Evidence Hub

Long-term natural history of visual acuity in eyes with choroideremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from 1004 individual eyes

Shen LL, Ahluwalia A, Sun M, Young BK, Grossetta Nardini HK, Del Priore LV

The British journal of ophthalmology, 2021

22 citations

Abstract

Background/aims: Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) is the most common primary endpoint in treatment trials for choroideremia (CHM) but the long-term natural history of BCVA is unclear.

Methods: We searched in seven databases to identify studies that reported BCVA of untreated eyes with CHM. We sought individual-level data and performed segmented regression between BCVA and age. For eyes followed longitudinally, we introduced a horizontal translation factor to each dataset to account for different ages at onset of a rapid BCVA decline.

Results: We included 1004 eyes from 23 studies. BCVA of the right and left eyes was moderately correlated (r=0.60). BCVA as a function of age followed a 2-phase decline (slow followed by rapid decline), with an estimated transition age of 39.1 years (95% CI 33.5 to 44.7). After the introduction of horizontal translation factors to longitudinal datasets, BCVA followed a 2-phase decline until it reached 0 letters (r2=0.90). The BCVA decline rate was 0.33 letters/year (95% CI -0.38 to 1.05) before 39 years, and 1.23 letters/year (95% CI 0.55 to 1.92) after 39 years (p=0.004).

Conclusion: BCVA in eyes with CHM follows a 2-phase linear decline with a transition age of approximately 39 years. Future trials enrolling young patients may not be able to use BCVA as a primary or sole endpoint, but rather, may need to employ additional disease biomarkers that change before age 39. BCVA may still have utility as a primary endpoint for patients older than…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free