摘要：Abstract To investigate sensitive outcome measures based exclusively on abnormal points in microperimetry testing of eyes with intermediate age-related macular degeneration (iAMD). 25 eyes of 25 subjects with iAMD had undergone 2 successive tests of mesopic microperimetry with the Macular Integrity Assessment Microperimeter (MAIA), using a custom grid of 33 points spanning the central 14 degrees of the macula. Each point was defined as abnormal if its threshold sensitivity was lower than 1.65 standard deviations (SD) (5%) or 2 SD (2.5%) than the expected threshold in healthy eyes according to the MAIA internal database. Among the 25 eyes there were 11.8 ± 9 and 8.4 ± 8.2 abnormal points at < 5% and < 2.5%, with mean deviation of thresholds from normal − 4.9 ± 1.2 dB and − 5.8 ± 1.5 dB, respectively. These deviations were greater, and their SD smaller, compared with the complete microperimetry grid, − 2.3 ± 2.0 dB. The 95% limits of agreement for average threshold between the 2 successive tests were smaller when only abnormal points were included. Analyzing only abnormal grid points yields an outcome parameter with a greater deviation from normal, a more homogenous dataset, and better test–retest variability, compared with analysis of all grid points. This parameter may thus be more sensitive to change, while moderately limiting the number of potential recruits. The proposed outcome measures should be further investigated as potential endpoints in clinical trials in iAMD.
其他摘要：Abstract To investigate sensitive outcome measures based exclusively on abnormal points in microperimetry testing of eyes with intermediate age-related macular degeneration (iAMD). 25 eyes of 25 subjects with iAMD had undergone 2 successive tests of mesopic microperimetry with the Macular Integrity Assessment Microperimeter (MAIA), using a custom grid of 33 points spanning the central 14 degrees of the macula. Each point was defined as abnormal if its threshold sensitivity was lower than 1.65 standard deviations (SD) (5%) or 2 SD (2.5%) than the expected threshold in healthy eyes according to the MAIA internal database. Among the 25 eyes there were 11.8 ± 9 and 8.4 ± 8.2 abnormal points at < 5% and < 2.5%, with mean deviation of thresholds from normal − 4.9 ± 1.2 dB and − 5.8 ± 1.5 dB, respectively. These deviations were greater, and their SD smaller, compared with the complete microperimetry grid, − 2.3 ± 2.0 dB. The 95% limits of agreement for average threshold between the 2 successive tests were smaller when only abnormal points were included. Analyzing only abnormal grid points yields an outcome parameter with a greater deviation from normal, a more homogenous dataset, and better test–retest variability, compared with analysis of all grid points. This parameter may thus be more sensitive to change, while moderately limiting the number of potential recruits. The proposed outcome measures should be further investigated as potential endpoints in clinical trials in iAMD.
