July 2018
Volume 59, Issue 9
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2018
Impact of Fundus Autofluorescence Pattern on Geographic Atrophy Progression in Untreated Eyes: A Meta-analysis
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Liangbo Linus Shen
    Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
  • Feimei Liu
    Biomedical Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
  • Holly Grossetta Nardini
    Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
  • lucian Del Priore
    Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Liangbo Shen, None; Feimei Liu, None; Holly Grossetta Nardini, None; lucian Del Priore, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  Research to Prevent Blindness (Principal Investigator: Del Priore).
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2018, Vol.59, 2412. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Liangbo Linus Shen, Feimei Liu, Holly Grossetta Nardini, lucian Del Priore; Impact of Fundus Autofluorescence Pattern on Geographic Atrophy Progression in Untreated Eyes: A Meta-analysis. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59(9):2412.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : 6 distinct patterns of increased fundus autofluorescence (FAF) in the junctional zone of geographic atrophy (GA) have been identified and reported in the literature. However, the exact impact of each FAF pattern on GA progression is unclear. The reported progression rates of GA area within the same FAF pattern vary widely across different clinical trials. Also, there is little knowledge of FAF patterns' impact on the pattern of GA lesion expansion. In this meta-analysis, we assessed the impact of each FAF pattern on GA progression in untreated eyes with nonexudative AMD.

Methods : We performed a systematic literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and PubMed. We included studies that classified subjects based on FAF patterns and measured GA size in untreated eyes over at least 6-month period. In the analyses, we included 6 FAF patterns: “None”, “Focal”, “Banded”, “Patchy”, “Diffuse Nontrickling”, and “Diffuse Trickling”. Random-effect meta-analysis was performed to compare different FAF groups. We also derived the lesion growth function for each FAF group. In order to account for the subjects’ different entry times, we introduced a horizontal translation factor to shift each data subset until r2 was maximized for the cumulative trend line. Heterogeneity, study quality, and publication bias were evaluated in accordance with the guideline of meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology.

Results : Of 1704 articles reviewed, we identified 7 studies (935 eyes) that met our inclusion criteria. The 6 FAF patterns can be clustered into 4 groups based on GA radius growth rate (Table). Each group has a distinct radius growth rate with very high r2 (Figure): Group 1 (“None” pattern, 0.061 mm/year, r2=0.996), Group 2 (“Focal” pattern, 0.105 mm/year, r2=0.987), Group 3 (“Banded”, “Patchy”, and “Diffuse Nontrickling”, 0.149 mm/year, r2=0.993) and Group 4 (“Diffuse Trickling”, 0.245 mm/year, r2=0.986).

Conclusions : The FAF patterns are true phenotypes that significantly affected the GA radius progression rate without altering the progression pattern. The differences in GA progression rates among FAF patterns may be associated with the area of FAF instead of the specific patterns.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2018 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29 - May 3, 2018.

 

Table. Statistical Comparison in GA Radius Growth Rate between Each Pair of FAF Patterns.

Table. Statistical Comparison in GA Radius Growth Rate between Each Pair of FAF Patterns.

 

Figure. Comparison in GA Lesion Progression among Different FAF Groups.

Figure. Comparison in GA Lesion Progression among Different FAF Groups.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×