3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

Description of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study 9-Step Severity Scale Applied to Participants in the Complications of Age-related Macular Degeneration Prevention Trial

Journal

ARCHIVES OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 127, Issue 9, Pages 1147-1151

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.189

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY012261, EY012279, EY012211] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [U10EY012279] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To describe characteristics of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) 9-step severity scale applied to participants in the Complications of Age-related Macular Degeneration Prevention Trial (CAPT). Methods: Eligibility criteria for CAPT required 10 or more large (>= 125 mu m) drusen in each eye. Readers graded baseline photographs from all participants and all follow-up photographs from 402 untreated eyes. Drusen and pigment characteristics were used to assign the AREDS scale score. Choroidal neovascularization was identified from fluorescein angiograms. Geographic atrophy involving the macular center was identified from color photographs. Results: Among 1001 untreated eyes, 90% were at steps 5 to 7 at baseline. The 5-year incidence of advanced age-related macular degeneration (AMD) increased with each step from 8% (step 4) to 40% (steps 8 and 9 combined). These rates were similar to those reported in AREDS. Among 261 eyes with all 5 annual photograph gradings available and without progression to advanced AMD, 55% of eyes had scores that indicated improvement at least once. Before progression to advanced AMD, only 32% of 141 eyes either went through step 8 or 9 or had an increase of 2 or more steps from baseline. Conclusions: The AREDS 9-step severity scale was predictive of development of advanced AMD. The AREDS scale has deficiencies as a surrogate outcome for progression to advanced AMD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available