We found in our previous study that adjunctive treatment with BDNF increases the number of surviving photoreceptors and the magnitude of local retinal responses to light 1 week after verteporfin PDT.
9 In the present study, we asked whether other neurotrophic factors might be superior to BDNF. Although both CNTF and PEDF significantly increased the number of surviving photoreceptors 1 week after PDT, their rescue effects were weaker than for BDNF, and neither improved retinal function. Among the factors we have tested, BDNF therefore remains the best single adjunct to PDT, with beneficial effects on both photoreceptor survival and retinal function.
Several groups have demonstrated that CNTF depresses the full-field ERG.
23 24 26 Reduction of mfERG responses, despite a greater number of surviving photoreceptors, is likely to reflect similar mechanisms. CNTF alters photoreceptor gene expression, downregulating rhodopsin and transducin and upregulating arrestin. It has been suggested that these effects may be one mechanism by which CNTF protects photoreceptors (Wen R et al.
IOVS 2004;45:ARVO E-Abstract 785; Song Y et al.
IOVS 2004;45:ARVO E-Abstract 4676). It is also possible that CNTF modulates ERG responses by acting directly on inner retinal cells (Yang X-J et al.
IOVS 2006;47:ARVO E-Abstract 4827). Because of its slightly weaker rescue effect and adverse effect on mfERG responses, we did not consider CNTF to be preferable to BDNF. Moreover, high doses of CNTF that depress ERG responses in rats have been shown to reduce visual acuity in behavioral testing (McGill TJ et al.
IOVS 2006;47:ARVO E-Abstract 4815). However, the relationship between ERG response and psychophysical measures is complex,
41 and a recent clinical trial has reported improved acuity despite reduced full-field ERG responses.
29 Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that CNTF used in conjunction with PDT might result in improved visual acuity for patients.
PEDF had no appreciable effect on mfERG responses at the dose tested compared to PBS injection. This may have resulted from its relatively modest degree of photoreceptor rescue. However, it remains possible that the antiangiogenic activity of PEDF could be valuable in the treatment of CNV.
34 37 38 39 40 Our experiments did not address this question, but they do suggest that if PEDF were used for its antiangiogenic activity, it would also have a moderate neuroprotective effect.
The rescue effect of the combination of BDNF and CNTF was somewhat greater than their individual effects, perhaps reflecting the fact that they act through distinct signal transduction pathways.
42 43 Previous investigations have also found that combinations may be more effective than individual neurotrophic factors.
21 42 44 45 The combination depressed mfERG responses, although to a lesser degree than did CNTF alone. Further experiments are needed to determine whether the combination of BDNF and CNTF would produce photoreceptor survival superior to BDNF alone in the long run and whether retinal function would therefore be better after allowing time for recovery from the transient suppressive effect of CNTF
29 (Luthert PJ, personal communication, 2001; Wen R et al.
IOVS 2004;45:ARVO E-Abstract 785; McGill TJ et al.
IOVS 2006;47:ARVO E-Abstract 4815). If so, the clinical utility of combination treatment would depend on the tradeoff between short-term suppression of mfERG responses and improved long-term photoreceptor survival.
BDNF significantly improved retinal function 1 week after a single PDT treatment, but no difference between BDNF-injected and PBS-injected eyes was observed 3 months later. mfERG responses increased in both sets of eyes over this period, but the change in PBS-injected eyes was quantitatively greater than in BDNF-injected eyes, so that they were not significantly worse than BDNF-injected eyes after 3 months. Depression and gradual recovery of mfERG responses have also been documented in patients treated with PDT.
14 15 We observed some rescue in PBS-injected eyes relative to noninjected eyes, demonstrated by recovery of retinal function assessed with mfERG but not by retinal histology, that was significant only at the 3-month time point.
The functional recovery with time that we observed in PBS-injected eyes may have resulted from at least two different mechanisms, which are not mutually exclusive. First, the depression of mfERG responses by PDT may reflect not only the death of some photoreceptors, but also sublethal injury to surviving cells. For example, inner and outer segments were more severely disrupted in PBS-injected eyes than in factor-injected eyes 1 week after PDT
(Figs. 3B 3C) . They lengthened over the following 3 months
(Figs. 6A 6B) , but were again shorter in PBS-injected than in BDNF-injected eyes after a second PDT treatment
(Figs. 6C 6D) . These changes in inner and outer segment length may account for the changes in mfERG responses over time by altering photon capture or other aspects of photoreceptor physiology. This model suggests that BDNF-injected eyes maintain relatively robust mfERG responses throughout the period studied
(Fig. 5)because their inner and outer segments are largely protected from damage due to PDT.
Second and more speculatively, the injured retina may undergo a process of synaptic remodeling. Death of photoreceptors after PDT would deprive inner retinal neurons of some photoreceptor inputs. These neurons may form new connections with the surviving photoreceptors, possibly strengthening inner retinal responses to light over time in PBS-injected eyes despite the decreased number of photoreceptors. Synaptic remodeling does occur in retinas with stressed or dying photoreceptors, although there is as yet no evidence that the newly formed synapses can mediate normal visual function.
46 47 48 Whatever the mechanism of functional recovery in our model, it is likely to have relevance to understanding the effects of PDT on the human retina.
It is possible that continuous delivery of BDNF, rather than the single bolus injection used in our studies, would further improve retinal function in BDNF-treated eyes 3 months after PDT. Neurotrophic factors are degraded within several days after single injections
49 and are generally insufficient for long-term protection, prompting investigators to work toward continuous delivery methods. These include encapsulated cell technology
25 and viral delivery of genes encoding neurotrophic factors.
24 50
BDNF rescued retinal function after a second course of PDT, suggesting that the benefits of neuroprotection could be sustained in patients requiring multiple treatments. Protection of function after the second treatment was associated with improved retinal architecture, rather than with an increase in the number of surviving photoreceptors. Rosette formation is a fairly nonspecific finding and has been reported in retinitis pigmentosa,
51 other inherited retinal disorders,
52 53 vascular diseases,
54 and exposure to teratogens.
55 56 The disorganization that we observed in PBS-injected eyes progressed with time: only scalloping was evident 1 week after PDT, but full-fledged rosettes appeared by 3 months
(Figs. 3B 6A) . BDNF presumably reduces this abnormal reorganization of the ONL by ameliorating the initial injury from PDT. The structural damage in PBS-injected eyes, and protection by BDNF, were more marked after a second PDT treatment. Our data suggest that BDNF would have long-term benefits for retinal organization, particularly in patients requiring more than one treatment.
Our findings point to at least two potential benefits of adjunctive neuroprotective treatment for patients receiving PDT. First, visual disturbances
10 11 12 13 and depression of mfERG responses with gradual recovery
14 15 have been documented after PDT in patients. We observed similar depression and recovery in mfERG responses over time in PBS-injected eyes, whereas BDNF largely prevented these changes, maintaining relatively robust mfERG responses. These findings suggest that BDNF may also prevent visual disturbances in patients after PDT. Protection from acute severe vision loss
12 could confer a major benefit on a subset of patients. Second, animal studies have shown that retinal damage is cumulative with successive PDT treatments.
6 7 Our data add to this body of evidence and show that BDNF preserves retinal structure through two rounds of PDT, a benefit that would be expected to persist in the long term. Structural preservation may be particularly important in the presence of CNV, which is not a feature of our model, but which represents a preexisting disruption of retinal structure in patients with neovascular AMD. As mentioned earlier, it is possible that our study did not capture the full potential benefit of BDNF, because we delivered only a single bolus dose of the factor. Emerging continuous delivery approaches may be needed to maximize the long-term therapeutic value of BDNF.
Although the treatment of neovascular AMD is evolving with the introduction of therapies targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), PDT may continue to play an important role. An ongoing clinical trial has compared a combination of PDT and ranibizumab, an anti-VEGF antibody fragment, with ranibizumab monotherapy. The combination treatment requires fewer intraocular injections of ranibizumab to achieve an equivalent clinical benefit (Schmidt-Erfurth UM et al. IOVS 2006;47:ARVO E-Abstract 2960). By preserving retinal structure and function after PDT, adjunctive neuroprotective therapy may contribute to optimal visual outcomes in patients with AMD.
The authors thank Charles McCulloch for statistical advice; Don Eubank for assistance in obtaining verteporfin; and Shivani Sharma, Marloes Sijstermans, Dean Cruz, Nancy Lawson, Jose Velarde, and Nonita Velarde for technical assistance.