Elvira Agrón1, Amitha Domalpally2, Catherine A Cukras1, Traci E Clemons3, Qingyu Chen4, Zhiyong Lu4, Emily Y Chew5, Tiarnan D L Keenan6. 1. Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. 3. The Emmes Company LLC, Rockville, Maryland. 4. National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: echew@nei.nih.gov. 6. Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: tiarnan.keenan@nih.gov.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze reticular pseudodrusen (RPD) as an independent risk factor for progression to late age-related macular degeneration (AMD), alongside traditional macular risk factors (soft drusen and pigmentary abnormalities) considered simultaneously. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of 2 clinical trial cohorts: Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) and AREDS2. PARTICIPANTS: Eyes with no late AMD at baseline in AREDS (6959 eyes, 3780 participants) and AREDS2 (3355 eyes, 2056 participants). METHODS: Color fundus photographs (CFPs) from annual visits were graded for soft drusen, pigmentary abnormalities, and late AMD. Presence of RPD was from grading of fundus autofluorescence images (AREDS2) and deep learning grading of CFPs (AREDS). Proportional hazards regression analyses were performed, considering AREDS AMD severity scales (modified simplified severity scale [person] and 9-step scale [eye]) and RPD presence simultaneously. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Progression to late AMD, geographic atrophy (GA), and neovascular AMD. RESULTS: In AREDS, for late AMD analyses by person, in a model considering the simplified severity scale simultaneously, RPD presence was associated with a higher risk of progression: hazard ratio (HR), 2.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75-2.64). However, the risk associated with RPD presence differed at different severity scale levels: HR, 3.23 (95% CI, 1.60-6.51), HR, 3.81 (95% CI, 2.38-6.10), HR, 2.28 (95% CI, 1.59-3.27), and HR, 1.64 (95% CI, 1.20-2.24), at levels 0-1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Considering the 9-step scale (by eye), RPD presence was associated with higher risk: HR, 2.54 (95% CI, 2.07-3.13). The HRs were 5.11 (95% CI, 3.93-6.66) at levels 1-6 and 1.78 (95% CI, 1.43-2.22) at levels 7 and 8. In AREDS2, by person, RPD presence was not associated with higher risk: HR, 1.18 (95% CI, 0.90-1.56); by eye, it was HR, 1.57 (95% CI, 1.31-1.89). In both cohorts, RPD presence carried a higher risk for GA than neovascular AMD. CONCLUSIONS: Reticular pseudodrusen represent an important risk factor for progression to late AMD, particularly GA. However, the added risk varies markedly by severity level, with highly increased risk at lower/moderate levels and less increased risk at higher levels. Reticular pseudodrusen status should be included in updated AMD classification systems, risk calculators, and clinical trials. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: To analyze reticular pseudodrusen (RPD) as an independent risk factor for progression to late age-related macular degeneration (AMD), alongside traditional macular risk factors (soft drusen and pigmentary abnormalities) considered simultaneously. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of 2 clinical trial cohorts: Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) and AREDS2. PARTICIPANTS: Eyes with no late AMD at baseline in AREDS (6959 eyes, 3780 participants) and AREDS2 (3355 eyes, 2056 participants). METHODS: Color fundus photographs (CFPs) from annual visits were graded for soft drusen, pigmentary abnormalities, and late AMD. Presence of RPD was from grading of fundus autofluorescence images (AREDS2) and deep learning grading of CFPs (AREDS). Proportional hazards regression analyses were performed, considering AREDS AMD severity scales (modified simplified severity scale [person] and 9-step scale [eye]) and RPD presence simultaneously. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Progression to late AMD, geographic atrophy (GA), and neovascular AMD. RESULTS: In AREDS, for late AMD analyses by person, in a model considering the simplified severity scale simultaneously, RPD presence was associated with a higher risk of progression: hazard ratio (HR), 2.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75-2.64). However, the risk associated with RPD presence differed at different severity scale levels: HR, 3.23 (95% CI, 1.60-6.51), HR, 3.81 (95% CI, 2.38-6.10), HR, 2.28 (95% CI, 1.59-3.27), and HR, 1.64 (95% CI, 1.20-2.24), at levels 0-1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Considering the 9-step scale (by eye), RPD presence was associated with higher risk: HR, 2.54 (95% CI, 2.07-3.13). The HRs were 5.11 (95% CI, 3.93-6.66) at levels 1-6 and 1.78 (95% CI, 1.43-2.22) at levels 7 and 8. In AREDS2, by person, RPD presence was not associated with higher risk: HR, 1.18 (95% CI, 0.90-1.56); by eye, it was HR, 1.57 (95% CI, 1.31-1.89). In both cohorts, RPD presence carried a higher risk for GA than neovascular AMD. CONCLUSIONS: Reticular pseudodrusen represent an important risk factor for progression to late AMD, particularly GA. However, the added risk varies markedly by severity level, with highly increased risk at lower/moderate levels and less increased risk at higher levels. Reticular pseudodrusen status should be included in updated AMD classification systems, risk calculators, and clinical trials. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Frederick L Ferris; Matthew D Davis; Traci E Clemons; Li-Yin Lee; Emily Y Chew; Anne S Lindblad; Roy C Milton; Susan B Bressler; Ronald Klein Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2005-11
Authors: John S Wittenborn; Traci Clemons; Carl Regillo; Nadim Rayess; Danielle Liffmann Kruger; David Rein Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Amitha Domalpally; Traci E Clemons; Susan B Bressler; Ronald P Danis; Michael Elman; Judy E Kim; David Brown; Emily Y Chew Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2019-01-11
Authors: Tiarnan D Keenan; Brandon Klein; Elvira Agrón; Emily Y Chew; Catherine A Cukras; Wai T Wong Journal: Retina Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.975
Authors: Spencer C Cleland; Amitha Domalpally; Zhe Liu; Jeong W Pak; Barbara A Blodi; Steven Bailey; Karen Gehrs; Robert Wallace; Lesley Tinker; Julie A Mares Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2020-12-30
Authors: Matt Trinh; Natalie Eshow; David Alonso-Caneiro; Michael Kalloniatis; Lisa Nivison-Smith Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2022-10-03 Impact factor: 4.925