IMPORTANCE: To test potential treatments for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), clinical trials need standardized outcome measures that are valid for predicting AMD progression in different study populations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) detailed and simple AMD severity scales by comparing rates of development of late AMD (neovascular AMD and/or central geographic atrophy) between AREDS and AREDS2 participants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Both AREDS (1992-2001) and AREDS2 (2006-2012) enrolled patients from academic and community-based retinal practices across the United States. In AREDS (n = 4519), participants with varying severity of AMD-from no AMD to late AMD in 1 eye-were enrolled. In AREDS2 (n = 4203), participants with bilateral large drusen or large drusen in the study eye and late AMD in the fellow eye were enrolled. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Five-year incidence of late AMD, assessed by annual masked centralized fundus photograph grading. RESULTS: In AREDS, the mean (SD) age of the patients was 69.3 (5.7) years, and 2519 (55.7%) were female. In AREDS2, the mean (SD) age of the patients was 73.1 (7.7) years, and 2388 (56.8%) were female. The 5-year rates of late AMD did not differ between AREDS2 and AREDS participants within nearly all baseline AMD detailed severity scale levels: levels 1 to 3: 2.4% vs 0.5% (difference, 1.9%; 95% CI, -0.2% to 4.0%; P < .001); level 4: 6.5% vs 4.9% (difference, 1.6%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 4.8%; P = .34); level 5: 8.0% vs 5.6% (difference, 2.4%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 5.9%; P = .22); level 6: 12.8% vs 13.7% (difference, -0.9%; 95% CI, -4.8% to 3.1%; P = .66); level 7: 26.2% vs 27.8% (difference, -1.5%; 95% CI, -6.6% to 3.5%; P = .54); and level 8: 46.4% vs 44.7% (difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, -7.5% to 10.9%; P = .72). Within simple scale levels, AREDS2 and AREDS 5-year rates did not differ significantly except for level 1 (9.4% vs 3.1%, P = .02; level 2: 12.8% vs 11.8%, P = .65; level 3: 26.3% vs 25.9%, P = .90; and level 4: 45.6% vs 47.3%, P = .57). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The AREDS detailed and simple AMD severity scales were useful measures for assessing the risk of developing late AMD in the AREDS2 population; these data suggest that they should be useful tools for clinical trials of AMD treatments.
IMPORTANCE: To test potential treatments for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), clinical trials need standardized outcome measures that are valid for predicting AMD progression in different study populations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) detailed and simple AMD severity scales by comparing rates of development of late AMD (neovascular AMD and/or central geographic atrophy) between AREDS and AREDS2 participants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Both AREDS (1992-2001) and AREDS2 (2006-2012) enrolled patients from academic and community-based retinal practices across the United States. In AREDS (n = 4519), participants with varying severity of AMD-from no AMD to late AMD in 1 eye-were enrolled. In AREDS2 (n = 4203), participants with bilateral large drusen or large drusen in the study eye and late AMD in the fellow eye were enrolled. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Five-year incidence of late AMD, assessed by annual masked centralized fundus photograph grading. RESULTS: In AREDS, the mean (SD) age of the patients was 69.3 (5.7) years, and 2519 (55.7%) were female. In AREDS2, the mean (SD) age of the patients was 73.1 (7.7) years, and 2388 (56.8%) were female. The 5-year rates of late AMD did not differ between AREDS2 and AREDS participants within nearly all baseline AMD detailed severity scale levels: levels 1 to 3: 2.4% vs 0.5% (difference, 1.9%; 95% CI, -0.2% to 4.0%; P < .001); level 4: 6.5% vs 4.9% (difference, 1.6%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 4.8%; P = .34); level 5: 8.0% vs 5.6% (difference, 2.4%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 5.9%; P = .22); level 6: 12.8% vs 13.7% (difference, -0.9%; 95% CI, -4.8% to 3.1%; P = .66); level 7: 26.2% vs 27.8% (difference, -1.5%; 95% CI, -6.6% to 3.5%; P = .54); and level 8: 46.4% vs 44.7% (difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, -7.5% to 10.9%; P = .72). Within simple scale levels, AREDS2 and AREDS 5-year rates did not differ significantly except for level 1 (9.4% vs 3.1%, P = .02; level 2: 12.8% vs 11.8%, P = .65; level 3: 26.3% vs 25.9%, P = .90; and level 4: 45.6% vs 47.3%, P = .57). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The AREDS detailed and simple AMD severity scales were useful measures for assessing the risk of developing late AMD in the AREDS2 population; these data suggest that they should be useful tools for clinical trials of AMD treatments.
Authors: Susan Vitale; Elvira Agrón; Traci E Clemons; Tiarnan D L Keenan; Amitha Domalpally; Ronald P Danis; Emily Y Chew Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Karen J Cruickshanks; David M Nondahl; Mary E Fischer; Carla R Schubert; Ted S Tweed Journal: Am J Audiol Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 1.493
Authors: Manas R Biswal; Howard M Prentice; George W Smith; Ping Zhu; Yao Tong; C Kathleen Dorey; Alfred S Lewin; Janet C Blanks Journal: J Mol Med (Berl) Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Caroline Brandl; Valentin Breinlich; Klaus J Stark; Sabrina Enzinger; Matthias Aßenmacher; Matthias Olden; Felix Grassmann; Jochen Graw; Margit Heier; Annette Peters; Horst Helbig; Helmut Küchenhoff; Bernhard H F Weber; Iris M Heid Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Karl Csaky; Frederick Ferris; Emily Y Chew; Prashant Nair; Janet K Cheetham; Jacque L Duncan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Deepayan Kar; Mark E Clark; Thomas A Swain; Gerald McGwin; Jason N Crosson; Cynthia Owsley; Kenneth R Sloan; Christine A Curcio Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Glenn Yiu; Eric Tieu; Christian Munevar; Brittany Wong; David Cunefare; Sina Farsiu; Laura Garzel; Jeffrey Roberts; Sara M Thomasy Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 4.379