| Literature DB >> 31658355 |
Johanna M Seddon1, James P Dossett2, Rafael Widjajahakim1, Bernard Rosner3.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine associations between macular drusen parameters derived from an automatic optical coherence tomography (OCT) algorithm, nonadvanced age-related macular degeneration (AMD) stage, and genetic variants.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31658355 PMCID: PMC6816283 DOI: 10.1167/iovs.19-27475
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci ISSN: 0146-0404 Impact factor: 4.799
Figure 1Representative color fundus photographs and OCTs corresponding to different measurements using the advanced RPE analysis tool are shown as (A) no measurable drusen, (B) drusen area and volume
Figure 2Associations between OCT-derived drusen measurements and early and intermediate stages of AMD for (A) drusen area (P = 0.008) and (B) drusen volume (P = 0.005). The diamond represents the adjusted mean controlling for age, sex, education, smoking, and BMI. The vertical line represents ±SE of the adjusted mean.
Associations Between Drusen Area Measurements and Individual Genetic Loci*
| Gene/Variant | |||||
| 1.0 (ref) | 0.97 (0.65–1.47) | 0.90 | 1.79 (1.18–2.71) | 0.01 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 1.29 (0.77–2.14) | 0.33 | 2.76 (1.57–4.86) | <0.001 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 0.99 (0.57–1.72) | 0.98 | 1.80 (1.07–3.03) | 0.03 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 0.66 (0.32–1.37) | 0.26 | 0.67 (0.35–1.31) | 0.24 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 1.14 (0.61–2.12) | 0.68 | 0.87 (0.51–1.50) | 0.62 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 1.15 (0.67–1.98) | 0.62 | 1.49 (0.92–2.40) | 0.10 | |
Each genetic variant assessed in a model, controlling for age, sex, education, body mass index, and smoking.
OR and CI per risk or protective allele. CFH score categorized as 0, 1, 2, 3–4 risk score categories.
Based on GEE using PROC GENMOD of SAS with the eye as the unit of the analysis using a logistic link and a binomial distribution with the working independence model to account for the intereye correlation. Separate analyses were performed (1) comparing eyes with measurable drusen less than the median versus eyes with no drusen and (2) comparing eyes with measurable drusen greater than or equal to the median versus eyes with no drusen. The reference category is no drusen measured.
Associations Between Drusen Volume Measurements and Individual Genetic Loci*
| Gene/Variant | |||||
| 1.0 (ref) | 0.99 (0.66–1.48) | 0.96 | 1.73 (1.13–2.64) | 0.01 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 1.29 (0.77–2.16) | 0.34 | 2.72 (1.48–5.01) | <0.001 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 0.99 (0.55–1.79) | 0.98 | 1.92 (1.09–3.41) | 0.03 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 0.69 (0.36–1.34) | 0.28 | 0.62 (0.32–1.22) | 0.17 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 0.94 (0.53–1.66) | 0.82 | 0.88 (0.50–1.53) | 0.65 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 1.17 (0.69–1.99) | 0.56 | 1.63 (0.99–2.68) | 0.06 | |
Multivariate Analyses of Associations Between Drusen Area and Genetic Loci*
| Gene/Variant | |||||
| 1.0 (ref) | 0.93 (0.61–1.41) | 0.73 | 1.58 (1.01–2.46) | 0.04 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 1.24 (0.72–2.15) | 0.44 | 2.45 (1.35–4.45) | <0.001 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 1.00 (0.55–1.82) | 0.99 | 1.57 (0.87–2.85) | 0.14 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 0.65 (0.31–1.38) | 0.27 | 0.84 (0.41–1.73) | 0.65 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 1.14 (0.61–2.12) | 0.69 | 0.76 (0.43–1.36) | 0.36 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 1.17 (0.67–2.04) | 0.57 | 1.28 (0.78–2.12) | 0.33 | |
Each genetic variant assessed in a model, controlling for age, sex, education, body mass index, and smoking.
OR and CI per risk or protective allele. CFH score categorized as 0, 1, 2, 3–4 risk score categories.
Based on GEE using PROC GENMOD of SAS with the eye as the unit of the analysis using a logistic link and a binomial distribution with the working independence model to account for the intereye correlation. Separate analyses were performed (1) comparing eyes with measurable drusen less than the median versus eyes with no drusen and (2) comparing eyes with measurable drusen greater than or equal to the median versus eyes with no drusen. The reference category is no drusen measured.
Multivariate Analyses of Associations Between Drusen Volume and Genetic Loci*
| Gene/Variant | |||||
| 1.0 (ref) | 0.95 (0.64–1.42) | 0.81 | 1.54 (0.97–2.45) | 0.07 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 1.27 (0.74–2.18) | 0.39 | 2.49 (1.29–4.80) | 0.01 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 1.00 (0.53–1.90) | 1.00 | 1.78 (0.92–3.45) | 0.09 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 0.69 (0.36–1.35) | 0.28 | 0.76 (0.37–1.57) | 0.45 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 0.91 (0.51–1.62) | 0.75 | 0.73 (0.41–1.32) | 0.30 | |
| 1.0 (ref) | 1.19 (0.69–2.04) | 0.53 | 1.54 (0.93–2.54) | 0.09 | |
Each genetic variant assessed in a model, controlling for age, sex, education, body mass index, and smoking.
OR and CI per risk or protective allele. CFH score categorized as 0, 1, 2, 3–4 risk score categories.
Based on GEE using PROC GENMOD of SAS with the eye as the unit of the analysis using a logistic link and a binomial distribution with the working independence model to account for the intereye correlation. Separate analyses were performed (1) comparing eyes with measurable drusen less than the median versus eyes with no drusen and (2) comparing eyes with measurable drusen greater than or equal to the median versus eyes with no drusen. The reference category is no drusen measured.
Associations Between Drusen Area and Volume and CFH and ARMS2/HTRA1
| 0-1 | 39 | 0.07 ± 0.16 | Ref | 0.0002 ± 0.008 | Ref | 0.25 ± 0.17 | Ref | 0.007 ± 0.008 | Ref |
| 2 | 103 | 0.49 ± 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.019 ± 0.005 | 0.04 | 0.57 ± 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.022 ± 0.005 | 0.11 |
| 3–4 | 97 | 0.66 ± 0.10 | <0.001 | 0.029 ± 0.005 | <0.001 | 0.74 ± 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.032 ± 0.005 | 0.006 |
| | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.01§ | 0.005§ | |||||
| 0 | 105 | 0.19 ± 0.10 | Ref | 0.007 ± 0.005 | Ref | 0.15 ± 0.098 | Ref | 0.005 ± 0.0047 | Ref |
| 1 | 104 | 0.68 ± 0.10 | <0.001 | 0.028 ± 0.005 | 0.002 | 0.60 ± 0.10 | 0.001 | 0.024 ± 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 2 | 30 | 0.90 ± 0.19 | 0.008 | 0.036 ± 0.009 | 0.004 | 0.80 ± 0.19 | 0.002 | 0.031 ± 0.0089 | 0.009 |
| | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001‖ | 0.001‖ | |||||
Analyses based on continuous area and volume, adjusting for age, sex, education, body mass index, smoking, and AMD grade using the LSMEANS option of PROC MIXED of SAS. Each genetic factor was analyzed separately.
Analyses for CFH score are based on continuous area and volume, adjusting for age, sex, education, body mass index, smoking, AMD grade, and number of ARMS2/HTRA1 risk alleles using the LSMEANS option of PROC MIXED of SAS. Analysis for ARMS2/HTRA1 was performed similarly, adjusting for CFH score.
No. of risk alleles for rs1410996 and rs1061170 combined.
The P trend assessing effect on drusen measurements per one category increase in CFH score was obtained after adjusting for number of ARMS2/HTRA1 risk alleles and other risk factors.
The P trend assessing effect of increase in ARMS2/HTRA1 risk alleles was obtained after adjusting for categories of the CFH score and other risk factors.
Figure 3Independent associations between OCT-derived perifoveal drusen measurements and number of risk alleles for drusen area for (A) CFH score and (B) ARMS2/HTRA1 rs10490924 (P trend = 0.004 and <0.001, respectively) and drusen volume for (C) CFH score and (D) ARMS2/HTRA1 rs10490924 (P trend = 0.002 and <0.001, respectively). The diamond represents the adjusted mean controlling for age, sex, education, smoking, BMI, and AMD grade. The vertical line represents ±SE of the adjusted mean.