6% at 10 years and 42.7% at 20 years for bilateral blindness from glaucoma (Figure 3, Bottom right). In this study of lifetime risk for blindness a large proportion of patients (42.2%) were blind from glaucoma in at least 1 eye at the last hospital or Habilitation and Assistive Technology Service LEE011 visit, and 16.4% were bilaterally blind from glaucoma. The cumulative risk for unilateral and bilateral blindness from glaucoma was considerable and many blind patients were blind for

more than 3 years. Patients included in the cumulative risk analyses (Data at Diagnosis group) were diagnosed in 1980 or later, and 66% were diagnosed after 1993. Hence, they were likely to have benefited from the improvements in glaucoma management occurring Dorsomorphin in vivo over the last 30 years. One strength of the current study is the relatively large sample size and the fact that visual function was followed as long as possible, on average to less than 1 year before death. By including only dead glaucoma patients we had access to almost complete follow-up data for all patients, making it easy to determine the “final” percentage of blind eyes and patients. Another strength is that we used the registration system of the Habilitation and Assistive

Technology Service in addition to the patient administration system of our hospital to identify potentially eligible patients, allowing us to include visually impaired glaucoma Non-specific serine/threonine protein kinase patients who may have sought help from social services rather than ophthalmologists. People living in our catchment area have the opportunity to access care at our department without mandatory referral from another ophthalmologist. Most glaucoma patients in our catchment area are seen at our hospital. Patients initially diagnosed and followed by one of the few private ophthalmologists working in the city are often referred to our clinic during follow-up for second opinion, laser treatment, or surgery. This, and the fact that

the Habilitation and Assistive Technology Service low vision center is the sole unit for referral in the area, makes it likely that few blind patients have been missed. The exact number of glaucoma patients in our catchment area who are followed by private ophthalmologists alone is unknown, however. We therefore could have overestimated the rates of visually disabled glaucoma patients by including glaucoma patients registered at the Habilitation and Assistive Technology Service. However, we found only 3 patients who were blind from glaucoma who were registered at the Habilitation and Assistive Technology Service but not at the patient administration system of our hospital. On the other hand, we found that nearly 29% (49/170) of all patients who were visually impaired from glaucoma never had been in contact with the Habilitation and Assistive Technology Service. This is a considerable proportion, albeit lower than earlier reported.