Journal of vitreoretinal diseases · 2020
Genetics and Age-Related Eye Disease Study Formulation Interaction in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kaufman Stephen R, Yoganathan Pradeepa, Small Kent W, Rusia Deepam, Pachydaki Sophia I, Conti Stephen M, Wenz Robert E, Gersman Mark A, Shaya Fadi S, Kustra Rafal
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This work aims to determine whether previously defined genotype risk groups interact with Age-Related Eye Disease Study formulation (AREDS-F) use in progression to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nvAMD).
METHODS: We conducted a case-only study of 265 nvAMD patients. Patients were anonymously genotyped at the complement factor H and age-related maculopathy susceptibility 2 loci and segregated into genotype groups (GTGs) defined by specific combinations of risk alleles. Physicians, who were blind to patients' GTGs, obtained patients' AREDS-F use history. The facility performing genetic analysis was blind to the AREDS-F use history. We used logistic analysis to estimate the interaction coefficient between AREDS-F use and GTG 2 vs GTG 3 in a general-population model.
RESULTS: The odds ratio of numbers of patients reporting prior AREDS-F use to nonuse for GTG 2 vs GTG 3 was 4.18 (P = .001). Logistic regression, correcting for nongenetic risk factors, gave an estimate of the β for interaction of AREDS-F with genotype of 1.57 (P = .001). This estimates a corrected odds ratio associated with the effect of interaction of 4.81 between those in GTG 2 compared with those in GTG 3.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate an interaction between GTGs and AREDS-F use that is consistent in size and direction with previously published reports, which had found that using AREDS-F supplements significantly increases the risk of nvAMD for some users and significantly protects other users.
METHODS: We conducted a case-only study of 265 nvAMD patients. Patients were anonymously genotyped at the complement factor H and age-related maculopathy susceptibility 2 loci and segregated into genotype groups (GTGs) defined by specific combinations of risk alleles. Physicians, who were blind to patients' GTGs, obtained patients' AREDS-F use history. The facility performing genetic analysis was blind to the AREDS-F use history. We used logistic analysis to estimate the interaction coefficient between AREDS-F use and GTG 2 vs GTG 3 in a general-population model.
RESULTS: The odds ratio of numbers of patients reporting prior AREDS-F use to nonuse for GTG 2 vs GTG 3 was 4.18 (P = .001). Logistic regression, correcting for nongenetic risk factors, gave an estimate of the β for interaction of AREDS-F with genotype of 1.57 (P = .001). This estimates a corrected odds ratio associated with the effect of interaction of 4.81 between those in GTG 2 compared with those in GTG 3.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate an interaction between GTGs and AREDS-F use that is consistent in size and direction with previously published reports, which had found that using AREDS-F supplements significantly increases the risk of nvAMD for some users and significantly protects other users.