title: Development of a risk score for geographic atrophy in complications of the age-related macular degeneration prevention trial.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To develop a risk score for developing geographic atrophy (GA) involving easily obtainable information among patients with bilateral large drusen.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cohort study within a multicenter randomized clinical trial.
  
  
  METHODS
  We included 1052 participants with ≥ 10 large (>125 μm) drusen and visual acuity ≥ 20/40 in each eye.
  
  
  METHODS
  In the Complications of Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD) Prevention Trial (CAPT), 1 eye of each participant was randomly assigned to laser treatment and the contralateral eye was assigned to observation to evaluate whether laser treatment of drusen could prevent vision loss. Gradings by a reading center were used to identify: CAPT end point GA (total area of GA [>250 μm] > 1 disc area), GA (>175 μm) involving the foveal center (CGA), and GA of any size and location (any GA). Established risk factors (age, smoking status, hypertension, Age-related Eye Disease Study simple severity scale score), both with and without a novel risk factor (night vision score), were used in assigning risk points. The risk scores were evaluated for the ability to discriminate and calibrate GA risk.
  
  
  METHODS
  Development of end point GA, CGA, and any GA.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Among 942 CAPT participants who completed 5 years of follow-up and did not have any GA at baseline, 6.8% participants developed CAPT end point GA, 9.6% developed CGA, and 34.4% developed any GA. The 5-year incidence of end point GA in 1 or both eyes of a participant increased with the 15-point GA risk score, from 0.6% for <7 points to 15% for ≥ 12 points. The 5-factor risk score predicted development of GA moderately well with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.81) for end point GA; 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.80) for CGA, and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.65-0.72) for any GA. Prediction from the risk score without the night vision score had lower AUCs (range, 0.67-0.72).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  If validated in other patients, the GA risk score will be useful for identifying high-risk patients for clinical trials of prevention of GA and for clinical assessment of GA risk in early AMD patients.
authors.affiliation: CAPT Coordinating Center, University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market Street, Suite 700, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3309, USA. gsying@mail.med.upenn.edu
authors.forename: Gui-Shuang
authors.initials: GS
authors.lastname: Ying
authors.forename: Maureen G
authors.initials: MG
authors.lastname: Maguire
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D005260:Female; D005451:Fluorescein Angiography; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D007839:Functional Laterality; D057092:Geographic Atrophy / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000209:etiology* / Q000517:prevention & control*; D006801:Humans; D017075:Laser Coagulation; D008268:Macular Degeneration / Q000150:complications* / Q000601:surgery; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012372:ROC Curve; D015593:Retinal Drusen / Q000150:complications; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012307:Risk Factors; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014792:Visual Acuity / Q000502:physiology
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 5;355(14):1419-31
references.pmid: 17021318
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 2008 Jun;115(6):1026-31
references.pmid: 17981333
references.citation: Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Mar;137(3):486-95
references.pmid: 15013873
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 2005 Oct;123(10):1351-60
references.pmid: 16219726
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 2005 Nov;123(11):1570-4
references.pmid: 16286620
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 2005 Nov;123(11):1484-98
references.pmid: 16286610
references.citation: Stat Med. 1996 Feb 28;15(4):361-87
references.pmid: 8668867
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 2007 Jan;114(1):10-9
references.pmid: 17095090
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 2005 Apr;112(4):533-9
references.pmid: 15808240
references.citation: Stat Med. 2000 Feb 29;19(4):453-73
references.pmid: 10694730
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 2004 Jul;111(7):1280-7
references.pmid: 15234127
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 2009 Sep;127(9):1147-51
references.pmid: 19752423
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 2006 Nov;113(11):1974-86
references.pmid: 17074563
references.citation: Clin Trials. 2004 Feb;1(1):91-107
references.pmid: 16281465
references.citation: JAMA. 2007 Apr 25;297(16):1793-800
references.pmid: 17456821
references.citation: Stat Med. 2004 May 30;23(10):1631-60
references.pmid: 15122742
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2007 Aug 9;357(6):553-61
references.pmid: 17634448
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 2001 Apr;108(4):697-704
references.pmid: 11297486
references.citation: Eye (Lond). 1988;2 ( Pt 5):552-77
references.pmid: 2476333
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 2003 Jun;110(6):1273-80
references.pmid: 12799274
references.citation: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009 May;50(5):2044-53
references.pmid: 19117936
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 2008 Jan;126(1):115-21
references.pmid: 18195228
references.citation: Ann Epidemiol. 2008 Aug;18(8):647-56
references.pmid: 18652983
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 2008 Sep;115(9):1474-9, 1479.e1-6
references.pmid: 18502512
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 2007 Aug;125(8):1089-95
references.pmid: 17698756
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 2004 Apr;122(4):564-72
references.pmid: 15078675
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 1998 Dec 1;148(11):1127-32
references.pmid: 9850136
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 2008 Nov;115(11):1876-82
references.pmid: 18672295
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 May;55(5):518-24
references.pmid: 12007556
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 5;355(14):1432-44
references.pmid: 17021319
references.citation: Prog Brain Res. 2008;173:15-24
references.pmid: 18929098
references.citation: JAMA. 2001 Jul 11;286(2):180-7
references.pmid: 11448281