Cindy X Cai1, Kirsten G Locke2, Rithambara Ramachandran3, David G Birch4, Donald C Hood5. 1. College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States. 2. Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas, United States. 3. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States. 4. Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas, United States Department of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, United States. 5. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP), the inner segment ellipsoid zone (EZ; also known as the inner segment/outer segment [IS/OS] border) is a marker of the usable visual field at a given point in time and of the progression of the disease over time. Here we compare the change in the width per year of the EZ band in patients with autosomal dominant (ad) and x-linked (xl) RP. METHODS: Using optical coherence tomography (OCT), 9-mm horizontal and vertical line scans through the fovea were obtained for one eye of 26 xlRP patients and 33 adRP patients. Scans were repeated on average 2.0 years later (range, 0.6-4.8 years). Using a manual segmentation procedure, the EZ band was delineated and its horizontal width (HW) and vertical width (VW) were determined. RESULTS: The adRP and xlRP patients had similar initial EZ HW (xlRP: 11.8 ± 5.4°, adRP: 12.4 ± 6.3°, P = 0.69) and VW (xlRP: 8.5 ± 4.9°, adRP: 11.4 ± 7.1°, P = 0.09). However, between visits the absolute loss and percent loss of the EZ width per year was significantly greater for xlRP than adRP for both HW (xlRP: 1.0 ± 0.6°/y, 9.6 ± 5.6%/y; adRP: 0.4 ± 0.5°/y, 3.4 ± 5.4%/y; P < 0.001) and VW (xlRP: 0.8 ± 0.8°/y, 9.2 ± 8.9%/y; adRP: 0.3 ± 0.5°/y, 4.2 ± 6.4%/y; P < 0.01). There was a weak correlation between the loss of EZ width per year and the initial width for xlRP (r(2) = 0.17, P = 0.036), but no correlation for adRP (r(2) = 0.004, P = 0.73). The test-retest difference of EZ HW was 0.2 ± 0.5°. CONCLUSIONS: The OCT data here support a faster rate of loss per year in the case of xlRP. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00100230.). Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: In patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP), the inner segment ellipsoid zone (EZ; also known as the inner segment/outer segment [IS/OS] border) is a marker of the usable visual field at a given point in time and of the progression of the disease over time. Here we compare the change in the width per year of the EZ band in patients with autosomal dominant (ad) and x-linked (xl) RP. METHODS: Using optical coherence tomography (OCT), 9-mm horizontal and vertical line scans through the fovea were obtained for one eye of 26 xlRP patients and 33 adRP patients. Scans were repeated on average 2.0 years later (range, 0.6-4.8 years). Using a manual segmentation procedure, the EZ band was delineated and its horizontal width (HW) and vertical width (VW) were determined. RESULTS: The adRP and xlRP patients had similar initial EZ HW (xlRP: 11.8 ± 5.4°, adRP: 12.4 ± 6.3°, P = 0.69) and VW (xlRP: 8.5 ± 4.9°, adRP: 11.4 ± 7.1°, P = 0.09). However, between visits the absolute loss and percent loss of the EZ width per year was significantly greater for xlRP than adRP for both HW (xlRP: 1.0 ± 0.6°/y, 9.6 ± 5.6%/y; adRP: 0.4 ± 0.5°/y, 3.4 ± 5.4%/y; P < 0.001) and VW (xlRP: 0.8 ± 0.8°/y, 9.2 ± 8.9%/y; adRP: 0.3 ± 0.5°/y, 4.2 ± 6.4%/y; P < 0.01). There was a weak correlation between the loss of EZ width per year and the initial width for xlRP (r(2) = 0.17, P = 0.036), but no correlation for adRP (r(2) = 0.004, P = 0.73). The test-retest difference of EZ HW was 0.2 ± 0.5°. CONCLUSIONS: The OCT data here support a faster rate of loss per year in the case of xlRP. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00100230.). Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
Authors: Donald C Hood; Margot A Lazow; Kirsten G Locke; Vivienne C Greenstein; David G Birch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: David G Birch; Kirsten G Locke; Yuquan Wen; Kelly I Locke; Dennis R Hoffman; Donald C Hood Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Nalini V Rangaswamy; Hemaxi M Patel; Kirsten G Locke; Donald C Hood; David G Birch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2010-03-10 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Michael A Sandberg; Bernard Rosner; Carol Weigel-DiFranco; Thaddeus P Dryja; Eliot L Berson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Dennis R Hoffman; Dianna K Hughbanks-Wheaton; N Shirlene Pearson; Gary E Fish; Rand Spencer; Alison Takacs; Martin Klein; Kirsten G Locke; David G Birch Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Donald C Hood; Christine E Lin; Margot A Lazow; Kirsten G Locke; Xian Zhang; David G Birch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-11-14 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Donald C Hood; Rithambara Ramachandran; Karen Holopigian; Margot Lazow; David G Birch; Vivienne C Greenstein Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Rithambara Ramachandran; Lisa Zhou; Kirsten G Locke; David G Birch; Donald C Hood Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Wei Wang; Sang Joon Lee; Patrick A Scott; Xiaoqin Lu; Douglas Emery; Yongqin Liu; Toshihiko Ezashi; Michael R Roberts; Jason W Ross; Henry J Kaplan; Douglas C Dean Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Kelly Kiser; Kaylie D Webb-Jones; Sara J Bowne; Lori S Sullivan; Stephen P Daiger; David G Birch Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Peter A Campochiaro; Mustafa Iftikhar; Gulnar Hafiz; Anam Akhlaq; Grace Tsai; Dagmar Wehling; Lili Lu; G Michael Wall; Mandeep S Singh; Xiangrong Kong Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Ruben Jauregui; Karen Sophia Park; Jimmy K Duong; Janet R Sparrow; Stephen H Tsang Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: David G Birch; Paul S Bernstein; Alessandro Iannacone; Mark E Pennesi; Byron L Lam; John Heckenlively; Karl Csaky; Mary Elizabeth Hartnett; Kevin L Winthrop; Thiran Jayasundera; Dianna K Hughbanks-Wheaton; Judith Warner; Paul Yang; Gary Edd Fish; Michael P Teske; Neal L Sklaver; Laura Erker; Elvira Chegarnov; Travis Smith; Aimee Wahle; Paul C VanVeldhuisen; Jennifer McCormack; Robert Lindblad; Steven Bramer; Stephen Rose; Patricia Zilliox; Peter J Francis; Richard G Weleber Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Jason Charng; Artur V Cideciyan; Samuel G Jacobson; Alexander Sumaroka; Sharon B Schwartz; Malgorzata Swider; Alejandro J Roman; Rebecca Sheplock; Manisha Anand; Marc C Peden; Hemant Khanna; Elise Heon; Alan F Wright; Anand Swaroop Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Benjamin Otte; Chris Andrews; Gabrielle Lacy; Kari Branham; David C Musch; Kanishka T Jayasundera Journal: Ophthalmic Genet Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 1.803
Authors: Mays Talib; Mary J van Schooneveld; Jan Wijnholds; Maria M van Genderen; Nicoline E Schalij-Delfos; Herman E Talsma; Ralph J Florijn; Jacoline B Ten Brink; Frans P M Cremers; Alberta A H J Thiadens; L Ingeborgh van den Born; Carel B Hoyng; Magda A Meester-Smoor; Arthur A Bergen; Camiel J F Boon Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Francesco Testa; Andrea Sodi; Sabrina Signorini; Valentina Di Iorio; Vittoria Murro; Raffaella Brunetti-Pierri; Enza Maria Valente; Marianthi Karali; Paolo Melillo; Sandro Banfi; Francesca Simonelli Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 4.799