Investigating the modulation of genetic effects on late AMD by age and sex : Lessons learned and two additional loci

Funding: The authors gratefully acknowledge the excellent International Age-related Macular Degeneration Genomics Consortium (IAMDGC), (http://amdgenetics.org/). This analyses are supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF 01ER1206, BMBF 01ER1507 to IMH, and BMBF 01GP1308) to JL. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Y chromosome mosaicism is associated with age-related macular degeneration

Acknowledgements The authors thank Sudha K. Iyengar, Rob Igo and Alberto H. Santana (Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA) as well as the IAMDGC (http://eaglep.case.edu/iamdgc_web/) for providing the raw probe intensities. We are also grateful to valuable comments to the manuscript from Michael Gorin (Jules Stein Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA). The list of consortium members reflects the author list of the previous publication by Fritsche et al. 2016 [9], which is listed in the Supplement. Funding The work was funded, in parts by a grant from the German Research Foundation (GR 5065/1-1 to FG) and institutional funds of the Institute of Human Genetics, University of Regensburg (TG77 to BHFW). Genotyping was conducted as part of the IAMDGC exome-chip project supported by CIDR (contract number HHSN268201200008I) and funded by EY022310 (to Jonathan L. Haines, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland) and 1 × 01HG006934-01 (to Gonçalo R. Abecasis, University of Michigan, Department of Biostatistics). The funding bodies had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Cataract surgery in uveitis: a multicentre database study

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Cataract is an important source of visual loss in patients with uveitis. Whether or not outcomes of cataract surgery in eyes with uveitis are worse compared with non-uveitic eyes have to date been compromised by lack of reliable estimates of benefit and harm, which require data from large cohorts. METHODS: Electronic medical record data were extracted from eight independent UK clinical sites for eyes undergoing cataract extraction between January 2010 and December 2014. 1173 eyes with a recorded diagnosis of uveitis were compared with a reference group of 95 573 eyes from the same dataset. RESULTS: Uveitic eyes represented 1.2% of all eyes undergoing cataract surgery. Eyes in the uveitic group had worse preoperative visual acuity (0.87 vs 0.65 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units), were from younger patients and had shorter axial lengths and a higher incidence of ocular copathology including glaucoma. A greater number had documented small pupils, required additional surgical procedures, developed more intraoperative complications and had poorer postoperative visual acuity at all time points measured up to 6 months (0.41 vs 0.27 logMAR units at 12-24 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: This large study cohort of eyes with a diagnosis of uveitis undergoing cataract surgery highlights more precisely the complex surgical demands, copathology and worse visual outcomes in this group. These data will allow more accurate preoperative counselling and planning. Although improvement in visual acuity is achieved in most cases, prognosis should be guarded, so that patient expectations are met. Compared with the non-uveitic population, the mean postoperative visual acuity is between one and two lines worse at all time points

TOZAL Study: An open case control study of an oral antioxidant and omega-3 supplement for dry AMD

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this prospective study was to measure the change from baseline in visual function – Best-Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) via the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart, contrast sensitivity, central 10 degree visual fields and retinal imaging (angiograms and photographs) at 6 months in subjects with atrophic (dry) age-related macular degeneration treated with a targeted nutritional supplement. METHODS: 37 mixed gender patients with a mean age of 76.3 +/- 7.8 years were enrolled at 5 independent study sites and received standard of care with a novel formulation of a nutritional supplement. Results were compared to a placebo cohort constructed from the literature that was matched for inclusion and exclusion criteria. A paired t-test was used to test a null hypothesis and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: 76.7% of subjects receiving the nutritional supplement demonstrated stabilization or improvement of BCVA at 6 months. Subjects gained an average of 0.0541 logMAR or one-half of a line of visual acuity (VA) over the 6-month period. There was a statistically significant improvement in VA from baseline with P = .045. The results provide strong evidence that the treatment being studied produces an improvement in VA. CONCLUSION: Treatment with this unique nutritional supplement increased VA above the expected baseline decrease in the majority of patients in this population with dry macular degeneration. The results of the TOZAL study agree with the LAST and CARMIS studies and are predictive for positive visual acuity outcomes in the AREDS II trial. However, patients will likely require supplementation for longer than 6 months to effect changes in additional visual parameters

Radiotherapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy has been proposed as a treatment for new vessel growth in people with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of radiotherapy on neovascular AMD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and three trials registers and checked references of included studies. We last searched the databases on 4 May 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials in which radiotherapy was compared to another treatment, sham treatment, low dosage irradiation or no treatment in people with choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) secondary to AMD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We considered the following outcomes at 12 months: best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (loss of 3 or more lines, change in visual acuity), contrast sensitivity, new vessel growth, quality of life and adverse effects at any time point.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies (n = 2430 people, 2432 eyes) of radiation therapy with dosages ranging from 7.5 to 24 Gy. These studies mainly took place in Europe and North America but two studies were from Japan and one multicentre study included sites in South America. Three of these studies investigated brachytherapy (plaque and epimacular), the rest were studies of external beam radiotherapy (EBM) including one trial of stereotactic radiotherapy. Four studies compared radiotherapy combined with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) with anti-VEGF alone. Eleven studies gave no radiotherapy treatment to the control group; five studies used sham irradiation; and one study used very low-dose irradiation (1 Gy). One study used a mixture of sham irradiation and no treatment. Fifteen studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in one or more domains. Radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy There may be little or no difference in loss of 3 lines of vision at 12 months in eyes treated with radiotherapy compared with no radiotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.04, 811 eyes, 8 studies, I2 = 66%, low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence suggests a small benefit in change in visual acuity (mean difference (MD) -0.10 logMAR, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.03; eyes = 883; studies = 10) and average contrast sensitivity at 12 months (MD 0.15 log units, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.25; eyes = 267; studies = 2). Growth of new vessels (largely change in CNV size) was variably reported and It was not possible to produce a summary estimate of this outcome. The studies were small with imprecise estimates and there was no consistent pattern to the study results (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life was only reported in one study of 199 people; there was no clear difference between treatment and control groups (low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence was available on adverse effects from eight of 14 studies. Seven studies reported on radiation retinopathy and/or neuropathy. Five of these studies reported no radiation-associated adverse effects. One study of 88 eyes reported one case of possible radiation retinopathy. One study of 74 eyes graded retinal abnormalities in some detail and found that 72% of participants who had radiation compared with 71% of participants in the control group had retinal abnormalities resembling radiation retinopathy or choroidopathy. Four studies reported cataract surgery or progression: events were generally few with no consistent evidence of any increased occurrence in the radiation group. One study noted transient disturbance of the precorneal tear film but there was no evidence from the other two studies that reported dry eye of any increased risk with radiation therapy. None of the participants received anti-VEGF injections. Radiotherapy combined with anti-VEGF versus anti-VEGF alone People receiving radiotherapy/anti-VEGF were probably more likely to lose 3 or more lines of BCVA at 12 months compared with anti-VEGF alone (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.40 to 3.17, 1050 eyes, 3 studies, moderate-certainty). Most of the data for this outcome come from two studies of epimacular brachytherapy (114 events) compared with 20 events from the one trial of EBM. Data on change in BCVA were heterogenous (I2 = 82%). Individual study results ranged from a small difference of -0.03 logMAR in favour of radiotherapy/anti-VEGF to a difference of 0.13 logMAR in favour of anti-VEGF alone (low-certainty evidence). The effect differed depending on how the radiotherapy was delivered (test for interaction P = 0.0007). Epimacular brachytherapy was associated with worse visual outcomes (MD 0.10 logMAR, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.15, 820 eyes, 2 studies) compared with EBM (MD -0.03 logMAR, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.03, 252 eyes, 2 studies). None of the included studies reported contrast sensitivity or quality of life. Growth of new vessels (largely change in CNV size) was variably reported in three studies (803 eyes). It was not possible to produce a summary estimate and there was no consistent pattern to the study results (very low-certainty evidence). For adverse outcomes, variable results were reported in the four studies. In three studies reports of adverse events were low and no radiation-associated adverse events were reported. In one study of epimacular brachytherapy there was a higher proportion of ocular adverse events (54%) compared to the anti-VEGF alone (18%). The majority of these adverse events were cataract. Overall 5% of the treatment group had radiation device-related adverse events (17 cases); 10 of these cases were radiation retinopathy. There were differences in average number of injections given between the four studies (1072 eyes). In three of the four studies, the anti-VEGF alone group on average received more injections (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is uncertain regarding the use of radiotherapy for neovascular AMD. Most studies took place before the routine use of anti-VEGF, and before the development of modern radiotherapy techniques such as stereotactic radiotherapy. Visual outcomes with epimacular brachytherapy are likely to be worse, with an increased risk of adverse events,  probably related to vitrectomy. The role of stereotactic radiotherapy combined with anti-VEGF is currently uncertain. Further research on radiotherapy for neovascular AMD may not be justified until current ongoing studies have reported their results

Serous Retinal Detachment Following Combined Photodynamic Therapy and Intravitreal Bevacizumab Injection

We report a case of serous retinal detachment following combined photodynamic therapy (PDT) and intravitreal bevacizumab injection in subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV)

Newly diagnosed exudative age-related macular degeneration treated with pegaptanib sodium monotherapy in US community-based practices: medical chart review study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Studies have shown that early detection and treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NV-AMD) can delay vision loss and blindness. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy/safety of intravitreal pegaptanib sodium monotherapy in treatment-naïve subjects with newly diagnosed NV-AMD and to gain insight into characteristics of lesions treated in community-based practices.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>From seven private US practices, charts were retrospectively reviewed on 73 subjects with previously untreated subfoveal choroidal NV-AMD treated with their first dose of pegaptanib monotherapy on/after 4/1/2005 through 6/5/2006, receiving ≥4 treatments at 6-week intervals over 21 weeks. Primary endpoint: mean visual acuity (VA) change from baseline to month 6.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>75% of lesions were occult, and 82% were subfoveal. From baseline to month 6, mean VA change was -0.68 lines; 58% and 16% gained ≥0 and ≥3 lines of VA, and 70% were responders (<3 lines lost). In 35 subjects with early disease, 80% were responders with a mean gain of 0.46 lines.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Pegaptanib is effective in real-world patients with treatment-naïve NV-AMD in uncontrolled community-based retina practices.</p

25th RCOphth Congress, President's Session paper:25 years of progress in medical retina

The quarter century since the foundation of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists has coincided with immense change in the subspecialty of medical retina, which has moved from being the province of a few dedicated enthusiasts to being an integral, core part of ophthalmology in every eye department. In age-related macular degeneration, there has been a move away from targeted, destructive laser therapy, dependent on fluorescein angiography to intravitreal injection therapy of anti-growth factor agents, largely guided by optical coherence tomography. As a result of these changes, ophthalmologists have witnessed a marked improvement in visual outcomes for their patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), while at the same time developing and enacting entirely novel ways of delivering care. In the field of diabetic retinopathy, this period also saw advances in laser technology and a move away from highly destructive laser photocoagulation treatment to gentler retinal laser treatments. The introduction of intravitreal therapies, both steroids and anti-growth factor agents, has further advanced the treatment of diabetic macular oedema. This era has also seen in the United Kingdom the introduction of a coordinated national diabetic retinopathy screening programme, which offers an increasing hope that the burden of blindness from diabetic eye disease can be lessened. Exciting future advances in retinal imaging, genetics, and pharmacology will allow us to further improve outcomes for our patients and for ophthalmologists specialising in medical retina, the future looks very exciting but increasingly busy