08 Dec Complement Genes Play Role in Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Posted at 16:59h
in Aging, Author Interviews, Genetic Research, JAMA, Macular Degeneration, Ophthalmology
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Anneke I. den Hollander, PhD
Department of Ophthalmology and Department of Human Genetics
Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour
Radboud University Medical Center
Nijmegen, the Netherland
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: Age-related macular degeneration is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Rare genetic variants in the complement system have been described in AMD, but their effect remains largely unexplored. In this study we aimed to determine the effect of rare genetic variants in the complement system on complement levels and activity in serum.
MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings?
Response: Carriers of CFI variants showed decreased FI levels, carriers of C9 Pro167Ser had increased C9 levels, while C3 and FH levels were not altered. Carriers of CFH and CFI variants had a reduced ability to degrade C3b, which for CFI was linked to reduced serum FI levels.













Adam Glassman[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Adam Glassman, M.S.
Director, DRCRnet Coordinating Center
Jaeb Center for Health Research
Tampa, FL 33647
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the most common cause of vision loss in patients with diabetes, impairing the vision of approximately 750,000 people in the United States. The most common treatment involves the injection into the eye of one of 3 drugs that inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). The Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network, funded by the National Institutes of Health, conducted a randomized clinical trial on the comparative effectiveness of the 3 anti-VEGF drugs EYLEA®, Avastin®, or Lucentis® for eyes with decreased vision from diabetic macular edema. There are substantial cost differences between the three drugs. In the United States, EYLEA® costs approximately $1850, repackaged (compounded) Avastin® $60, and Lucentis® $1170 per injection. In eyes with relatively good starting vision, there were no differences in vision outcomes; all three groups, on average, had improved vision. In eyes with starting vision of 20/50 or worse, EYLEA® had better vision outcomes at 1 year than either Avastin® or Lucentis®, and better vision outcomes at 2 years than Avastin®. However, given that, on average, eyes will receive 9 to 10 injections within the first year of treatment and 5 injections in the second year, neither EYLEA® nor Lucentis® would be considered cost effective by standard benchmarks compared with Avastin® unless their prices decrease substantially.
Sheldon j. .J.Kwok[/caption]
Sheldon J.J. Kwok
MD/PhD Candidate
Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology | Harvard Medical School
Yun Bio-Optics Lab
Wellman Center for Photomedicine
MGH
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) using UV light and riboflavin has become a popular and effective technique for treating corneal ectatic disorders, such as keratoconus, by mechanically strengthening the corneal stroma. We were interested in enhancing the capabilities of CXL using the principle of two-photon excitation, which uses a femtosecond laser to confine crosslinking to only where the laser is focused. By scanning the laser, this allows us to crosslink any arbitrary three-dimensional region deep inside tissue.
With two-photon collagen crosslinking (2P-CXL), treatment of thin corneas is possible without affecting the underlying endothelium. Irradiation can also be patterned to improve keratocyte viability. Furthermore, selective crosslinking in three dimensions offers the possibility of modulating corneal curvature for refractive error correction.
Dr. Hans Hoerauf[/caption]
Prof. Dr. med. Hans Hoerauf
Direktor der Augenklinik
Universitätsmedizin Göttingen
Göttingen
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Hoerauf: Two treatment options, anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs) and corticosteroids, with different mechanisms of action are available for the treatment of macular edema secondary to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion (CRVO). Our study, COMRADE-C, is the first head-to-head study to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of the European labels of ranibizumab (anti-VEGF) versus dexamethasone intravitreal implant (corticosteroid) in patients with CRVO over six months.
Dr. T. Dianne Langford[/caption]
Dr. T. Dianne Langford PhD
Associate Professor, Neuroscience and Neurovirology
Lewis Katz School of Medicine
Temple University
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Langford: The ocular-motor system has been shown to reflect neural damage, and one of ocular-motor functions, near point of convergence (NPC), was reported to worsen after a sport-related concussion (Mucha et al. Am J Sport Med). But the effects of subconcussive head impact, a milder form of head injury in the absence of outward symptoms remains unknown. Prior to this study, we found that in a controlled soccer heading experimental paradigm decreased NPC function, and even 24h after the headings, NPC was not normalized back to baseline (Kawata et al. 2016 Int J Sport Med). To extend our findings from the human laboratory study, we launched longitudinal clinical studies in collaboration with the Temple football team, to see if repetitive exposure to subconcussive head impacts negatively affects NPC.
Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler[/caption]
Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler MD
Boxer Wachler Vision Institute
Beverly Hills, California
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: As an eye surgeon, I observed patients tended to have more age spots on the left side of their faces. I was examining a patient with Keratoconus and after I noted her age spots on her left cheeks, I began to look into this phenomenon. It turns out there are many studies that found more skin cancer on the left side of the face compared to the right side of the face. In Australia (where people drive on the left side of the road) it’s the opposite – more skin cancer on the right side of the face. Our study found that cars on average have significantly lower UVA (ultraviolet A) protection in the side windows compared to windshields which have universally high UVA protection. I believe this can be the missing link that can explain higher rates of skin cancer on the side of the face by the driver’s window. There are also more cataracts in left eyes vs right eyes. There was no relationship between high-end cars and low-end cars for side window UV protection – in other words many more pricey cars had just as poor side window UV protection as less expensive cars.
Dr. J. William Harbour[/caption]
