JAMA Ophthalmology Journal Club Slides: Validity of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study Grading Scale Vitale S, Clemons TE, Agrn E, et al; Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) Research Group. Evaluating the validity of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study grading scale for age-related macular degeneration: AREDS2 report 10. JAMA Ophthalmol. Published online July 21, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.2383. Copyright restrictions may apply Introduction Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of visual impairment and blindness in older populations. Current treatments for AMD are targeted at specific risk groups based on type and severity of AMD lesions. A standardized grading scale was developed in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) to characterize AMD phenotypes. In AREDS, higher scores on the AMD scale at baseline were significantly associated with higher risk of developing late AMD (neovascular AMD or
central geographic atrophy). Objective To assess whether the AREDS AMD grading scale had similar ability to predict late AMD in AREDS2 as it did in the original AREDS. Copyright restrictions may apply Methods Study Design AREDS (1992-2001) and AREDS2 (2006-2012) were randomized clinical trials to evaluate whether nutritional supplements could slow the progression of AMD. Participants From clinical sites across the United States. AREDS: no AMD, early AMD, intermediate AMD, or late AMD in the fellow eye. AREDS2: bilateral large drusen or large drusen in the study eye plus late AMD in the fellow eye.
Color stereo fundus photographs were obtained at baseline and annually thereafter and were graded at the University of Wisconsin reading center by masked, certified graders. Copyright restrictions may apply Methods Data Analysis Late AMD: 2 of 5 neovascularization signs noted on photographic grading (subretinal fluid; intraretinal, subretinal, or subretinal pigment epithelium blood associated with neovascular AMD; intraretinal lipid exudates; subretinal fibrin or fibrosis; and fibrovascular or serous pigment epithelial detachment), or Central geographic atrophy noted on photographic grading, or History of treatment for neovascular AMD. Calculated 5-year incidence rates of late AMD (number of incident late AMD cases divided by number at risk at baseline). Stratified by baseline AMD detailed severity scale score (eye level). Compared AREDS2 and AREDS rates within each stratum (z test). Performed same analysis but stratifying by baseline simple scale score (person level). Copyright restrictions may apply
Results Percentage of Participants Developing Late AMD in 5 Years With Both Eyes Free of Late AMD at Baseline, Stratified by AREDS Detailed Severity Scale Score for All Eyes Rates of late AMD were similar between AREDS2 and AREDS when stratified by baseline AREDS detailed severity scale scores for AMD. Copyright restrictions may apply AREDS Detailed Severity Scale Score for All Eyes No. (%)/Total No. of Participants AREDSa AREDS2 (n = 4302) (n = 5440) P Value
Total 285/4302 (6.6) Not applicable <.001 .34 .22 .66 .54 .72 .17 1232/5440 (22.6) 1, 2, or 3 13/2630 (0.5) 5/206 (2.4) 4 25/506 (4.9) 21/323 (6.5) 5 15/268 (5.6) 47/591 (8.0)
6 50/364 (13.7) 174/1354 (12.8) 7 97/349 (27.8) 563/2145 (26.2) 8 63/141 (44.7) 257/554 (46.4) 9 (Noncentral 22/44 (50.0) 134/219 (61.2) a geographic atrophy) Includes treated eyes only (excludes placebo). Results Comparing Rates of Progression to Late AMD (Neovascular AMD, Central Geographic Atrophy, or Both) in AREDS and AREDS2 Rates of late AMD were similar between AREDS2 and AREDS when stratified by baseline AREDS detailed severity scale scores for AMD.
Copyright restrictions may apply Results Percentage of Participants Developing Late AMD in 5 Years With Both Eyes Free of Late AMD at Baseline, Stratified by AREDS Simple Scale Score for All Participants Rates of late AMD were similar between AREDS2 and AREDS when stratified by baseline AREDS simple scale severity scores for AMD. Copyright restrictions may apply AREDS Simple Scale Score for All Participants No. (%)/Total No. of Participants AREDS AREDS2 (n = 3211) (n = 2719)
P Value Total 0 1 2 3 4 316/3211 (9.8) 6/1466 (0.4) 20/635 (3.1) 55/465 (11.8) 85/328 (25.9) 150/317 (47.3) Not applicable .85 .02 .65 .90 .57 910/2719 (33.5) 0/9 (0)
5/53 (9.4) 68/532 (12.8) 179/681 (26.3) 658/1444 (45.6) Results Five-Year Rates of Progression of Late Neovascular AMD in AREDS2, Stratified by Status of Fellow Eye at Baseline In AREDS2, rates of late AMD were higher when the fellow eye had late AMD at baseline than when it was free of late AMD at baseline. Copyright restrictions may apply Comment Limitations Clinical trial participants in AREDS2 may differ from participants in other types of AMD treatment trials and from the general population with AMD, so these results may not be generalizable to all populations. Evaluation of the AREDS grading scales in different populations will help to establish their validity in varied settings. Copyright restrictions may apply
Comment The AREDS detailed severity scale was designed to provide baseline risk categories that would allow quantification of the risk of developing late AMD. AREDS2 recruited participants with more severe levels of AMD than in AREDS; therefore, this analysis was stratified by baseline severity. Rates of late AMD were similar in AREDS and AREDS2 after stratifying for baseline severity. This study provides further evidence that the AREDS severity scales are useful for assessing risk of developing late AMD and should be useful tools in future clinical trials of treatments for AMD. Copyright restrictions may apply Contact Information
If you have questions, please contact the corresponding author: Susan Vitale, PhD, MHS, Division of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Room 10D45, Bethesda, MD 20892 ([email protected]). Funding/Support This study was supported by the intramural program funds and contract HHS-N260-2005-00007-C and ABD contract N01-EY-5-00007 from the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland, and in part by an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness to the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison (Drs Domalpally and Danis). Conflict of Interest Disclosures All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Ferris reported holding a patent for the AREDS formulation with Bausch & Lomb. No other disclosures were reported. Copyright restrictions may apply
Kingdom Animalia, Porifera& Cnidarians. How Are Animals Classified? All are Multicellular Eukaryotes. All animals are consumers. No producers or decomposers. ... Radial symmetry-Organism is arranged in a circle around a central point.
In order for the change to take place on the request, the student will have to turn in the verification letter to the counselor. Students will have an advisement session about their scores should they have any questions about the...
Climate is a primary influence, but human institutions could have a moderating effect. Overall, however, the relationship between health and lifestyle is under the direct influence, if not the control, of airs, waters, and places.
How a Bill Becomes a Law The Beginning A bill is a proposed law. The majority of bills originate in the executive branch. Only members can introduce bills. Types of Bills Public bills apply to the nation Private bills apply...
Types of selective pressures may result from: i.e. climate conditions, food availability, predators, and choice of mate etc. There are four types of selection: Directional Selection . 2) Stabilizing Selection . 3) Disruptive Selection . 4) Sexual Selection .
Basic research approach and questions Interdisciplinary (feminist sociology and welfare state research, political theory of neo-institutionalism, system theory and more hermaneutic such as social constructivism) Comparative (across time and countries) Policy-oriented (in the focus on shifts in configurations of care...
When you find something unsafe, submit PS Form 1767, Report of Hazard, Unsafe Condition or Practice. For more information, refer to Handbook M41, City Delivery Carriers Duties and Responsibilities. So that just doesn't look safe?
Ready to download the document? Go ahead and hit continue!