly selected using a robust methodology, we believe the sample was nationally representative by age, gender, ethnicity, rural and urban residence and socioeconomic status, and the findings are generalisable to the whole country. We found a glaucoma prevalence of 3.2% and glaucoma—suspects of 10.1%. Extrapolating these prevalence data based on a 2022 census carried out by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics,2 we estimate that, in people over 35 years of age, there are almost 2 million (1 943 470) patients with glaucoma in the country and an additional 6 million may be glaucoma suspects.
A population-based survey from Bangladesh over two decades ago showed a slightly lower prevalence of glaucoma at 2.1%, with higher rates in men compared with women.3 However, this was confined to the Dhaka division and had a much smaller sample size (n=2347) than ours (n=12 000). The prevalence of glaucoma suspect cases was significantly higher in our study compared with the previous report as well. We believe that the larger sample representative of the entire nation is more demonstrative of the actual picture. It is also possible that the incidence of glaucoma has increased over the past two decades in Bangladesh, a worrisome trend. However, it is more likely that older men (>60 years of age) comprised only 8% of the sample in the previous study compared with 35% in ours. Given that older age and male gender are risk factors for glaucoma, this difference may be primarily responsible for the higher prevalence of glaucoma we report.
Studies carried out in neighbouring India report varied prevalence rates. The Chennai glaucoma study (2010), a population-based study on the prevalence of glaucoma in south India, reported a prevalence of 3.5% from a sample of 2532 subjects 40 years or older, similar to our results.6 In another study from south India4, Ramakrishnan et al reported a prevalence of 2.6% from a population of 5150 subjects who were 40 years or older, similar to reports by Rahaman et al, and lower than our findings.4 A more recent study (2015) in 13 591 Nigerians estimated an overall glaucoma prevalence of 5.02%. A higher prevalence of glaucoma in more recent studies compared with older ones suggests an increasing incidence and may be explained by higher life expectancy in most populations worldwide, and most studies, including ours, show increasing age to be a risk factor for glaucoma. These findings are also in accordance with the projections made by Tham et al, for a growing incidence of glaucoma by 2040.13
Men, especially older men >60 years of age, were found to be at the highest risk of glaucoma compared with younger men, and at a 43% higher risk than women of the same age. A similar finding was found by Rahman et al in Bangladesh in 2004.3 The evidence for similar gender predilections with glaucoma is more inconsistent in literature,14 given the fact that women tend to outlive men. Additionally, it appears that women are more predisposed to angle-closure glaucoma, while older men get open-angle glaucoma.14 Associations of gender with incidence of glaucoma need further investigations and probable mechanisms for these associations need to be discovered to attain credibility.
In our results, the prevalence of glaucoma was slightly higher in urban areas than in rural areas. The Chennai Glaucoma study found a much higher difference (1.6% difference).6 A study in Hyderabad in a predominantly urban population found a prevalence of 6.1%,5 against a study carried out in Tamil Nadu in a rural population which found a prevalence of 3.2%.4 Though our study did not elicit such marked differences between urban and rural populations, this requires further study.
The majority of our participants had POAG, with NTG being the predominant variety among these. A study in West Bengal,7 in an ethnically similar population, also found predominantly patients with POAG with an overall age-adjusted prevalence of 3.4%, with >90% being POAG. The high prevalence of NTG in our study is surprising and all ophthalmologists in Bangladesh should be aware of this fact. This also implies that the diagnosis of glaucoma cannot be based on IOP alone, and future screening programmes must include fundus imaging and visual field testing to enable early diagnosis of glaucoma.
The main drawback of our study was the slightly lower-than-expected response rate, where about 63% agreed to visit the examination site, and about 70% of these turned up. Although this might influence prevalence rates, we hope the overall sample of 12 000 participants is large enough to mitigate these effects. Additionally, due to budgeting constraints, optic disc imaging was not done for participants and visual fields were only done for some. Lastly, subjective patient responses about their history of glaucoma may have led to an inflation in the number of cases with NTG. Though this variety may be the most common type of glaucoma in our population, we believe the numbers are likely smaller than what we observed. Caution should be exercised while generalising these results to other populations, and future studies in the Bangladeshi population are required to see the true prevalence in our population.
Extrapolating the data from the target population, the current survey estimates there are about 2 million patients with glaucoma and nearly 6 million glaucoma suspect cases in Bangladesh, with a higher proportion of males affected. This indicates a major public health problem and mandates a national health programme backed by the government of Bangladesh so that appropriate screening modalities can be devised to detect at-risk populations. With this landmark population-based survey, appropriate resources should be devoted to properly assessing and managing glaucoma cases so as to reduce avoidable blindness in Bangladesh.