Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg1, José-Alain Sahel2, Ronald Danis3, Monika Fleckenstein4, Glenn J Jaffe5, Sebastian Wolf6, Christian Pruente7, Frank G Holz8. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany; GRADE Reading Center, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 2. Université Pierre et Marie Curie and Institut de la Vision, Paris, France. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, University Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 7. Department of Ophthalmology, Kantonsspital Baselland, Liestal, Switzerland. 8. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany; GRADE Reading Center, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. Electronic address: Frank.Holz@ukb.uni-bonn.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Geographic Atrophy Progression (GAP) study was designed to assess the rate of geographic atrophy (GA) progression and to identify prognostic factors by measuring the enlargement of the atrophic lesions using fundus autofluorescence (FAF) and color fundus photography (CFP). DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, noninterventional natural history study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 603 participants were enrolled in the study; 413 of those had gradable lesion data from FAF or CFP, and 321 had gradable lesion data from both FAF and CFP. METHODS: Atrophic lesion areas were measured by FAF and CFP to assess lesion progression over time. Lesion size assessments and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were conducted at screening/baseline (day 0) and at 3 follow-up visits: month 6, month 12, and month 18 (or early exit). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The GA lesion progression rate in disease subgroups and mean change from baseline visual acuity. RESULTS: Mean (standard error) lesion size changes from baseline, determined by FAF and CFP, respectively, were 0.88 (0.1) and 0.78 (0.1) mm(2) at 6 months, 1.85 (0.1) and 1.57 (0.1) mm(2) at 12 months, and 3.14 (0.4) and 3.17 (0.5) mm(2) at 18 months. The mean change in lesion size from baseline to month 12 was significantly greater in participants who had eyes with multifocal atrophic spots compared with those with unifocal spots (P < 0.001) and those with extrafoveal lesions compared with those with foveal lesions (P = 0.001). The mean (standard deviation) decrease in visual acuity was 6.2 ± 15.6 letters for patients with image data available. Atrophic lesions with a diffuse (mean 0.95 mm(2)) or banded (mean 1.01 mm(2)) FAF pattern grew more rapidly by month 6 compared with those with the "none" (mean, 0.13 mm(2)) and focal (mean, 0.36 mm(2)) FAF patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Although differences were observed in mean lesion size measurements using FAF imaging compared with CFP, the measurements were highly correlated with one another. Significant differences were found in lesion progression rates in participants stratified by hyperfluorescence pattern subtype. This large GA natural history study provides a strong foundation for future clinical trials.
PURPOSE: The Geographic Atrophy Progression (GAP) study was designed to assess the rate of geographic atrophy (GA) progression and to identify prognostic factors by measuring the enlargement of the atrophic lesions using fundus autofluorescence (FAF) and color fundus photography (CFP). DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, noninterventional natural history study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 603 participants were enrolled in the study; 413 of those had gradable lesion data from FAF or CFP, and 321 had gradable lesion data from both FAF and CFP. METHODS:Atrophic lesion areas were measured by FAF and CFP to assess lesion progression over time. Lesion size assessments and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were conducted at screening/baseline (day 0) and at 3 follow-up visits: month 6, month 12, and month 18 (or early exit). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The GA lesion progression rate in disease subgroups and mean change from baseline visual acuity. RESULTS: Mean (standard error) lesion size changes from baseline, determined by FAF and CFP, respectively, were 0.88 (0.1) and 0.78 (0.1) mm(2) at 6 months, 1.85 (0.1) and 1.57 (0.1) mm(2) at 12 months, and 3.14 (0.4) and 3.17 (0.5) mm(2) at 18 months. The mean change in lesion size from baseline to month 12 was significantly greater in participants who had eyes with multifocal atrophic spots compared with those with unifocal spots (P < 0.001) and those with extrafoveal lesions compared with those with foveal lesions (P = 0.001). The mean (standard deviation) decrease in visual acuity was 6.2 ± 15.6 letters for patients with image data available. Atrophic lesions with a diffuse (mean 0.95 mm(2)) or banded (mean 1.01 mm(2)) FAF pattern grew more rapidly by month 6 compared with those with the "none" (mean, 0.13 mm(2)) and focal (mean, 0.36 mm(2)) FAF patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Although differences were observed in mean lesion size measurements using FAF imaging compared with CFP, the measurements were highly correlated with one another. Significant differences were found in lesion progression rates in participants stratified by hyperfluorescence pattern subtype. This large GA natural history study provides a strong foundation for future clinical trials.
Authors: Chandrakumar Balaratnasingam; Jeffrey D Messinger; Kenneth R Sloan; Lawrence A Yannuzzi; K Bailey Freund; Christine A Curcio Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Robyn H Guymer; Philip J Rosenfeld; Christine A Curcio; Frank G Holz; Giovanni Staurenghi; K Bailey Freund; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Janet Sparrow; Richard F Spaide; Adnan Tufail; Usha Chakravarthy; Glenn J Jaffe; Karl Csaky; David Sarraf; Jordi M Monés; Ramin Tadayoni; Juan Grunwald; Ferdinando Bottoni; Sandra Liakopoulos; Daniel Pauleikhoff; Sergio Pagliarini; Emily Y Chew; Francesco Viola; Monika Fleckenstein; Barbara A Blodi; Tock Han Lim; Victor Chong; Jerry Lutty; Alan C Bird; Srinivas R Sadda Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Juan E Grunwald; Maxwell Pistilli; Ebenezer Daniel; Gui-Shuang Ying; Wei Pan; Glenn J Jaffe; Cynthia A Toth; Stephanie A Hagstrom; Maureen G Maguire; Daniel F Martin Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Tiarnan D Keenan; Elvira Agrón; Amitha Domalpally; Traci E Clemons; Freekje van Asten; Wai T Wong; Ronald G Danis; SriniVas Sadda; Philip J Rosenfeld; Michael L Klein; Rinki Ratnapriya; Anand Swaroop; Frederick L Ferris; Emily Y Chew Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-07-27 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Emma C Zanzottera; Thomas Ach; Carrie Huisingh; Jeffrey D Messinger; Richard F Spaide; Christine A Curcio Journal: Retina Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Emma C Zanzottera; Thomas Ach; Carrie Huisingh; Jeffrey D Messinger; K Bailey Freund; Christine A Curcio Journal: Retina Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: SriniVas R Sadda; Usha Chakravarthy; David G Birch; Giovanni Staurenghi; Erin C Henry; Christopher Brittain Journal: Retina Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 4.256