Johanna M Seddon1, Robyn Reynolds, Yi Yu, Bernard Rosner. 1. Ophthalmic Epidemiology and Genetics Service, New England Eye Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA 02111, USA. jseddon@tuftsmedicalcenter.org
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Risk score models predicting the progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) to its advanced forms may be useful for targeting high-risk individuals for lifestyle changes that reduce risk for AMD progression, helping with differential diagnosis of AMD and its subtypes, identifying high-risk subjects for participation in clinical trials, and selecting appropriate therapies. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a predictive model for progression to advanced stages of AMD in 2 independent cohorts. DESIGN Participants in a validation cohort and an independent derivation population were classified into 5 stages of AMD based on ocular examination and fundus photographs at baseline. Progression was defined as either eye progressing from stage 1, 2, or 3 to either stage 4 or stage 5 at any follow-up visit to the end of the study. Cox proportional hazards models were used for progression analyses. Covariates included demographic and environmental factors, 6 variants in 5 genes, and baseline AMD grades in both eyes. The algorithm developed with the derivation sample was assessed for calibration and discrimination in the validation data set. SETTING: Clinic populations and referrals. PARTICIPANTS: The derivation population comprised 2914 subjects with 809 progressors. The independent validation cohort comprised 980 individuals with no, early, or intermediate AMD in at least one eye at baseline, of whom 294 progressed to advanced stages of geographic atrophy or neovascular disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Progression to advanced AMD. RESULTS For the model with all nongenetic and genetic factors, the respective C statistics for progression to advanced AMD in the derivation and validation samples were 0.858 and 0.750 at 5 years and 0.884 and 0.809 at 10 years, and models also discriminated risk for progression to geographic atrophy and neovascular disease separately. For unilateral or bilateral intermediate AMD, 5-year cumulative incidence rates of progression to advanced AMD were 10% with the low-risk score and 50% with the high-risk score; for unilateral advanced disease, the progression rates were 22% and 80% for the fellow eye. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The risk prediction model was validated in an independent study of progression from no, early, or intermediate stages to advanced subtypes of AMD and will be useful for research, clinical trials, and personalized medicine.
IMPORTANCE: Risk score models predicting the progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) to its advanced forms may be useful for targeting high-risk individuals for lifestyle changes that reduce risk for AMD progression, helping with differential diagnosis of AMD and its subtypes, identifying high-risk subjects for participation in clinical trials, and selecting appropriate therapies. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a predictive model for progression to advanced stages of AMD in 2 independent cohorts. DESIGN Participants in a validation cohort and an independent derivation population were classified into 5 stages of AMD based on ocular examination and fundus photographs at baseline. Progression was defined as either eye progressing from stage 1, 2, or 3 to either stage 4 or stage 5 at any follow-up visit to the end of the study. Cox proportional hazards models were used for progression analyses. Covariates included demographic and environmental factors, 6 variants in 5 genes, and baseline AMD grades in both eyes. The algorithm developed with the derivation sample was assessed for calibration and discrimination in the validation data set. SETTING: Clinic populations and referrals. PARTICIPANTS: The derivation population comprised 2914 subjects with 809 progressors. The independent validation cohort comprised 980 individuals with no, early, or intermediate AMD in at least one eye at baseline, of whom 294 progressed to advanced stages of geographic atrophy or neovascular disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Progression to advanced AMD. RESULTS For the model with all nongenetic and genetic factors, the respective C statistics for progression to advanced AMD in the derivation and validation samples were 0.858 and 0.750 at 5 years and 0.884 and 0.809 at 10 years, and models also discriminated risk for progression to geographic atrophy and neovascular disease separately. For unilateral or bilateral intermediate AMD, 5-year cumulative incidence rates of progression to advanced AMD were 10% with the low-risk score and 50% with the high-risk score; for unilateral advanced disease, the progression rates were 22% and 80% for the fellow eye. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The risk prediction model was validated in an independent study of progression from no, early, or intermediate stages to advanced subtypes of AMD and will be useful for research, clinical trials, and personalized medicine.
Authors: Robert J Klein; Caroline Zeiss; Emily Y Chew; Jen-Yue Tsai; Richard S Sackler; Chad Haynes; Alice K Henning; John Paul SanGiovanni; Shrikant M Mane; Susan T Mayne; Michael B Bracken; Frederick L Ferris; Jurg Ott; Colin Barnstable; Josephine Hoh Journal: Science Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Johanna Jakobsdottir; Yvette P Conley; Daniel E Weeks; Tammy S Mah; Robert E Ferrell; Michael B Gorin Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2005-07-26 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Andrea Rivera; Sheila A Fisher; Lars G Fritsche; Claudia N Keilhauer; Peter Lichtner; Thomas Meitinger; Bernhard H F Weber Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2005-09-20 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Jonathan L Haines; Michael A Hauser; Silke Schmidt; William K Scott; Lana M Olson; Paul Gallins; Kylee L Spencer; Shu Ying Kwan; Maher Noureddine; John R Gilbert; Nathalie Schnetz-Boutaud; Anita Agarwal; Eric A Postel; Margaret A Pericak-Vance Journal: Science Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Gregory S Hageman; Don H Anderson; Lincoln V Johnson; Lisa S Hancox; Andrew J Taiber; Lisa I Hardisty; Jill L Hageman; Heather A Stockman; James D Borchardt; Karen M Gehrs; Richard J H Smith; Giuliana Silvestri; Stephen R Russell; Caroline C W Klaver; Irene Barbazetto; Stanley Chang; Lawrence A Yannuzzi; Gaetano R Barile; John C Merriam; R Theodore Smith; Adam K Olsh; Julie Bergeron; Jana Zernant; Joanna E Merriam; Bert Gold; Michael Dean; Rando Allikmets Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-05-03 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Ying Ding; Yi Liu; Qi Yan; Lars G Fritsche; Richard J Cook; Traci Clemons; Rinki Ratnapriya; Michael L Klein; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Anand Swaroop; Emily Y Chew; Daniel E Weeks; Wei Chen Journal: Genetics Date: 2017-03-24 Impact factor: 4.562
Authors: Lars G Fritsche; Robert N Fariss; Dwight Stambolian; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Christine A Curcio; Anand Swaroop Journal: Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 8.929
Authors: Joseph M Simonett; Mahsa A Sohrab; Jennifer Pacheco; Loren L Armstrong; Margarita Rzhetskaya; Maureen Smith; M Geoffrey Hayes; Amani A Fawzi Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Francesco Parmeggiani; Francesco S Sorrentino; Mario R Romano; Ciro Costagliola; Francesco Semeraro; Carlo Incorvaia; Sergio D'Angelo; Paolo Perri; Katia De Nadai; Elia Bonomo Roversi; Paola Franceschelli; Adolfo Sebastiani; Michele Rubini Journal: Mediators Inflamm Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 4.711
Authors: Morad Ansari; Paul M McKeigue; Christine Skerka; Caroline Hayward; Igor Rudan; Veronique Vitart; Ozren Polasek; Ana-Maria Armbrecht; John R W Yates; Zoran Vatavuk; Goran Bencic; Ivana Kolcic; Ben A Oostra; Cornelia M Van Duijn; Susan Campbell; Chloe M Stanton; Jennifer Huffman; Xinhua Shu; Jane C Khan; Humma Shahid; Simon P Harding; Paul N Bishop; Ian J Deary; Anthony T Moore; Baljean Dhillon; Pavao Rudan; Peter F Zipfel; Robert B Sim; Nicholas D Hastie; Harry Campbell; Alan F Wright Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2013-07-19 Impact factor: 6.150