Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging Retina

Clinical Science 

Factors Associated With Poor Response to Aflibercept After Switching From Ranibizumab or Bevacizumab in Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration

Sarah Cheng, BS; Theodore Leng, MD

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this study was to analyze demographic and ocular features of patients with age-related macular degeneration who failed aflibercept (Eylea; Regeneron, Tarrytown, NY) treatment after switching from ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) or bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

Retrospective chart review of patients treated with aflibercept at the Byers Eye Institute from November 2011 to August 2014. Patient visual acuity was noted prior to aflibercept; after 1, 3, and 12 months; and on the most recent visit. Patients who improved vision after switching were compared to patients who lost vision. Demographic and imaging features were analyzed using univariate and multivariate statistics.

RESULTS:

Patients who lost vision had significantly higher BMI (P = .013, multivariate) and geographic atrophy (P = .0381, univariate; P = .1, multivariate) compared to patients who improved vision.

CONCLUSION:

BMI and geographic atrophy may be considered as potential indicators for poor response to aflibercept after switching from ranibizumab or bevacizumab.

[Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2016;47:458–465.]

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this study was to analyze demographic and ocular features of patients with age-related macular degeneration who failed aflibercept (Eylea; Regeneron, Tarrytown, NY) treatment after switching from ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) or bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

Retrospective chart review of patients treated with aflibercept at the Byers Eye Institute from November 2011 to August 2014. Patient visual acuity was noted prior to aflibercept; after 1, 3, and 12 months; and on the most recent visit. Patients who improved vision after switching were compared to patients who lost vision. Demographic and imaging features were analyzed using univariate and multivariate statistics.

RESULTS:

Patients who lost vision had significantly higher BMI (P = .013, multivariate) and geographic atrophy (P = .0381, univariate; P = .1, multivariate) compared to patients who improved vision.

CONCLUSION:

BMI and geographic atrophy may be considered as potential indicators for poor response to aflibercept after switching from ranibizumab or bevacizumab.

[Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2016;47:458–465.]

Introduction

The mainstay of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) treatment consists of antiangiogenic therapies. The two most commonly used intravitreal injections (IVIs) are ranibizumab (Lucentis; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) and bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA).1,2 Both can be administered monthly, and studies demonstrate similar efficacy.3,4 While IVIs are a very safe procedure, there exists the potential for endophthalmitis and uveitis.2

The promise of fewer IVIs to achieve a similar or superior result has led to U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of aflibercept (Eylea; Regeneron,Tarrytown, NY) in November of 2011 for the treatment of neovascular AMD.5 Aflibercept is a fusion protein that combines two important domains — the binding domain of human VEGF receptor 1 (VEGFR1) and 2 (VEGFR2) — with the human immunoglobulin G antibody's constant chain portion.6 It acts as a decoy receptor6,7 that reduces choroidal neovascularization by binding to VEGF form A (using both its VEGFR1 and VEGFR2 domains) as well as to placental growth factor (PlGF). This sequesters both these angiogenic factors from binding to their actual receptors (VEGFR1, 2), thus blocking the signal for new blood vessel formation.

Aflibercept is favorable because it requires IVIs every 2 months (after three monthly IVIs) and has been found to be as effective as monthly ranibizumab for treating AMD.8–11 This may be due to the fact that aflibercept has a greater binding affinity for VEGF than ranibizumab or bevacizumab.6,12–14 Furthermore aflibercept also binds VEGF-B and PlGF, and it has a longer half-life than ranibizumab.9,11 Fewer IVIs with equivalent visual acuity outcomes can reduce the number of office visits and could also impact the incidence of infections or other complications associated with monthly IVIs.

With three anti-VEGF treatments for AMD available today, the ophthalmic community has been extensively exploring the optimal treatment regimens for these agents.15–20 With the advent of aflibercept, it is common practice to switch patients who previously had a suboptimal response to ranibizumab or bevacizumab.21–23 However, some patients fail to improve despite exhausting all three options. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the characteristics of the patients who do not respond to aflibercept after switching from ranibizumab or bevacizumab.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed for 248 patients who were treated with aflibercept at the Byers Eye Institute at Stanford from November 2011 to August 2014. Ethics board approval was obtained from the Stanford University Human Subjects Institutional Review Board. All research was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA); and all local, state, and national laws.

Patients with AMD who were previously treated with ranibizumab or bevacizumab who later switched to aflibercept were identified. These patients switched due incomplete response to ranibizumab or bevacizumab, defined as the presence of intraretinal or subretinal fluid despite monthly treatment. This study included all consecutive nonresponders in the study population. Each patient's visual acuity was noted at baseline prior to aflibercept treatment; 1, 3, and 12 months after aflibercept; and at the most recent visit when aflibercept was given. Improvement in vision was defined as improvement by one line on the Snellen chart compared to baseline visual acuity. Decrease in vision was defined as loss of vision by one line on the Snellen chart when compared to baseline. This criterion was adopted because many of these patients started with poor baseline visual acuity at the time of the switch. Patients were categorized into those who improved, those who lost vision after aflibercept, or those who experienced a mixture of both. We compared patients who gained vision on aflibercept to patients who lost vision. Patients who gained vision had improvement in visual acuity at one or more subsequent visits and never fell to below baseline vision. Patients who lost vision had decreased visual acuity compared to baseline and never returned to baseline visual acuity. For analysis, visual acuity was converted to logMar as previously described.24

Based on the criterion described above, there were 29 eyes (25 patients) that were classified as having improved vision and 23 eyes (21 patients) that were classified as having decreased vision. Review of medical records was performed to record age, gender, race, BMI, obesity (BMI > 30), smoking, more than 10 pack years of smoking, comorbid conditions (hypertension, diabetes, malignancies), use of anti-inflammatory medication (bromfenac, triamcinolone acetonide), steroids use, number of previous injections of ranibizumab and bevacizumab, and use of Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) supplements. For demographic factors, each person was only analyzed one time even if they had two eyes in the study.

In addition, spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) scans were carefully reviewed to identify the presence of baseline vitreomacular adhesions (VMA), subretinal fluid, intraretinal fluid, pigment epithelium detachment (PED), integrity of the ellipsoid zone (EZ), hyperreflective material above drusen, subretinal CNV or scar, epiretinal membrane, drusen, geographic atrophy (GA), and automatically generated metrics from SD-OCT analysis software (central cube thickness, central volume, central subfield thickness, GA area, drusen volume). We chose OCT to assess ocular findings instead of fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) and indocyanine green (ICG) imaging because FFA and ICG are more invasive, and FFA/ICG was not performed on all our patients.

Statistical analysis was performed using the JMP statistical analysis software (Version 11; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Each variable was tested independently in a univariate analysis to determine statistical significance using response to aflibercept as a binary categorical variable. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed for continuous data variables if not normally distributed, and t test was performed for normally distributed variables. Statistical significance was taken for a P value of less than .05 and trending significance were taken for a P value that was less than .10 but greater than .05. Following this univariate analysis, the factors with a P value of less than .05 were entered into a multivariate nominal logistic regression using response to aflibercept as a dependent variable and the factors as predictors. The model selection was based on minimum Akaike's Information Criteria (AIC). AIC estimates the difference between a given model and a “true” model, and thus a minimum AIC is considered the best model.

Results

The mean visual change over time is demonstrated in Figure 1, stratified by the two groups. Responders experienced improvement in visual acuity over time, and nonresponders experienced decrease in visual acuity over time. The baseline visual acuity in the responders in logMar was 0.462 ± 0.17 and the baseline visual acuity in non-responders was 0.487 ± 0.34 (P = .6246). Analysis of previous injection history revealed that positive responders to aflibercept had on average 12.103 ± 9.03 previous intravitreal injections of ranibizumab or bevacizumab prior to the switch, and negative responders had on average 14.304 ± 8.31 previous injections (P = .2335).


LogMar of visual acuity (VA) versus follow-up time points, stratified by group. Responders had VA improvement over time, corresponding to the LogMar numbers on the Y-axis. In contrast, nonresponders had VA decrease over time.

Figure 1.

LogMar of visual acuity (VA) versus follow-up time points, stratified by group. Responders had VA improvement over time, corresponding to the LogMar numbers on the Y-axis. In contrast, nonresponders had VA decrease over time.

Out of a total 46 patients, 25 improved vision after aflibercept treatment (group 1) and 21 lost vision (group 2). The mean age of those with improved vision was 80.34 years, and the mean age of those with decreased vision was 84.21 years. Baseline demographics of patients are shown in Table 1.


Patient Demographics

Table 1:

Patient Demographics

The average BMI of patients who responded poorly to aflibercept was 28.18, whereas the patients who responded well averaged a BMI of 25.49 (P = .0252, univariate) (Figure 2). Using the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definition of obesity at BMI of greater than 30, 33% of poor responders were obese and 0% of patients with improved vision were obese (P = .0014). Patients who responded well to aflibercept and those who did not had similar distribution in age, gender, race, smoking history, comorbid conditions (hypertension, diabetes, malignancies), and rate of anti-inflammatory use (bromfenac, triamcinolone-acetonide, steroids) (Table 1).


Average BMI stratified by group average BMI of responders to aflibercept after switching from ranibizumab or bevacizumab was 25.49, whereas nonresponders averaged a BMI of 28.18 (P = .0252).

Figure 2.

Average BMI stratified by group average BMI of responders to aflibercept after switching from ranibizumab or bevacizumab was 25.49, whereas nonresponders averaged a BMI of 28.18 (P = .0252).

SD-OCT imaging analysis of patient eyes revealed that 43.48% of patients with decreased vision after aflibercept had geographic atrophy at baseline, whereas only 17.24% of favorable responders had GA (P = .0381). All other examined features on SD-OCT scans were not significantly different (Table 2).


OCT Findings at Baseline

Table 2:

OCT Findings at Baseline

In the multivariate regression model, the factor significantly associated with favorable response to aflibercept was BMI (P = .013). Geographic atrophy had trending significance (P = .1) in the multivariate model.

Discussion

The VEGF inhibitor drugs ranibizumab and bevacizumab have been established in multiple clinical trials as effective treatment for neovascular AMD.3,4,25–29 Aflibercept was shown to be noninferior to monthly ranibizumab in two pivotal trials when given every 2 months after three initial monthly loading doses.8,9 There have also been reports that aflibercept may be more effective for patients not responsive to ranibizumab or bevacizumab.21–23 Many patients previously on ranibizumab or bevacizumab were switched to aflibercept to determine whether their visual acuity could be increased. Some of these patients improved, but a subset of patients experienced a decline in vision.

This study examined the predisposing lifestyle and ocular factors associated with poor response after switching to aflibercept. Following univariate logistic regression, BMI and obesity were significantly higher in those with poor response to aflibercept when compared to those with a favorable response. Although the average BMI was 28.81 in poor responders, patients who responded well averaged 25.49 (P = .0252). By the CDC definition of obesity as BMI greater than 30, 33% of poor responders were obese, whereas 0% of patients with vision improvement after aflibercept were obese (P = .0014). Previous studies30–32 have found that elevated BMI and obesity are associated with an increased incidence of developing neovascular AMD. Our findings illustrate that in addition to being a risk a factor for developing neovascular AMD, elevated BMI and presence of obesity are also risk factors for a poor response to aflibercept treatment after switching from ranibizumab or bevacizumab.

In exploring the literature for reasons why higher body weight may be associated with poor response to aflibercept, oxidative damage and inflammation stand out as the two leading possibilities. High body weight has been associated with increased oxidative damage,30,33 which may lead to the recruitment of more blood vessels and exacerbate inflammation at the macula. In addition to the increased oxidative damage in obesity, there is also an increased level of inflammatory signals like C-reactive protein (CRP).34 Further studies have found that elevated levels of CRP are associated with AMD.35 Researchers have also hypothesized that white adipose tissue may act as a secretory agent, producing inflammatory factors, cytokines, and chemokines.36 In the excess of adipose tissue, as in high BMI, there are consequently more inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, and factors such as CRP all working together to promote inflammation. This excess or inflammation in high BMI patients may promote neovascularization, bringing immune mediators to sites of inflammation including the eye. Besides oxidative damage and inflammation, lack of proper nutrients may be a third mechanism by which high BMI correlates with poorer outcomes. Previous studies found obesity to be associated with lower intake of carotenoids, and it may also lower intake of other nutrients that protect against AMD.31,37,38 Taken together, the presence of greater oxidative damage, inflammation, and improper nutrient intake in obese individuals may all serve to explain why patients with higher BMI respond poorly to aflibercept after switching from ranibizumab or bevacizumab.

Another important finding was that patients who responded poorly to aflibercept after switching had significantly more GA at baseline compared to those who do not respond poorly (P = .0381, univariate analysis; P = .1, multivariate analysis). Both groups of patients received a similar average number of injections prior to aflibercept (P = .2335). It has been shown that more anti-VEGF therapy is associated with more GA,4 thus it is possible that aflibercept, with its higher binding affinity for VEGF, may exacerbate preexisting GA in switching patients. This hypothesis will require further exploration in larger, prospective studies.

This study is limited by its retrospective nature and small sample size. It also does not take into account the rationale for switching patients from ranibizumab or bevacizumab. Lastly, this study did not include genetic risk factors, as they are not commonly tested for in routine clinical practice.39 In future studies, we plan to explore if there are genetic predispositions to having favorable response to aflibercept. Certain polymorphisms have been associated with increased susceptibility to the development of neovascular AMD.40–44 Some polymorphisms have also affected how patients respond to ranibizumab,45–51 bevacizumab,52 or both.53,54 It would be of interest to determine if the same polymorphisms can predict the prognosis of those on aflibercept, especially after switching from previous treatment with ranibizumab and bevacizumab.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine factors influencing response to aflibercept after switching from ranibizumab and bevacizumab. We found that elevated BMI and presence of GA at baseline were associated with poor response to aflibercept after switching from ranibizumab or bevacizumab. This may have clinical impact when considering switching from one anti-VEGF agent to another.

References

  1. Regillo CD, Brown DM, Abraham P, et al. Randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled trial of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: PIER Study year 1. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(2):239–248. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2007.10.004 [CrossRef]
  2. Abraham P, Yue H, Wilson L. Randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled trial of ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: PIER study year 2. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;150(3):315–324e311. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2010.04.011 [CrossRef]
  3. Martin DF, Maguire MG, CATT Research Group et al. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(20):1897–1908. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1102673 [CrossRef]
  4. Martin DF, Maguire MG, Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials Research Group et al. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: two-year results. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(7):1388–1398. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.03.053 [CrossRef]
  5. Stewart MW. Aflibercept (VEGF-TRAP): the next anti-VEGF drug. Inflamm Allergy Drug Targets. 2011;10(6):497–508. doi:10.2174/187152811798104872 [CrossRef]
  6. Holash J, Davis S, Papadopoulos N, et al. VEGF-Trap: a VEGF blocker with potent antitumor effects. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99(17):11393–11398. doi:10.1073/pnas.172398299 [CrossRef]
  7. Economides AN, Carpenter LR, Rudge JS, et al. Cytokine traps: multi-component, high-affinity blockers of cytokine action. Nat Med. 2003;9(1):47–52. doi:10.1038/nm811 [CrossRef]
  8. Heier JS, Brown DM, Chong V, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept (VEGF trap-eye) in wet age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(12):2537–2548. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.09.006 [CrossRef]
  9. Ohr M, Kaiser PK. Aflibercept in wet age-related macular degeneration: a perspective review. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2012;3(4):153–161. doi:10.1177/2040622312446007 [CrossRef]
  10. Ohr M, Kaiser PK. Intravitreal aflibercept injection for neovascular (wet) age-related macular degeneration. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2012;13(4):585–591. doi:10.1517/14656566.2012.658368 [CrossRef]
  11. Browning DJ, Kaiser PK, Rosenfeld PJ, Stewart MW. Aflibercept for age-related macular degeneration: a game-changer or quiet addition?Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;154(2):222–226. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2012.04.020 [CrossRef]
  12. Heier JS, Boyer D, Nguyen QD, et al. The 1-year results of CLEAR-IT 2, a phase 2 study of vascular endothelial growth factor trap-eye dosed as-needed after 12-week fixed dosing. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(6):1098–1106. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.03.020 [CrossRef]
  13. Stewart MW, Grippon S, Kirkpatrick P. Aflibercept. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012;11(4):269–270. doi:10.1038/nrd3700 [CrossRef]
  14. Brown DM, Heier JS, Ciulla T, et al. Primary endpoint results of a phase II study of vascular endothelial growth factor trap-eye in wet age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(6):1089–1097. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.02.039 [CrossRef]
  15. Fung AE, Lalwani GA, Rosenfeld PJ, et al. An optical coherence tomography-guided, variable dosing regimen with intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(4):566–583. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2007.01.028 [CrossRef]
  16. Lalwani GA, Rosenfeld PJ, Fung AE, et al. A variable-dosing regimen with intravitreal ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: year 2 of the PrONTO Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148(1):43–58e41. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2009.01.024 [CrossRef]
  17. Rosenfeld PJ, Heier JS, Hantsbarger G, Shams N. Tolerability and efficacy of multiple escalating doses of ranibizumab (Lucentis) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(4):623e621. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.01.027 [CrossRef]
  18. Rayess N, Houston SK 3rd, Gupta OP, Ho AC, Regillo CD. Treatment outcomes after 3 years in neovascular age-related macular degeneration using a treat-and-extend regimen. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;159(1):3–8e1. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2014.09.011 [CrossRef]
  19. Arnold JJ, Campain A, Barthelmes D, et al. Two-year outcomes of “treat and extend” intravitreal therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(6):1212–1219. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.02.009 [CrossRef]
  20. He L, Silva RA, Ayoub N, Moshfeghi DM, Leng T. Experience with aflibercept for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2015;46(5):542–549. doi:10.3928/23258160-20150521-05 [CrossRef]
  21. Bakall B, Folk JC, Boldt HC, et al. Aflibercept therapy for exudative age-related macular degeneration resistant to bevacizumab and ranibizumab. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(1):15–22e11. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2013.02.017 [CrossRef]
  22. Ho VY, Yeh S, Olsen TW, et al. Short-term outcomes of aflibercept for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in eyes previously treated with other vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(1):23–28e22. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2013.02.009 [CrossRef]
  23. Yonekawa Y, Andreoli C, Miller JB, et al. Conversion to aflibercept for chronic refractory or recurrent neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(1):29–35e22. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2013.03.030 [CrossRef]
  24. Holladay JT. Proper method for calculating average visual acuity. J Refract Surg. 1997;13(4):388–391.
  25. Brown DM, Kaiser PK, Michels M, et al. Ranibizumab versus verteporfin for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(14):1432–1444. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa062655 [CrossRef]
  26. Brown DM, Michels M, Kaiser PK, et al. Ranibizumab versus verte-porfin photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: Two-year results of the ANCHOR study. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(1):57–65e55. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.10.018 [CrossRef]
  27. Rosenfeld PJ, Brown DM, Heier JS, et al. Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(14):1419–1431. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa054481 [CrossRef]
  28. Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, IVAN Study Investigators et al. Ranibizumab versus bevacizumab to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration: one-year findings from the IVAN randomized trial. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(7):1399–1411. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.04.015 [CrossRef]
  29. Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, Rogers CA, et al. Alternative treatments to inhibit VEGF in age-related choroidal neovascularisation: 2-year findings of the IVAN randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382(9900):1258–1267. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61501-9 [CrossRef]
  30. Schaumberg DA, Christen WG, Hankinson SE, Glynn RJ. Body mass index and the incidence of visually significant age-related maculopathy in men. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(9):1259–1265. doi:10.1001/archopht.119.9.1259 [CrossRef]
  31. Seddon JM, Cote J, Rosner B. Progression of age-related macular degeneration: association with dietary fat, transunsaturated fat, nuts, and fish intake. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(12):1728–1737. doi:10.1001/archopht.121.12.1728 [CrossRef]
  32. Clemons TE, Milton RC, Klein R, Seddon JM, Ferris FL 3rd, Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. Risk factors for the incidence of advanced age-related macular degeneration in the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) AREDS report no. 19. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(14):533–539. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.10.047 [CrossRef]
  33. Hirvela H, Luukinen H, Laara E, Sc L, Laatikainen L. Risk factors of age-related maculopathy in a population 70 years of age or older. Ophthalmology. 1996;103(6):871–877. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(96)30593-9 [CrossRef]
  34. Visser M, Bouter LM, McQuillan GM, Wener MH, Harris TB. Elevated C-reactive protein levels in overweight and obese adults. JAMA. 1999;282(22):2131–2135. doi:10.1001/jama.282.22.2131 [CrossRef]
  35. Seddon JM, Gensler G, Milton RC, Klein ML, Rifai N. Association between C-reactive protein and age-related macular degeneration. JAMA. 2004;291(6):704–710. doi:10.1001/jama.291.6.704 [CrossRef]
  36. Fantuzzi G. Adipose tissue, adipokines, and inflammation. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;115(5):911–919; quiz 920. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2005.02.023 [CrossRef]
  37. Seddon JM, Ajani UA, Sperduto RD, et al. Dietary carotenoids, vitamins A, C, and E, and advanced age-related macular degeneration. Eye Disease Case-Control Study Group. JAMA. 1994;272(18):1413–1420. doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520180037032 [CrossRef]
  38. Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group. 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. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(10):1417–1436. doi:10.1001/archopht.119.10.1417 [CrossRef]
  39. Stone EM. Genetic testing for age-related macular degeneration: not indicated now. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(5):598–600. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.0369 [CrossRef]
  40. Klein RJ, Zeiss C, Chew EY, et al. Complement factor H polymorphism in age-related macular degeneration. Science. 2005; 308(5720):385–389. doi:10.1126/science.1109557 [CrossRef]
  41. Edwards AO, Ritter R 3rd, Abel KJ, Manning A, Panhuysen C, Farrer LA. Complement factor H polymorphism and age-related macular degeneration. Science. 2005;308(5720):421–424. doi:10.1126/science.1110189 [CrossRef]
  42. Haines JL, Hauser MA, Schmidt S, et al. Complement factor H variant increases the risk of age-related macular degeneration. Science. 2005;308(5720):419–421. doi:10.1126/science.1110359 [CrossRef]
  43. Gold B, Merriam JE, Zernant J, et al. Variation in factor B (BF) and complement component 2 (C2) genes is associated with age-related macular degeneration. Nat Genet. 2006;38(4):458–462. doi:10.1038/ng1750 [CrossRef]
  44. Kanda A, Chen W, Othman M, et al. A variant of mitochondrial protein LOC387715/ARMS2, not HTRA1, is strongly associated with age-related macular degeneration. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(41):16227–16232. doi:10.1073/pnas.0703933104 [CrossRef]
  45. Francis PJ. The influence of genetics on response to treatment with ranibizumab (Lucentis) for age-related macular degeneration: the Lucentis Genotype Study (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2011;109:115–156.
  46. Kloeckener-Gruissem B, Barthelmes D, Labs S, et al. Genetic association with response to intravitreal ranibizumab in patients with neovascular AMD. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(7):4694–4702. doi:10.1167/iovs.10-6080 [CrossRef]
  47. McKibbin M, Ali M, Bansal S, et al. CFH, VEGF and HTRA1 promoter genotype may influence the response to intravitreal ranibizumab therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(2):208–212. doi:10.1136/bjo.2010.193680 [CrossRef]
  48. Lee AY, Raya AK, Kymes SM, Shiels A, Brantley MA Jr, . Pharmacogenetics of complement factor H (Y402H) and treatment of exudative age-related macular degeneration with ranibizumab. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93(5):610–613. doi:10.1136/bjo.2008.150995 [CrossRef]
  49. Chang W, Noh DH, Sagong M, Kim IT. Pharmacogenetic association with early response to intravitreal ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration in a Korean population. Mol Vis. 2013;19:702–709.
  50. Hermann MM, van Asten F, Muether PS, et al. Polymorphisms in vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 are associated with better response rates to ranibizumab treatment in age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(4):905–910. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.10.047 [CrossRef]
  51. Teper SJ, Nowinska A, Pilat J, Palucha A, Wylegala E. Involvement of genetic factors in the response to a variable-dosing ranibizumab treatment regimen for age-related macular degeneration. Mol Vis. 2010;16:2598–2604.
  52. Nischler C, Oberkofler H, Ortner C, et al. Complement factor H Y402H gene polymorphism and response to intravitreal bevacizumab in exudative age-related macular degeneration. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011;89(4):e344–349. doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2010.02080.x [CrossRef]
  53. Abedi F, Wickremasinghe S, Richardson AJ, et al. Genetic influences on the outcome of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(8):1641–1648. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.014 [CrossRef]
  54. Abedi F, Wickremasinghe S, Richardson AJ, et al. Variants in the VEGFA gene and treatment outcome after anti-VEGF treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(1):115–121. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.10.006 [CrossRef]

Patient Demographics

Improved Vision (n = 25)Decreased Vision (n = 21)P Value
Age80.49 ± 9.70884.14 ± 7.1.12

Gender.2433
  Female60%76.19%
  Male40%23.81%

Race
  White84%80.95%.7859
  Asian16%9.52%.5159

Weight
  BMI25.49± 1.7628.18± 4.44.0252*
  Obesity (BMI > 30)0%33%.0049*

Smoking Status
  Previous smoker56%38.1%.2259
  > 10 pack years28.57%6.25%.0858

Comorbid Conditions
  Hypertension68%47.62%.1620
  Diabetes8%14.29%.4951
  Malignancies16%4.76%.2226

Anti-Inflammatories
  Bromfenac0%0%1
  Triamcinolone-acetonide4%0%.3541
  Steroids4%0%.3541

AREDS12%23.81%.2925

OCT Findings at Baseline

Improved Vision (n = 31 eyes)Decreased Vision (n = 23 eyes)P Value
Geographic Atrophy17.24%43.48%.0381*
Vitreomacular Adhesions3.45%4.35%.8670
Intraretinal Fluid31.03%30.43%.9629
Subretinal Fluid24.14%30.43%.6112
Pigment Epithelium Detachment62.07%47.83%.3044
Ellipsoid Zone Integrity92.86%100%.1910
CNV Scar41.38%34.78%.6272
Hyperreflective Dot13.79%8.7%.5677
Epiretinal Membrane10.34%8.7%.8412
Drusen58.62%60.87%.8696
Drusen Volume (mm3) in a 3 mm Circle0.1338 ± 0.1510.083 ± 0.133.0827
Drusen Volume (mm3) in a 5 mm Circle0.1617 ± 0.1690.1172 ± 0.172.1644
Central Subfield Thickness (µm)261.034 ± 58.8239.696 ± 90.5.2571
Cube Volume (mm3)9.39 ± 0.839.0 ± 1.07.1590
Cube Thickness (µm)262 ± 22.5249.304 ± 30.3.1015
Geographic Atrophy Area (mm2) in a 5 mm Circle2.179 ± 2.573.3 ± 3.41.2364
Authors

From Byers Eye Institute at Stanford, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA.

Supported by the Medical Scholars Research Program at Stanford.

The authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

Address correspondence to Theodore Leng, MD, MS, Byers Eye Institute at Stanford, Stanford University School of Medicine, 2452 Watson Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303; 650-498-4962; fax: 888-565-2640; email: tedleng@stanford.edu.

Received: August 29, 2015
Accepted: March 14, 2016

10.3928/23258160-20160419-09

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents