Liangbo L Shen1, Mengyuan Sun2, Holly K Grossetta Nardini3, Lucian V Del Priore4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 2. Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 3. Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 4. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. Electronic address: lucian.delpriore@yale.edu.
Abstract
TOPIC: Determining the natural history of unifocal versus multifocal geographic atrophy (GA) secondary to nonexudative age-related macular degeneration. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The association between GA focality (i.e., unifocal vs. multifocal lesions) and enlargement rate is inconsistent in the literature. Some studies report a comparable growth rate between unifocal and multifocal GA, whereas others suggest the growth rate varies widely between the 2 groups. METHODS: We searched 5 literature databases up to May 3, 2019, for studies that classified treatment-naïve GA patients based on lesion focality. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to determine the growth rates of GA. To account for different entry times among cohorts, we introduced a horizontal translation factor to the dataset of each cohort. Heterogeneity and study quality were assessed using the I2 statistic and Quality in Prognosis Studies tool, respectively. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots and the Egger test. RESULTS: We included 12 studies with 3489 eyes from 3001 patients. After the introduction of translation factors, the effective radius of unifocal and multifocal GA enlarged linearly over approximately 7 years. The effective radius growth rate of multifocal GA (0.199±0.012 mm/year) was 46.3% higher than the growth rate of unifocal GA (0.136±0.008 mm/year; P < 0.001). Interestingly, unifocal and multifocal GA lesions with the same total baseline area grew at vastly different rates, with an estimated ratio of the growth rate as 1.46 (between 2 and 3). This difference disappeared after we accounted for different baseline total perimeters between unifocal and multifocal groups. The measured GA growth rate was consistent across studies using color fundus photography, fundus autofluorescence, or OCT (P = 0.35-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The effective radius of GA enlarges linearly and steadily over time in both unifocal and multifocal GA. The lesion focality is a significant prognostic factor for the GA effective radius growth rate. We propose that the growth rate of GA area is directly proportional to the total lesion perimeter (a measure of the number of retinal pigment epithelium cells exposed at the lesion border). Additional studies are needed to understand the cellular mechanisms underlying this relationship.
TOPIC: Determining the natural history of unifocal versus multifocal geographic atrophy (GA) secondary to nonexudative age-related macular degeneration. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The association between GA focality (i.e., unifocal vs. multifocal lesions) and enlargement rate is inconsistent in the literature. Some studies report a comparable growth rate between unifocal and multifocal GA, whereas others suggest the growth rate varies widely between the 2 groups. METHODS: We searched 5 literature databases up to May 3, 2019, for studies that classified treatment-naïve GA patients based on lesion focality. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to determine the growth rates of GA. To account for different entry times among cohorts, we introduced a horizontal translation factor to the dataset of each cohort. Heterogeneity and study quality were assessed using the I2 statistic and Quality in Prognosis Studies tool, respectively. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots and the Egger test. RESULTS: We included 12 studies with 3489 eyes from 3001 patients. After the introduction of translation factors, the effective radius of unifocal and multifocal GA enlarged linearly over approximately 7 years. The effective radius growth rate of multifocal GA (0.199±0.012 mm/year) was 46.3% higher than the growth rate of unifocal GA (0.136±0.008 mm/year; P < 0.001). Interestingly, unifocal and multifocal GA lesions with the same total baseline area grew at vastly different rates, with an estimated ratio of the growth rate as 1.46 (between 2 and 3). This difference disappeared after we accounted for different baseline total perimeters between unifocal and multifocal groups. The measured GA growth rate was consistent across studies using color fundus photography, fundus autofluorescence, or OCT (P = 0.35-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The effective radius of GA enlarges linearly and steadily over time in both unifocal and multifocal GA. The lesion focality is a significant prognostic factor for the GA effective radius growth rate. We propose that the growth rate of GA area is directly proportional to the total lesion perimeter (a measure of the number of retinal pigment epithelium cells exposed at the lesion border). Additional studies are needed to understand the cellular mechanisms underlying this relationship.
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: Marcela Marsiglia; Sucharita Boddu; Srilaxmi Bearelly; Luna Xu; Barry E Breaux; K Bailey Freund; Lawrence A Yannuzzi; R Theodore Smith Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 4.799
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: Monika Fleckenstein; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Christine Martens; Sebastian Kosanetzky; Christian K Brinkmann; Gregory S Hageman; Frank G Holz Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 4.799
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: Christine A Curcio; Emma C Zanzottera; Thomas Ach; Chandrakumar Balaratnasingam; K Bailey Freund Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Michael J Allingham; Qing Nie; Eleonora M Lad; Daniel J Izatt; Priyatham S Mettu; Scott W Cousins; Sina Farsiu Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Aneesha Ahluwalia; Liangbo L Shen; Evan M Chen; Mengyuan Sun; Michael M Park; Benjamin K Young; Lucian V Del Priore Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 3.535
Authors: Liangbo L Shen; Aneesha Ahluwalia; Mengyuan Sun; Benjamin K Young; Holly K Grossetta Nardini; Lucian V Del Priore Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 5.908
Authors: Liangbo L Shen; Mengyuan Sun; Aneesha Ahluwalia; Michael M Park; Benjamin K Young; Lucian V Del Priore Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2021-10-04 Impact factor: 4.925
Authors: Liangbo L Shen; Mengyuan Sun; Aneesha Ahluwalia; Michael M Park; Benjamin K Young; Eleonora M Lad; Cynthia Toth; Lucian V Del Priore Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 5.908