VitMode

Glaucoma — Risk Factors and Prevention

Glaucoma is one of the leading causes of irreversible blindness worldwide, yet most people who have it don't know it — the most common form gives no symptoms for years, until visual field loss becomes significant. There's no single test that predicts it with total certainty, but decades of epidemiological research and one of the most important clinical trials in ophthalmology — the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study — have made it possible to describe fairly precisely who falls into a higher-risk group and how often it's worth getting checked. This article isn't a guide to treating glaucoma — we focus on risk factors and what an average reader can realistically do about prevention and early detection.

KLdr Katarzyna LewandowskaSeptember 10, 202613 min read
Table of contents

Glaucoma — a disease that gives no symptoms for years

Glaucoma isn't a single disease but a group of conditions leading to progressive damage of the optic nerve, usually (though not always) linked to elevated intraocular pressure. The most common form — primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) — develops slowly, and visual field loss usually starts at the periphery, in areas the brain doesn't consciously process day to day anyway. As a result, the disease is sometimes called "the silent thief of sight": some patients only reach an ophthalmologist once optic nerve damage is already advanced and largely irreversible.

The scale of the problem isn't marginal. The largest meta-analysis to date on the global epidemiology of glaucoma, covering 50 population-based studies, estimated glaucoma prevalence at 3.54% among people aged 40-80, with the number of affected people rising from 64.3 million in 2013 to a projected 111.8 million by 2040 — mainly in Asia and Africa. That's a disease that in practice affects roughly one in a few dozen people in this age group, and its share will keep growing as the population ages.

What this article is — and isn't — about

This text focuses exclusively on glaucoma risk factors, prevention, and early detection — it isn't a review of treatment methods or glaucoma pharmacotherapy, which require individualized ophthalmological care. The goal is to help the reader assess whether they fall into a higher-risk group and to suggest which preventive steps have real research backing.

Elevated intraocular pressure — the most important modifiable risk factor

Intraocular pressure (IOP) is the pressure of the fluid inside the eye, maintained by the balance between the production and drainage of aqueous humor. Elevated IOP is the strongest, and currently the only effectively modifiable, risk factor for developing glaucoma — it's precisely on lowering IOP that all available therapies are based. It's worth immediately noting, though, that the relationship isn't unambiguous in both directions: some people with elevated IOP (so-called ocular hypertension) never develop glaucoma, and some glaucoma patients have IOP within the range considered statistically normal — this is so-called normal-tension glaucoma, in which other factors, described later in this article, play a larger role.

The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: a randomized trial determines that topical ocular hypotensive medication delays or prevents the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma

Strong evidence

Kass MA, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ et al. · Archives of Ophthalmology · 2002

The randomized OHTS trial included 1,636 people aged 40-80 with elevated IOP but no signs of glaucoma. The group treated with IOP-lowering medication achieved a mean pressure reduction of 22.5% (±9.9%). After 5 years of follow-up, 4.4% of treated participants developed primary open-angle glaucoma versus 9.5% in the observation-only group — a more-than-twofold, statistically significant difference. The authors stressed, however, that the decision to start preventive treatment in people with ocular hypertension alone should be individualized based on the patient's overall risk profile, rather than applied routinely to everyone with borderline elevated IOP.

View study

OHTS is one of the most frequently cited studies in all of ophthalmology, because it was the first to show, in such a large, well-controlled trial, a direct causal relationship: lowering IOP genuinely reduces the risk of developing glaucoma, not merely correlates with it in observational data. That's a result of major clinical significance, but it isn't an argument for self-monitoring eye pressure at home — measuring IOP requires specialized equipment (a tonometer) and is performed in an ophthalmologist's office, and treatment decisions always belong to the physician.

What else predicts disease progression — further findings from the OHTS trial

The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma

Strong evidence

Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD et al. · Archives of Ophthalmology · 2002

Analysis of the same OHTS cohort found that independent, statistically significant predictors of developing primary open-angle glaucoma were: older age, a larger optic nerve cup-to-disc ratio, higher baseline IOP, greater pattern standard deviation on visual field testing, and — a particularly notable finding — thinner central corneal thickness (CCT). Thin cornea turned out to be one of the single strongest predictors in the entire study.

View study

The importance of corneal thickness has a dual basis. First, a thinner cornea causes a standard applanation tonometer to underestimate IOP — in someone with a thin cornea, the actual intraocular pressure may be higher than the measurement indicates, which without correction leads to underestimating risk. Second, there's evidence that a thin cornea reflects the overall biomechanical vulnerability of the eye's connective tissue, including the optic nerve's lamina cribrosa, meaning the same IOP level can cause greater structural damage. This is a good example of why glaucoma risk assessment shouldn't be limited to a single pressure reading — a full ophthalmological exam also includes assessment of the optic disc, visual field, and pachymetry (corneal thickness measurement).

Combining factors improves the accuracy of risk assessment

Strong evidence

No single parameter — neither IOP alone nor the appearance of the optic disc alone — predicts glaucoma development with high certainty in isolation from the others. It's precisely the combination of several independent factors from the OHTS trial that made it possible to build risk models that today help ophthalmologists decide which ocular-hypertension patients need closer monitoring or earlier treatment.

Age and family history — glaucoma has a real hereditary component

Age is the strongest non-modifiable risk factor for glaucoma — its prevalence rises with every decade of life, and markedly nonlinearly. In the classic American population study (the Baltimore Eye Survey, described in more detail in the next section), the age-specific prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma rose from 0.92% in the 40-49 age group to 2.16% after age 80 among white individuals, and from 1.23% to as high as 11.26% in the same age ranges among Black individuals. Age 40+ is therefore widely accepted as the threshold at which routine glaucoma risk assessment begins as part of a comprehensive eye exam.

Family history and risk of primary open angle glaucoma. The Baltimore Eye Survey

Moderate evidence

Tielsch JM, Katz J, Sommer A, Quigley HA, Javitt JC · Archives of Ophthalmology · 1994

The analysis covered 5,308 Baltimore residents aged 40 and older, among whom 161 glaucoma cases were identified. Age-adjusted odds ratios (OR) for the association between glaucoma and a positive family history were: 3.69 for a sibling of an affected person, 2.17 for a parent, and 1.12 for a child. The authors noted that studies conducted among patients already presenting to eye clinics (rather than in the general population) systematically overstate the strength of this association, partly because people aware of their family history are more likely to seek out screening.

View study

The highest odds ratio being for siblings (rather than parents or children) is consistent with what one would expect for a disease with a partly polygenic basis shared within the same generation and often the same environment. In practice, this means someone whose sibling has glaucoma should treat that as a clear signal for earlier and more frequent eye exams — regardless of whether they themselves feel any symptoms, because the absence of symptoms rules nothing out in this disease.

Differences in prevalence between ethnic groups

Racial variations in the prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma. The Baltimore Eye Survey

Strong evidence

Tielsch JM, Sommer A, Katz J, Royall RM, Quigley HA, Javitt J · JAMA · 1991

This screening study covered 5,308 people (2,395 Black and 2,913 white). Age-adjusted prevalence of primary open-angle glaucoma was 4-5 times higher in Black individuals than in white individuals, ranging from 1.23% (ages 40-49) to 11.26% (ages 80+) in the Black population, versus 0.92%-2.16% in the white population across the same age groups.

View study

This isn't an isolated observation from three decades ago — the global meta-analysis from 2014 mentioned earlier confirmed the same direction in a much larger, international sample: people of African descent had significantly higher risk of primary open-angle glaucoma than people of European descent, and regionally the highest prevalence was recorded in Africa. The mechanism behind this difference isn't fully explained — it likely involves differences in corneal thickness, optic disc structure, and genetic factors rather than a single cause.

Group statistics don't replace individual assessment

Higher population risk in a given ethnic group doesn't mean every person from that group will develop the disease, nor that people outside it are risk-free. This is epidemiological data that matters for setting general screening recommendations (see the section on exam frequency below), not a tool for individual diagnosis — real risk for any given person is always determined by their full clinical picture.

Myopia — an underrated risk factor

Myopia as a risk factor for open-angle glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Moderate evidence

Marcus MW, de Vries MM, Junoy Montolio FG, Jansonius NM · Ophthalmology · 2011

This meta-analysis of 13 observational studies covered a combined 48,161 participants. Low myopia (up to -3 diopters) was associated with an odds ratio of 1.65 for open-angle glaucoma, while high myopia (≤-3 diopters) carried an odds ratio of 2.46. The association was therefore dose-dependent on the degree of refractive error: the stronger the myopia, the higher the risk.

View study

The leading mechanistic hypothesis links this risk to the structure of the myopic eye itself: an elongated eyeball has a thinner sclera and a differently shaped lamina cribrosa of the optic nerve, making the nerve tissue more vulnerable to damage at a given IOP level than in an eye of normal axial length. This is practically significant, because myopia is common, well known to patients (unlike, say, subtle visual field changes), and easy to mention to a doctor — someone with high myopia should directly ask their ophthalmologist about glaucoma risk assessment during a routine visit for vision correction, rather than treating it as a separate, optional topic.

Check your profile

Not sure which supplements actually make sense for you?

Answer a few short questions about your lifestyle, diet, sleep, and goals. VitMode will build your profile and show supplements worth considering — with reasoning and evidence strength.

Takes about 2 minutesBased on scientific evidence

Recommendations take your answers and the strength of the scientific evidence into account. A supplement's popularity has no bearing on whether it gets recommended.

Diabetes and metabolic disease

Diabetes mellitus as a risk factor for open-angle glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Moderate evidence

Zhou M, Wang W, Huang W, Zhang X · PLoS ONE · 2014

This meta-analysis covered 13 studies (7 case-control and 6 cohort). Diabetes was associated with significantly elevated risk of primary open-angle glaucoma — the pooled relative risk in cohort studies was 1.40, and the pooled odds ratio in case-control studies was 1.49. The authors also noted that longer diabetes duration was consistently associated with higher risk across different study types.

View study

The link between diabetes and glaucoma is most often explained by microdamage to the blood vessels supplying the optic nerve and disturbances in ocular blood-flow autoregulation, mechanistically similar to those underlying diabetic retinopathy — though that's a different, separate complication. People with type 2 diabetes, covered in more detail in our knowledge-base entry on diabetes, therefore have double reason for regular eye check-ups: not just because of retinopathy risk, but also glaucoma risk, and one fundus exam doesn't automatically substitute for the other — it's worth explicitly asking your ophthalmologist whether the visit also assesses glaucoma risk, not just retinal status.

Blood pressure — both hypertension and excessively low pressure matter

This is an area where my own clinical experience as a cardiologist overlaps with ophthalmology — not in the sense of diagnosing or treating glaucoma, which firmly remains the domain of ophthalmologists, but in understanding how systemic blood pressure and its fluctuations can affect tissue blood supply, including the optic nerve. It's worth stressing clearly: the relationship between blood pressure and glaucoma is neither simple nor unidirectional.

Systemic hypertension as a risk factor for open-angle glaucoma: a meta-analysis of population-based studies

Moderate evidence

Bae HW, Lee N, Lee HS, Hong S, Seong GJ, Kim CY · PLoS ONE · 2014

This meta-analysis of 16 population-based studies showed that arterial hypertension is associated with elevated risk of open-angle glaucoma — the pooled odds ratio was 1.22 for the whole group, and for the high-intraocular-pressure form of glaucoma (as distinct from normal-tension glaucoma) the association was stronger, with an odds ratio of 1.92. Results were consistent across both Asian and Western populations, with no signs of significant publication bias.

View study

At the same time, a growing body of data suggests that excessively low ocular perfusion pressure — the difference between arterial pressure and intraocular pressure — can also be a problem, specifically its nighttime drops. A small, prospective study by a Finnish-Malaysian team, following 65 patients with already-diagnosed normal-tension glaucoma for 5 years, found that low nocturnal diastolic ocular perfusion pressure (below 35 mmHg) was an independent predictor of visual field loss progression, compared with patients whose values stayed above 43.7 mmHg.

A U-shaped relationship, not a straight line

Early-stage evidence

This is preliminary data, based on a small sample, concerning already-diagnosed normal-tension glaucoma patients — it doesn't prove that low blood pressure by itself causes glaucoma in healthy people, only that in some patients with diagnosed disease, overly aggressive lowering of arterial pressure — especially at night, e.g., from antihypertensive medication taken in the evening — may worsen blood supply to the optic nerve. This is important practical information for patients being treated simultaneously for hypertension and glaucoma — the timing of antihypertensive medication is worth discussing with both a cardiologist and an ophthalmologist together, not deciding on your own.

Steroids — an underrated source of secondary glaucoma

Corticosteroids and glaucoma risk

Moderate evidence

Tripathi RC, Parapuram SK, Tripathi BJ, Zhong Y, Chalam KV · Drugs & Aging · 1999

This review found that 18-36% of the general population responds to steroids with elevated intraocular pressure (so-called "steroid responders"), and that proportion rises to 46-92% among people with already-diagnosed primary open-angle glaucoma. Additional factors the authors identified as increasing risk of steroid-induced glaucoma included age over 40, diabetes, high myopia, and a positive family history of glaucoma — largely the same risk groups described in earlier sections of this article.

View study

The mechanism involves morphological and functional changes in the trabecular meshwork — the structure responsible for draining aqueous humor from the eye — similar to those observed in naturally occurring glaucoma. The practical significance of this fact is often underappreciated: steroids used chronically, not just as eye drops but also inhaled (e.g., for asthma), intranasally (for allergic rhinitis), or systemically, can raise IOP, and patients rarely connect these medications with ophthalmological risk. Anyone taking steroids chronically for any reason, especially with another risk factor from this article, should mention it to their ophthalmologist at a check-up.

Who should get checked, and how often — prevention in practice

Because primary open-angle glaucoma in most cases gives no subjective symptoms for years, the only real prevention tool is a regular, comprehensive eye exam — not just a quick "eye pressure" check at an optical shop's vision test, but a full assessment including the fundus, optic disc, and ideally the visual field. Recommended intervals between exams differ depending on age and the presence of the risk factors described above.

Approximate intervals between eye exams (based on American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines)

  • No known risk factors, age under 40: a comprehensive eye exam every 5-10 years
  • No symptoms or risk factors, age 40-54: a baseline exam at age 40, then every 2-4 years
  • Elevated risk (positive family history, African descent, high myopia, diabetes), age under 40: every 2-4 years
  • Elevated risk, age 40-54: every 1-3 years
  • Elevated risk, age 55-64: every 1-2 years
  • The final interval is always set individually by the ophthalmologist, based on the full clinical picture, not just age

It's also worth mentioning one practical, though secondary, detail: caffeine at doses above roughly 100 mg (in practice, more than one standard cup of coffee) can transiently raise IOP in people with already-diagnosed glaucoma or ocular hypertension, though it doesn't produce this effect in healthy people. This isn't an argument for giving up coffee entirely — we've written more about that in our entry on caffeine — but people already diagnosed with or monitored for elevated IOP might, after consulting their ophthalmologist, consider moderating caffeine intake on the day of an IOP check-up, to avoid a falsely elevated reading.

Practical takeaways for the reader

  • After age 40, it's worth scheduling a baseline, comprehensive eye exam, even without any visual complaints
  • People whose parents or siblings have glaucoma should mention this to their ophthalmologist and consider more frequent check-ups than age alone would suggest
  • High myopia, diabetes, and African descent are additional reasons not to delay the first comprehensive exam and to ask directly about glaucoma risk assessment
  • Chronic steroid use in any form (drops, inhaled, systemic) is worth mentioning to your ophthalmologist as a potential risk factor
  • People being treated simultaneously for hypertension and glaucoma should discuss the timing of antihypertensive medication with their cardiologist and ophthalmologist together, not modify it on their own
  • The absence of symptoms is not a reason to delay an exam — that's a characteristic feature of this disease, not a sign of its absence

Limitations of this evidence

What this review doesn't prove

Most of the associations described here are epidemiological (observational) in nature — apart from the OHTS trial, which is randomized and supports talking about a causal relationship between lowering IOP and reducing risk, the other factors (age, family history, myopia, diabetes, blood pressure) show correlation, and not always a fully explained causal mechanism. Odds ratios in the range of 1.2-2.5 for individual factors mean moderately elevated relative risk, not certainty of developing the disease — most people with a single risk factor will never develop glaucoma. Data on nocturnal ocular perfusion pressure comes from a very small sample (65 people) and concerns progression in already-affected patients, not prevention of onset in healthy people. Nothing in this article substitutes for an individual ophthalmological assessment or serves as a basis for self-diagnosis.

Risk factorStrength of association (study)
Elevated IOPIOP reduction lowered 5-year risk from 9.5% to 4.4% (OHTS, Kass et al. 2002)
AgePrevalence rises from ~1% (ages 40-49) to over 2-11% (ages 80+), depending on ethnic group (Tielsch et al. 1991)
Family history (sibling)OR 3.69 (Tielsch et al. 1994)
African descent4-5x higher prevalence than in white individuals (Tielsch et al. 1991); confirmed globally (Tham et al. 2014)
High myopia (≤-3 D)OR 2.46 (Marcus et al. 2011)
DiabetesRR 1.40 (cohort) / OR 1.49 (case-control) (Zhou et al. 2014)
Arterial hypertensionOR 1.22 overall, OR 1.92 for high-IOP glaucoma (Bae et al. 2014)
Chronic steroid useUp to 46-92% "responders" among people with glaucoma (Tripathi et al. 1999)

Primary open-angle glaucoma risk factors in brief

Our editorial recommendation

Glaucoma is one of the few serious eye diseases for which an ordinary reader — without any medical training — can take real, effective preventive action, though not through supplements or home remedies, but through one simple decision: a regular, comprehensive eye exam tailored to their own risk profile. Data from the OHTS trial show that early detection and treatment genuinely reduces the risk of disease progression — but the precondition is precisely early detection, which, given the disease's symptomless course, depends entirely on whether the person actually shows up for an exam before noticeable vision loss appears.

If you have a family member with glaucoma, have diabetes, high myopia, or take steroids chronically, treat that as a concrete signal rather than a general curiosity — and schedule an eye exam, even if your vision subjectively seems fine. It's precisely in this group of people that early detection has the greatest clinical significance.

In glaucoma, the most dangerous thing isn't the risk factor itself, but the false sense of security that comes from having no symptoms. A regular eye exam tailored to your own risk profile is the only prevention that actually works.

Dr. Katarzyna Lewandowska, VitMode editorial team

Frequently asked questions

No. Ocular hypertension (elevated IOP without signs of optic nerve damage) and glaucoma are two different diagnoses. In the OHTS trial, after 5 years of observation without treatment, 9.5% of people with ocular hypertension alone developed glaucoma — meaning the large majority did not, though the risk was significantly higher than in the treated group (4.4%). The decision about preventive treatment for elevated IOP alone is made individually by an ophthalmologist, taking other risk factors into account.

Not always. There's a condition called normal-tension glaucoma, in which optic nerve damage occurs despite IOP within the statistically normal range. That's why a comprehensive eye exam also assesses the appearance of the optic disc and the visual field, not just the pressure reading alone.

No. The Marcus et al. (2011) meta-analysis showed elevated relative risk (OR 1.65 for low myopia and 2.46 for high myopia), but that's not certainty of developing the disease — it's a signal to directly ask your ophthalmologist about glaucoma risk assessment during a visit for vision correction, especially after age 40.

It has a documented, real familial component — the Baltimore Eye Survey found an odds ratio of 3.69 for a sibling of an affected person, 2.17 for a parent, and 1.12 for a child. This isn't inheritance in a simple, single-gene sense, but it's a strong enough signal that people with a positive family history, especially involving a sibling, should have their eyes checked more often than age alone would suggest.

Meta-analyses show that caffeine doses above roughly 100 mg can transiently raise IOP in people with already-diagnosed glaucoma or ocular hypertension, though it doesn't produce this effect in healthy people. This isn't a reason to give up coffee entirely, but it's worth discussing with your ophthalmologist whether it matters in your individual case — especially on the day of an IOP check-up.

The relationship is more complex than a simple "the lower, the better." Arterial hypertension is associated with elevated glaucoma risk (OR 1.22-1.92, Bae et al. 2014), but in patients already diagnosed with normal-tension glaucoma, excessively low nocturnal ocular perfusion pressure was linked, in a small study, to faster disease progression. The timing and intensity of hypertension treatment in people with glaucoma is a topic to discuss together with a cardiologist and ophthalmologist, not to modify on your own.

Yes, potentially — the mechanism by which steroids raise IOP isn't limited to eye drops; it also applies to inhaled, intranasal, and systemic steroids, though the risk and strength of the effect depend on dose, duration of use, and individual sensitivity (the so-called "steroid responder" phenomenon). Anyone taking steroids chronically for any reason should mention it to their ophthalmologist at a check-up.

According to American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines, a baseline comprehensive eye exam is recommended at age 40 even without symptoms or risk factors, and earlier and more frequently when they're present (family history, African descent, high myopia, diabetes) — as often as every 2-4 years even before age 40.

Sources

KL

dr Katarzyna Lewandowska

Specialist physician in cardiology, cardiovascular-prevention consultant

Katarzyna works as a cardiologist at a Warsaw teaching hospital and has spent years focused on cardiovascular prevention — trying, as she puts it, to convince people to change their habits before they end up on her ward, not after. She joined VitMode after a series of conversations with Anna at a lifestyle-medicine conference, where the two discovered they shared the same frustration: an internet full of contradictory claims about cholesterol, aspirin and heart supplements, with no clear signal of what's actually backed by research. She reviews content on cardiovascular health, lipid panels and pharmacological prevention, consistently distinguishing what helps a statistical population from what makes sense for a specific person. Off duty, she road-cycles — not for performance, but because, in her words, it's hard to write credibly about prevention without practicing it yourself.

Related articles

Rzędy probówek z próbkami krwi w stojaku laboratoryjnym

5 Biomarkers Worth Knowing Before 40 — Signals Before Symptoms Appear

A standard "once-a-year blood count" often misses early signs of metabolic and hormonal issues. Here are five markers worth asking your doctor about, before anything starts to hurt.

7 min

August 1, 2026

Śpiące dziecko w przytulnym pokoju

Melatonin and Migraine in Children: Can a Supplement Replace Preventive Medication?

Migraine in children can seriously disrupt school, sleep, and daily life, and parents looking for a gentler alternative to prescription drugs increasingly come across melatonin as a preventive option. A carefully designed, randomized, placebo-controlled trial from the University of California, San Francisco, however, tells a much less clear-cut story than popular articles suggesting a ready-made solution.

11 min

September 2, 2026

Szklanka soku żurawinowego z owocami

Cranberry and Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections: What Does the Updated Cochrane Review Show?

For years cranberry had a reputation as a home remedy for recurrent urinary tract infections, even though earlier large systematic reviews were skeptical about it. The latest, fifth update of the Cochrane review, from 2023 — now covering 50 studies and nearly 9,000 participants — changes that picture: in women with recurrent infections, cranberry products probably do meaningfully reduce the risk of another episode, though the effect is moderate and not visible in every patient group.

12 min

September 2, 2026

Personel medyczny trzymający próbkę krwi w rękawiczkach

How to Prepare for a Fasting Blood Test — What to Eat and Drink the Day Before

An analysis of results from 209,180 people found that fasting duration before a blood draw had a surprisingly small effect on total cholesterol — which challenges some common beliefs about how strictly you need to prepare for a routine blood test. Here's a practical guide to what actually matters the day before and on the day of the test.

11 min

September 3, 2026

Related knowledge base entries

Comments (2)

  • KW

    Kasia W. 2 weeks ago

    Very clearly explained, especially the interactions section — I hadn't seen it laid out this well anywhere else.

  • MT

    Marek T. a month ago

    Are you planning to update this with the newest study from this year? I saw an interesting meta-analysis.