Kimberly J Cocce1, Sandra S Stinnett1, Ulrich F O Luhmann2, Lejla Vajzovic1, Anupama Horne1, Stefanie G Schuman1, Cynthia A Toth1, Scott W Cousins1, Eleonora M Lad3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Roche Pharmaceutical Research and Early Development, Translational Medicine Neuroscience & Ophthalmology & Rare Diseases Biomarkers, Roche Innovation Center Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: nora.lad@duke.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate and quantify visual function metrics to be used as endpoints of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) stages and visual acuity (VA) loss in patients with early and intermediate AMD. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a prospective study. METHODS: One hundred and one patients were enrolled at Duke Eye Center: 80 patients with early AMD (Age-Related Eye Disease Study [AREDS] stage 2 [n = 33] and intermediate stage 3 [n = 47]) and 21 age-matched, normal controls. A dilated retinal examination, macular pigment optical density measurements, and several functional assessments (best-corrected visual acuity, macular integrity assessment mesopic microperimety, dark adaptometry, low-luminance visual acuity [LLVA] [standard using a log 2.0 neutral density filter and computerized method], and cone contrast test [CCT]) were performed. Low-luminance deficit (LLD) was defined as the difference in numbers of letters read at standard vs low luminance. Group comparisons were performed to evaluate differences between the control and the early and intermediate AMD groups using 2-sided significance tests. RESULTS: Functional measures that significantly distinguished between normal and intermediate AMD were standard and computerized (0.5 cd/m2) LLVA, percent reduced threshold and average threshold on microperimetry, CCTs, and rod intercept on dark adaptation (P < .05). The intermediate group demonstrated deficits in microperimetry reduced threshhold, computerized LLD2, and dark adaptation (P < .05) relative to early AMD. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that LLVA, microperimetry, CCT, and dark adaptation may serve as functional measures differentiating early-to-intermediate stages of dry AMD.
PURPOSE: To evaluate and quantify visual function metrics to be used as endpoints of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) stages and visual acuity (VA) loss in patients with early and intermediate AMD. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a prospective study. METHODS: One hundred and one patients were enrolled at Duke Eye Center: 80 patients with early AMD (Age-Related Eye Disease Study [AREDS] stage 2 [n = 33] and intermediate stage 3 [n = 47]) and 21 age-matched, normal controls. A dilated retinal examination, macular pigment optical density measurements, and several functional assessments (best-corrected visual acuity, macular integrity assessment mesopic microperimety, dark adaptometry, low-luminance visual acuity [LLVA] [standard using a log 2.0 neutral density filter and computerized method], and cone contrast test [CCT]) were performed. Low-luminance deficit (LLD) was defined as the difference in numbers of letters read at standard vs low luminance. Group comparisons were performed to evaluate differences between the control and the early and intermediate AMD groups using 2-sided significance tests. RESULTS: Functional measures that significantly distinguished between normal and intermediate AMD were standard and computerized (0.5 cd/m2) LLVA, percent reduced threshold and average threshold on microperimetry, CCTs, and rod intercept on dark adaptation (P < .05). The intermediate group demonstrated deficits in microperimetry reduced threshhold, computerized LLD2, and dark adaptation (P < .05) relative to early AMD. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that LLVA, microperimetry, CCT, and dark adaptation may serve as functional measures differentiating early-to-intermediate stages of dry AMD.
Authors: Amanda-Jayne F Carr; Matthew J K Smart; Conor M Ramsden; Michael B Powner; Lyndon da Cruz; Peter J Coffey Journal: Trends Neurosci Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 13.837
Authors: Wan Ling Wong; Xinyi Su; Xiang Li; Chui Ming G Cheung; Ronald Klein; Ching-Yu Cheng; Tien Yin Wong Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Jason N Crosson; Thomas A Swain; Mark E Clark; Carrie E Huisingh; Gerald McGwin; Cynthia Owsley; Christine A Curcio Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2019-03-30
Authors: S Tammy Hsu; Atalie C Thompson; Sandra S Stinnett; Ulrich F O Luhmann; Lejla Vajzovic; Anupama Horne; Stefanie G Schuman; Cynthia A Toth; Scott W Cousins; Eleonora M Lad Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2019-03-21
Authors: Robert F Mullins; Gerald McGwin; Karen Searcey; Mark E Clark; Elizabeth L Kennedy; Christine A Curcio; Edwin M Stone; Cynthia Owsley Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jan H Terheyden; Frank G Holz; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Anna Lüning; Matthias Schmid; Gary S Rubin; Hannah Dunbar; Adnan Tufail; David P Crabb; Alison Binns; Clara I Sánchez; Carel Hoyng; Philippe Margaron; Nadia Zakaria; Mary Durbin; Ulrich Luhmann; Parisa Zamiri; José Cunha-Vaz; Cecília Martinho; Sergio Leal; Robert P Finger Journal: Trials Date: 2020-07-18 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jason Charng; Tina M Lamey; Jennifer A Thompson; Terri L McLaren; Mary S Attia; Ian L McAllister; Ian J Constable; David A Mackey; John N De Roach; Fred K Chen Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 3.283