Sascha Fauser1,2, Lebriz Altay3, Vasilena Sitnilska1, Philip Enders1, Claus Cursiefen1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50924, Cologne, Germany. 2. F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50924, Cologne, Germany. lebriz.altay@uk-koeln.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate a possible correlation between established imaging biomarkers for age-related macular degeneration and local complement system activation, measured in aqueous humor (AH) of patients with early stages of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and controls. METHODS: This analysis included prospectively acquired AH samples of 106 eyes (35 with early/intermediate AMD, 71 controls). The levels of complement protein 3 (C3), 4 (C4), 5 (C5); activation products of complement factor 3a (C3a) and Ba, C3b/iC3b; complement factors B, D, H, I (CFB, CFD, CFH, CFI); and total protein concentration were analyzed. Quantitative levels of complement factors were correlated to the presence of reticular pseudodrusen (RPD), the presence of hyperreflective foci (HRF), and total drusen volume (DV) graded on imaging by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and using Spearman's rank correlation test. RESULTS: DV correlated with C3b/iC3b (r = 0.285; P = 0.034), C3a (r = 0.200; P = 0.047), Ba (r = 0.262; P = 0.009), and C5 (r = 430; P = 0.005), and showed a tendency towards correlation with C3a (r = 0.198; P = 0.057). HRF correlated significantly with C5 (r = 0.388; P = 0.011) and RPD showed a tendency towards correlation with CFB (r = 0.196; P = 0.050). CONCLUSION: In patients with early AMD, HRF and drusen parameters but not RPD show low to fair levels of correlation with local complement activation in patients' AH. Better understanding of complement activation could provide some insights into the pathogenesis of AMD. Imaging biomarkers could be useful to identify suitable patients for future clinical trials with complement-modulating therapies.
PURPOSE: To investigate a possible correlation between established imaging biomarkers for age-related macular degeneration and local complement system activation, measured in aqueous humor (AH) of patients with early stages of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and controls. METHODS: This analysis included prospectively acquired AH samples of 106 eyes (35 with early/intermediate AMD, 71 controls). The levels of complement protein 3 (C3), 4 (C4), 5 (C5); activation products of complement factor 3a (C3a) and Ba, C3b/iC3b; complement factors B, D, H, I (CFB, CFD, CFH, CFI); and total protein concentration were analyzed. Quantitative levels of complement factors were correlated to the presence of reticular pseudodrusen (RPD), the presence of hyperreflective foci (HRF), and total drusen volume (DV) graded on imaging by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and using Spearman's rank correlation test. RESULTS:DV correlated with C3b/iC3b (r = 0.285; P = 0.034), C3a (r = 0.200; P = 0.047), Ba (r = 0.262; P = 0.009), and C5 (r = 430; P = 0.005), and showed a tendency towards correlation with C3a (r = 0.198; P = 0.057). HRF correlated significantly with C5 (r = 0.388; P = 0.011) and RPD showed a tendency towards correlation with CFB (r = 0.196; P = 0.050). CONCLUSION: In patients with early AMD, HRF and drusen parameters but not RPD show low to fair levels of correlation with local complement activation in patients' AH. Better understanding of complement activation could provide some insights into the pathogenesis of AMD. Imaging biomarkers could be useful to identify suitable patients for future clinical trials with complement-modulating therapies.
Authors: L Altay; V Sitnilska; T Schick; G Widmer; G Duchateau-Nguyen; P Piraino; A Jayagopal; F M Drawnel; S Fauser Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Joseph Ho; Andre J Witkin; Jonathan Liu; Yueli Chen; James G Fujimoto; Joel S Schuman; Jay S Duker Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-11-20 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ronald Klein; Stacy M Meuer; Michael D Knudtson; Sudha K Iyengar; Barbara E K Klein Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-11-28 Impact factor: 5.258
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: T Schick; M Steinhauer; A Aslanidis; L Altay; M Karlstetter; T Langmann; M Kirschfink; S Fauser Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Frederick L Ferris; C P Wilkinson; Alan Bird; Usha Chakravarthy; Emily Chew; Karl Csaky; SriniVas R Sadda Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Joseph G Christenbury; Francisco A Folgar; Rachelle V O'Connell; Stephanie J Chiu; Sina Farsiu; Cynthia A Toth Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-01-23 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Bert Gold; Joanna E Merriam; Jana Zernant; Lisa S Hancox; Andrew J Taiber; Karen Gehrs; Kevin Cramer; Julia Neel; Julie Bergeron; Gaetano R Barile; R Theodore Smith; Gregory S Hageman; Michael Dean; Rando Allikmets Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2006-03-05 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Matteo Stravalaci; Mariantonia Ferrara; Varun Pathak; Francesca Davi; Barbara Bottazzi; Alberto Mantovani; Reinhold J Medina; Mario R Romano; Antonio Inforzato Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 5.810