BACKGROUND: To determine whether gene polymorphisms of the vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF A) and its receptor (VEGFR) influence the response to a variable-dosing treatment regimen with ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 94 patients (94 eyes) with exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treated with ranibizumab. Patients underwent a 1-year treatment as in the Study of Ranibizumab in Patients with Subfoveal Choroidal Neovascularization Secondary to Age-Related Macular Degeneration (SUSTAIN). Injections were administered monthly during 3 months to all the patients diagnosed of neovascular AMD; reinjections were made when a patient lost 5 letters on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart or gained 100 μm in central subfield retinal thickness measured by OCT. Genotypes (VEGF A (rs 699947, rs833061) and VEGFR (rs 2071559)) were analyzed using TaqMan probes. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), subjective improvement, and macular thickness measured with OCT values were compared with VEGF A and VEGFR genotypes. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the statistical significance. RESULTS: We found statistically significant differences in allelic distribution of VEGF A rs833061 polymorphism in relation with the response to intravitreal ranibizumab regarding to visual acuity improvement [p = 0,.34; OR: 1.619 (1.098-2.386)]. Patients carrying "protector" genotype CC had higher probability of best corrected visual acuity improvement. When we analyzed VEGF A rs699947 polymorphism we found that patients expressing AA genotype had a higher chance of increasing their best corrected visual acuity [p:0,022; OR 1,532 (1,015-2,313)]. We did not find statistically significant differences reagarding VEGFR rs2071559 polymorphism and treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Polymorphisms of VEGF A seem to influence the different response to antiangiogenic treatment in patients with AMD in our population, although further investigation is needed to know the mechanisms of this relationship.
BACKGROUND: To determine whether gene polymorphisms of the vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF A) and its receptor (VEGFR) influence the response to a variable-dosing treatment regimen with ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 94 patients (94 eyes) with exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treated with ranibizumab. Patients underwent a 1-year treatment as in the Study of Ranibizumab in Patients with Subfoveal Choroidal Neovascularization Secondary to Age-Related Macular Degeneration (SUSTAIN). Injections were administered monthly during 3 months to all the patients diagnosed of neovascular AMD; reinjections were made when a patient lost 5 letters on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart or gained 100 μm in central subfield retinal thickness measured by OCT. Genotypes (VEGF A (rs 699947, rs833061) and VEGFR (rs 2071559)) were analyzed using TaqMan probes. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), subjective improvement, and macular thickness measured with OCT values were compared with VEGF A and VEGFR genotypes. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the statistical significance. RESULTS: We found statistically significant differences in allelic distribution of VEGF Ars833061 polymorphism in relation with the response to intravitreal ranibizumab regarding to visual acuity improvement [p = 0,.34; OR: 1.619 (1.098-2.386)]. Patients carrying "protector" genotype CC had higher probability of best corrected visual acuity improvement. When we analyzed VEGF Ars699947 polymorphism we found that patients expressing AA genotype had a higher chance of increasing their best corrected visual acuity [p:0,022; OR 1,532 (1,015-2,313)]. We did not find statistically significant differences reagarding VEGFRrs2071559 polymorphism and treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Polymorphisms of VEGF A seem to influence the different response to antiangiogenic treatment in patients with AMD in our population, although further investigation is needed to know the mechanisms of this relationship.
Authors: Alessandro Galan; Alberto Ferlin; Luigi Caretti; Genny Buson; Giovanni Sato; Anna Chiara Frigo; Carlo Foresta Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Silke Schmidt; Michael A Hauser; William K Scott; Eric A Postel; Anita Agarwal; Paul Gallins; Frank Wong; Yu Sarah Chen; Kylee Spencer; Nathalie Schnetz-Boutaud; Jonathan L Haines; Margaret A Pericak-Vance Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 11.025
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: Jonathan L Haines; Nathalie Schnetz-Boutaud; Silke Schmidt; William K Scott; Anita Agarwal; Eric A Postel; Lana Olson; Shannon J Kenealy; Michael Hauser; John R Gilbert; Margaret A Pericak-Vance Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Agnes Boltz; Manuel Ruiß; Jost B Jonas; Yong Tao; Florian Rensch; Martin Weger; Gerhard Garhöfer; Sophie Frantal; Yosuf El-Shabrawi; Leopold Schmetterer Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-04-21 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Katarzyna Janik-Papis; Malgorzata Zaras; Anna Krzyzanowska; Katarzyna Wozniak; Janusz Blasiak; Jerzy Szaflik; Jacek P Szaflik Journal: Exp Mol Pathol Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 3.362
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: 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: Laura Lorés-Motta; Freekje van Asten; Philipp S Muether; Dzenita Smailhodzic; Joannes M Groenewoud; Amer Omar; John Chen; Robert K Koenekoop; Sascha Fauser; Carel B Hoyng; Anneke I den Hollander; Eiko K de Jong Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Haibo Wang; Xiaokun Han; Colin A Bretz; Silke Becker; Deeksha Gambhir; George W Smith; R Jude Samulski; Erika S Wittchen; Lawrence A Quilliam; Magdalena Chrzanowska-Wodnicka; M Elizabeth Hartnett Journal: Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 6.698
Authors: Aniket Ramshekar; Haibo Wang; Eric Kunz; Christian Pappas; Gregory S Hageman; Brahim Chaqour; David B Sacks; M Elizabeth Hartnett Journal: FASEB J Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 5.834