Stephanie A Hagstrom1, Gui-Shuang Ying2, Gayle J T Pauer3, Gwen M Sturgill-Short3, Jiayan Huang2, David G Callanan4, Ivana K Kim5, Michael L Klein6, Maureen G Maguire2, Daniel F Martin3. 1. Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Ophthalmology, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: hagstrs@ccf.org. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Texas Retina Associates, Arlington, Texas. 5. Retina Service, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health Sciences Center, Portland, Oregon.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the pharmacogenetic relationship between genotypes of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) known to be associated with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and response to treatment with ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) or bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech) for neovascular AMD. DESIGN: Clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Eight hundred thirty-four (73%) of 1149 patients participating in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) were recruited through 43 CATT clinical centers. METHODS: Each patient was genotyped for SNPs rs1061170 (CFH), rs10490924 (ARMS2), rs11200638 (HTRA1), and rs2230199 (C3), using TaqMan SNP genotyping assays (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Genotypic frequencies were compared with clinical measures of response to therapy at one year, including mean visual acuity (VA), mean change in VA, 15-letter or more increase in VA, retinal thickness, mean change in total foveal thickness, presence of fluid on OCT, presence of leakage on fluorescein angiography (FA), mean change in lesion size, and mean number of injections administered. Differences in response by genotype were evaluated with tests of linear trend calculated from logistic regression models for categorical outcomes and linear regression models for continuous outcomes. To adjust for multiple comparisons, P≤0.01 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in response by genotype were identified for any of the clinical measures studied. Specifically, there were no high-risk alleles that predicted final VA or change in VA, the degree of anatomic response (fluid on OCT or FA, retinal thickness, change in total foveal thickness, change in lesion size), or the number of injections. Furthermore, a stepwise analysis failed to show a significant epistatic interaction among the variants analyzed; that is, response did not vary by the number of risk alleles present. The lack of association was similar whether patients were treated with ranibizumab or bevacizumab or whether they received monthly or pro re nata dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Although specific alleles for CFH, ARMS2, HTRA1, and C3 may predict the development of AMD, they did not predict response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the pharmacogenetic relationship between genotypes of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) known to be associated with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and response to treatment with ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) or bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech) for neovascular AMD. DESIGN: Clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Eight hundred thirty-four (73%) of 1149 patients participating in the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials (CATT) were recruited through 43 CATT clinical centers. METHODS: Each patient was genotyped for SNPs rs1061170 (CFH), rs10490924 (ARMS2), rs11200638 (HTRA1), and rs2230199 (C3), using TaqMan SNP genotyping assays (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Genotypic frequencies were compared with clinical measures of response to therapy at one year, including mean visual acuity (VA), mean change in VA, 15-letter or more increase in VA, retinal thickness, mean change in total foveal thickness, presence of fluid on OCT, presence of leakage on fluorescein angiography (FA), mean change in lesion size, and mean number of injections administered. Differences in response by genotype were evaluated with tests of linear trend calculated from logistic regression models for categorical outcomes and linear regression models for continuous outcomes. To adjust for multiple comparisons, P≤0.01 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in response by genotype were identified for any of the clinical measures studied. Specifically, there were no high-risk alleles that predicted final VA or change in VA, the degree of anatomic response (fluid on OCT or FA, retinal thickness, change in total foveal thickness, change in lesion size), or the number of injections. Furthermore, a stepwise analysis failed to show a significant epistatic interaction among the variants analyzed; that is, response did not vary by the number of risk alleles present. The lack of association was similar whether patients were treated with ranibizumab or bevacizumab or whether they received monthly or pro re nata dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Although specific alleles for CFH, ARMS2, HTRA1, and C3 may predict the development of AMD, they did not predict response to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy.
Authors: Lucia Sobrin; Robyn Reynolds; Yi Yu; Jesen Fagerness; Nicolas Leveziel; Paul S Bernstein; Eric H Souied; Mark J Daly; Johanna M Seddon Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Martin McKibbin; Manir Ali; Shveta Bansal; Paul D Baxter; Kumi West; Grange Williams; Frances Cassidy; Chris F Inglehearn Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Anton Orlin; Dexter Hadley; Woohyok Chang; Allen C Ho; Gary Brown; Richard S Kaiser; Carl D Regillo; Ashlee N Godshalk; Audun Lier; Brian Kaderli; Dwight Stambolian Journal: Retina Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Atsuhiro Kanda; Wei Chen; Mohammad Othman; Kari E H Branham; Matthew Brooks; Ritu Khanna; Shirley He; Robert Lyons; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Anand Swaroop Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-09-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Milam A Brantley; Amy M Fang; Jennifer M King; Asheesh Tewari; Steven M Kymes; Alan Shiels Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Stephanie A Hagstrom; Gui-shuang Ying; Gayle J T Pauer; Gwen M Sturgill-Short; Jiayan Huang; Maureen G Maguire; Daniel F Martin Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Laura Lorés-Motta; Moeen Riaz; Michelle Grunin; Jordi Corominas; Freekje van Asten; Marc Pauper; Mathieu Leenders; Andrea J Richardson; Philipp Muether; Angela J Cree; Helen L Griffiths; Connie Pham; Marie-Claude Belanger; Magda A Meester-Smoor; Manir Ali; Iris M Heid; Lars G Fritsche; Usha Chakravarthy; Richard Gale; Martin McKibbin; Chris F Inglehearn; Reinier O Schlingemann; Amer Omar; John Chen; Robert K Koenekoop; Sascha Fauser; Robyn H Guymer; Carel B Hoyng; Eiko K de Jong; Andrew J Lotery; Paul Mitchell; Anneke I den Hollander; Paul N Baird; Itay Chowers Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Gui-shuang Ying; Maureen G Maguire; Ebenezer Daniel; Frederick L Ferris; Glenn J Jaffe; Juan E Grunwald; Cynthia A Toth; Jiayan Huang; Daniel F Martin Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Stephanie A Hagstrom; Gui-Shuang Ying; Gayle J T Pauer; Jiayan Huang; Maureen G Maguire; Daniel F Martin Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Chandrasekharam N Nagineni; Vijay K Kommineni; Nader Ganjbaksh; Krishnasai K Nagineni; John J Hooks; Barbara Detrick Journal: Aging Dis Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 6.745