Evaluating the validity of the age-related eye disease study grading scale for age-related macular degeneration AREDS2 report 10

23Citations
Citations of this article
46Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE To test potential treatments for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), clinical trials need standardized outcome measures that are valid for predicting AMD progression in different study populations. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the validity of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) detailed and simple AMD severity scales by comparing rates of development of late AMD (neovascular AMD and/or central geographic atrophy) between AREDS and AREDS2 participants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Both AREDS (1992-2001) and AREDS2 (2006-2012) enrolled patients from academic and community-based retinal practices across the United States. In AREDS (n = 4519), participants with varying severity of AMD-from no AMD to late AMD in 1 eye-were enrolled. In AREDS2 (n = 4203), participants with bilateral large drusen or large drusen in the study eye and late AMD in the fellow eye were enrolled. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Five-year incidence of late AMD, assessed by annual masked centralized fundus photograph grading. RESULTS In AREDS, the mean (SD) age of the patients was 69.3 (5.7) years, and 2519 (55.7%) were female. In AREDS2, the mean (SD) age of the patients was 73.1 (7.7) years, and 2388 (56.8%) were female. The 5-year rates of late AMD did not differ between AREDS2 and AREDS participants within nearly all baseline AMD detailed severity scale levels: Levels 1 to 3: 2.4%vs 0.5%(difference, 1.9%; 95%CI, -0.2%to 4.0%; P < .001); level 4: 6.5%vs 4.9% (difference, 1.6%; 95%CI, -1.7%to 4.8%; P = .34); level 5: 8.0%vs 5.6%(difference, 2.4%; 95%CI, -1.2%to 5.9%; P = .22); level 6: 12.8%vs 13.7%(difference, -0.9%; 95%CI, -4.8% to 3.1%; P = .66); level 7: 26.2%vs 27.8%(difference, -1.5%; 95%CI, -6.6%to 3.5%; P = .54); and level 8: 46.4%vs 44.7%(difference, 1.7%; 95%CI, -7.5%to 10.9%; P = .72). Within simple scale levels, AREDS2 and AREDS 5-year rates did not differ significantly except for level 1 (9.4%vs 3.1%, P = .02; level 2: 12.8%vs 11.8%, P = .65; level 3: 26.3%vs 25.9%, P = .90; and level 4: 45.6%vs 47.3%, P = .57). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The AREDS detailed and simple AMD severity scales were useful measures for assessing the risk of developing late AMD in the AREDS2 population; these data suggest that they should be useful tools for clinical trials of AMD treatments.

References Powered by Scopus

A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of high-dose supplementation with vitamins C and E, beta carotene, and zinc for age-related macular degeneration and vision loss: AREDS report no. 8

2882Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Prevalence of Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the United States

2541Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Causes and Prevalence of Visual Impairment among Adults in the United States

2308Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Epidemiology of age-related macular degeneration (AMD): associations with cardiovascular disease phenotypes and lipid factors

386Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Report from the NEI/FDA endpoints workshop on age- related macular degeneration and inherited retinal diseases

175Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Alterations in the choriocapillaris in intermediate age-related macular degeneration

147Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vitale, S., Clemons, T. E., Agrón, E., Ferris, F. L., Domalpally, A., Danis, R. P., & Chew, E. Y. (2016). Evaluating the validity of the age-related eye disease study grading scale for age-related macular degeneration AREDS2 report 10. JAMA Ophthalmology, 134(9), 1041–1047. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.2383

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 18

67%

Researcher 6

22%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

11%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 25

86%

Nursing and Health Professions 2

7%

Philosophy 1

3%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 1

3%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 36942

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free