| Literature DB >> 32832238 |
Maria Vittoria Cicinelli1,2, Alessandro Rabiolo1,2,3, Maria Brambati2, Chiara Viganò2, Francesco Bandello1,2, Maurizio Battaglia Parodi1,2.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate demographic, clinical, imaging, and genetic factors associated with retinal pigment epithelium enlargement in Stargardt disease (STGD1) and to measure the agreement between short-wavelength fundus autofluorescence (SW-FAF) and near-infrared fundus autofluorescence (NIR-FAF).Entities:
Keywords: Stargardt disease; best-corrected visual acuity; disease progression; near-infrared autofluorescence; short-wavelength autofluorescence
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32832238 PMCID: PMC7414677 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.9.7.33
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.283
Figure 1.Clinical pattern of STGD1 patients based on SW-FAF. Corresponding NIR-FAF and optical coherence tomography scan passing through the fovea are shown. Pattern 1: Altered speckled hypo-FAF signal at the posterior pole with hyper-FAF flecks at the posterior pole; background FAF is homogeneous. At the end of the follow-up, a small area of definitely decreased autofluorescence enlarges temporally to the fovea. Pattern 2: Altered round central hypo-FAF signal sparing of the fovea; background FAF is homogeneous. A hyper-FAF halo is present. At the end of the follow-up, the area of definitely decreased autofluorescence expands toward the fovea. Pattern 3: Multiple, diffuse hyper-FAF flecks involving the entire macular region and extending beyond the vascular arcades; background FAF is heterogeneous. After 2 years, the area of definitely decreased autofluorescence clearly enlarges and coalesces.
Demographic and Clinical Characteristics at Baseline of Included Patients.
| Eyes/Patients | 54/28 |
|---|---|
| Sex (%) | |
| Male | 13 (46%) |
| Female | 15 (54%) |
| Age (years), median (IQR) | 45 (29–58) |
| BCVA (logMAR), median (IQR) | 0.30 (0.20–0.70) |
| Missense Mutation/Null Mutation | 16/12 |
| Flecks, n (%) | 35 (65%) |
| Unifocal/multifocal | 30/24 |
| Hyper-FAF borders (%) | 12 (22%) |
| SW-FAF pattern (1/2/3) | 14/14/26 |
| Fovea sparing, n (%) | 26 (48%) |
| Para-atrophy VD at SCP | 0.190 ± 0.105 |
| Para-atrophy VD at DCP | 0.270 ± 0.119 |
| Para-atrophy VD at CC | 0.472 ± 0.076 |
Atrophy Measured on SW-FAF and NIR-FAF and CT at Baseline and Last Follow-Up
| Baseline Visit | Last Visit | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| FAF (mm2) | |||
| SW-FAF, median (IQR) | 0.74 (0.31–3.42) | 1.43 (0.73–12.66) | <0.001 |
| NIR-FAF, median (IQR) | 0.91 (0.46–1.44) | 1.53 (1.21–2.98) | <0.001 |
| CT (µm), mean ± SD | 277.0±109.3 | 252.9±129.0 | 0.009 |
Figure 2.Comparison between SW-FAF and NIR-FAF. (A) Bland-Altman plot comparing the matched methods in estimating baseline RPE-atrophy area. On the x-axis the mean atrophic area is presented. The 0-horizontal line represents the no-bias line (mean difference = 0), whereas black spots describe the true corresponding measurement among coupled devices. The 95% LOAs are shown as dotted lines. The 95% confidence intervals of the no-bias line (purple), superior (green) and inferior LOA (pink) are shown. The graph shows that baseline area estimated on SW-FAF was smaller than NIR-FAF. (B) Bland-Altman plot comparing the matched methods in estimating the rate of RPE-atrophy enlargement. On the x-axis the mean rate of progression is presented. The 95% confidence intervals of the no-bias line (purple), superior (green) and inferior LOA (pink) are shown. Most of the values clustered around the no-bias line. Limits of agreement were wide; the distribution of biases showed a positive trend for disease rates >0.2 mm2/year. One observation fell outside the 95% confidence bands of the LOA.
Results of Univariable and Multivariable Analysis for Factors Associated With the Rate of Yearly Growth of Atrophy on SW-FAF
| Univariable | Multivariable | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Estimate (SE) |
| Estimate (SE) |
|
| Male sex | −0.242 (0.368) | 0.51 | ||
| Baseline age (year) | 0.021 (0.010) |
| 0.000 (0.005) | 0.97 |
| Length of FU (months) | −0.011 (0.093) | 0.91 | ||
| Baseline BCVA (LogMAR) | 0.420 (0.100) |
| 0.305 (0.108) |
|
| Baseline SW-FAF area (mm2) | 0.062 (0.006) |
| 0.047 (0.008) |
|
| Baseline NIR-FAF area (mm2) | 0.035 (0.015) |
| ||
| Baseline CT, 10 µm | −0.011 (0.010) | 0.27 | ||
| Presence of flecks | −0.998 (0.336) |
| −0.025 (0.207) | 0.91 |
| Multifocal lesions | 0.635 (0.226) |
| 0.401 (0.169) |
|
| Hyper-FAF borders | −0.114 (0.449) | 0.80 | ||
| SW-FAF patterns (ref: 1) | ||||
| Pattern 2 | −0.006 (0.411) | 0.99 | 0.134 (0.283) | 0.70 |
| Pattern 3 | 1.197 (0.357) |
| 0.534 (0.217) |
|
| Fovea sparing, n (%) | −0.769 (0.341) |
| 0.019 (0.200) | 0.93 |
| Para-atrophy VD at SCP | −0.090 (0.796) | 0.91 | ||
| Para-atrophy VD at DCP | −0.397 (0.409) | 0.33 | ||
| Para-atrophy VD at CC | 0.756 (0.877) | 0.39 | ||
| Nonsense mutation | −0.432 (0.364) | 0.24 | ||
Marginal R2: 0.74; conditional R2 0.96; predictive R2: 0.65. Estimates for continuous variables are intended for a 1-unit increase unless specified otherwise.
FU: follow-up.