PURPOSE: The accuracy of predicting conversion from early-stage age-related macular degeneration (AMD) to the advanced stages of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) or geographic atrophy (GA) was evaluated to determine whether inclusion of clinically relevant genetic markers improved accuracy beyond prediction using phenotypic risk factors alone. DESIGN: Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: White, non-Hispanic subjects participating in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) sponsored by the National Eye Institute consented to provide a genetic specimen. Of 2415 DNA specimens available, 940 were from disease-free subjects and 1475 were from subjects with early or intermediate AMD. METHODS:DNA specimens from study subjects were genotyped for 14 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes shown previously to associate with CNV: ARMS2, CFH, C3, C2, FB, CFHR4, CFHR5, and F13B. Clinical demographics and established disease associations, including age, sex, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), AREDS treatment category, and educational level, were evaluated. Four multivariate logistic models (phenotype; genotype; phenotype + genotype; and phenotype + genotype + demographic + environmental factors) were tested using 2 end points (CNV, GA). Models were fitted using Cox proportional hazards regression to use time-to-disease onset data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Brier score (measure of accuracy) was used to identify the model with the lowest prediction error in the training set. The most accurate model was subjected to independent statistical validation, and final model performance was described using area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) or C-statistic. RESULTS: The CNV prediction models that combined genotype with phenotype with or without age and smoking revealed superior performance (C-statistic = 0.96) compared with the phenotype model based on the simplified severity scale and the presence of CNV in the nonstudy eye (C-statistic = 0.89; P<0.01). For GA, the model that combined genotype with phenotype demonstrated the highest performance (AUC = 0.94). Smoking status and ARMS2 genotype had less of an impact on the prediction of GA compared with CNV. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of genotype assessment improves CNV prediction beyond that achievable with phenotype alone and may improve patient management. Separate assessments should be used to predict progression to CNV and GA because genetic markers and smoking status do not equally predict both end points. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The accuracy of predicting conversion from early-stage age-related macular degeneration (AMD) to the advanced stages of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) or geographic atrophy (GA) was evaluated to determine whether inclusion of clinically relevant genetic markers improved accuracy beyond prediction using phenotypic risk factors alone. DESIGN: Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: White, non-Hispanic subjects participating in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) sponsored by the National Eye Institute consented to provide a genetic specimen. Of 2415 DNA specimens available, 940 were from disease-free subjects and 1475 were from subjects with early or intermediate AMD. METHODS: DNA specimens from study subjects were genotyped for 14 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes shown previously to associate with CNV: ARMS2, CFH, C3, C2, FB, CFHR4, CFHR5, and F13B. Clinical demographics and established disease associations, including age, sex, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), AREDS treatment category, and educational level, were evaluated. Four multivariate logistic models (phenotype; genotype; phenotype + genotype; and phenotype + genotype + demographic + environmental factors) were tested using 2 end points (CNV, GA). Models were fitted using Cox proportional hazards regression to use time-to-disease onset data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Brier score (measure of accuracy) was used to identify the model with the lowest prediction error in the training set. The most accurate model was subjected to independent statistical validation, and final model performance was described using area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) or C-statistic. RESULTS: The CNV prediction models that combined genotype with phenotype with or without age and smoking revealed superior performance (C-statistic = 0.96) compared with the phenotype model based on the simplified severity scale and the presence of CNV in the nonstudy eye (C-statistic = 0.89; P<0.01). For GA, the model that combined genotype with phenotype demonstrated the highest performance (AUC = 0.94). Smoking status and ARMS2 genotype had less of an impact on the prediction of GA compared with CNV. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of genotype assessment improves CNV prediction beyond that achievable with phenotype alone and may improve patient management. Separate assessments should be used to predict progression to CNV and GA because genetic markers and smoking status do not equally predict both end points. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
Authors: Philipp Sebastian Muether; Manuel M Hermann; Konrad Koch; Sascha Fauser Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2010-09-24 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Frederick L Ferris; Matthew D Davis; Traci E Clemons; Li-Yin Lee; Emily Y Chew; Anne S Lindblad; Roy C Milton; Susan B Bressler; Ronald Klein Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2005-11
Authors: Yuhong Chen; Jiexi Zeng; Chao Zhao; Kevin Wang; Elizabeth Trood; Jeanette Buehler; Matthew Weed; Daniel Kasuga; Paul S Bernstein; Guy Hughes; Victoria Fu; Jessica Chin; Clara Lee; Maureen Crocker; Matthew Bedell; Francesca Salasar; Zhenglin Yang; Michael Goldbaum; Henry Ferreyra; William R Freeman; Igor Kozak; Kang Zhang Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2011-03
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: Gregory S Hageman; Karen Gehrs; Serguei Lejnine; Aruna T Bansal; Margaret M Deangelis; Robyn H Guymer; Paul N Baird; Rando Allikmets; Cosmin Deciu; Paul Oeth; Lorah T Perlee Journal: Hum Genomics Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.639
Authors: Kylee L Spencer; Lana M Olson; Nathalie Schnetz-Boutaud; Paul Gallins; Anita Agarwal; Alessandro Iannaccone; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Melissa Garcia; Michael A Nalls; Anne B Newman; William K Scott; Margaret A Pericak-Vance; Jonathan L Haines Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240
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: Qi Yan; Ying Ding; Yi Liu; Tao Sun; Lars G Fritsche; Traci Clemons; Rinki Ratnapriya; Michael L Klein; Richard J Cook; Yu Liu; Ruzong Fan; Lai Wei; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Anand Swaroop; Emily Y Chew; Daniel E Weeks; Wei Chen Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Pingbo Zhang; Min Zhu; Minghui Geng-Spyropoulos; Michelle Shardell; Marta Gonzalez-Freire; Vilmundur Gudnason; Gudny Eiriksdottir; Debra Schaumberg; Jennifer E Van Eyk; Luigi Ferrucci; Richard D Semba Journal: Proteomics Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Margaret M DeAngelis; Leah A Owen; Margaux A Morrison; Denise J Morgan; Mingyao Li; Akbar Shakoor; Albert Vitale; Sudha Iyengar; Dwight Stambolian; Ivana K Kim; Lindsay A Farrer Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Lori A Lott; Marilyn E Schneck; Gunilla Haegerstrom-Portnoy; Susan Hewlett; Natalie Stepien-Bernabe; Bonnie M Gauer; Ali Zaidi; Arthur D Fu; John A Brabyn Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 1.648
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: Jessica N Cooke Bailey; Joshua D Hoffman; Rebecca J Sardell; William K Scott; Margaret A Pericak-Vance; Jonathan L Haines Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 4.241