FNOA: Antioxidants (2011-2012)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

To evaluate the influence of short-term carotenoid and antioxidant supplementation on retinal function in non-advanced age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Inclusion Criteria:
  • Visual acuity of 20/32 or more [0.2 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (log MAR)]
  • 74 letters of Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart
  • Extensive (as measured by drusen area) intermediate (125 µm or more) drusen or geographic atrophy not involving the center of the macula.
Exclusion Criteria:

Based on the fact that several pathologies may influence the bioelectrical responses derived from the macular region:

  • Presence of moderate to dense lens opacities
  • Implanted intraocular lens
  • Presence of corneal opacities
  • Previous history of refractive surgery
  • Presence of glaucoma or ocular hypertension
  • Previous history of intraocular inflammation such as anterior or posterior uveitis
  • Previous history of retinal detachment or laser treatment for peripheral retinal diseases
  • Presence of diabetes or systemic hypertension under medical treatment
  • Previous history of ocular trauma
  • Drug therapies with toxic effects on the macula
  • Presence of neurologic diseases
  • Presence of any sign of advanced AMD (choroidal neovascularization or central geographic atrophy) in the studied eye.

 

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

93 patients affected by AMD were screened for enrollment in the study. The clinical diagnosis of AMD was based on slit-lamp and indirect ophthalmoscopic examination. Color fundus photographs centered on the fovea were also taken.

Design

Randomized controlled trial with 15 patients receiving daily oral supplementation (T-AMD) and 12 patients receiving no dietary supplementation (NT-AMD). The AMD eyes were compared to 15 eyes from 15 age-similar normal control subjects.

Blinding Used

The stereoscopic photographs were independently analyzed and graded by two masked observers at baseline, six months and 12 months. 

Intervention 

Daily oral supplementation of  vitamin C (180mg), vitamin E (30mg), zinc (22.5mg), copper (1mg), lutein (10mg), zeaxanthin (1mg) and astaxanthin (4mg) for 12 months.

Statistical Analysis

  • Inter-individual variability, expressed as data standard deviation (SD) was estimated for mfERG measurements
  • Test-retest data of mfERG results were expressed as the mean difference between two recordings obtained in separate sessions ± SD of this difference
  • The 95% confidence limits of test-retest variability in normal subjects and patients were established assuming a normal distribution
  • In AMD patients, test-retest data were calculated considering the entire cohort of enrolled patients (27 AMD eyes)
  • The differences of mfERG responses between groups (control eyes, T-AMD eyes and NT-AMD eyes) were evaluated by one-way analysis of variance
  • Changes in mfERG responses observed in T-AMD and NT-AMD eyes after six and 12 months were compared with baseline (pretreatment) values by one-way analysis of variance
  • In all analyses, P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. When the P<0.01, it was considered highly statistically significant.
Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

Baseline, six months and 12 months.

Dependent Variables

Multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) assessments of N1-P1 RADs derived from 0° to 2.5° [ring 1 (R1)], 2.5° to 5° [ring 2 (R2)], 5° to 10° [ring 3 (R3)], 10° to 15° [ring 4 (R4)], 15° to 20° [ring 5 (R5)].

Independent Variables

  • Oral supplementation or no dietary supplementation 
  • Daily oral supplementation of  vitamin C (180mg), vitamin E (30mg), zinc (22.5mg), copper (1mg), lutein (10mg), zeaxanthin (1mg) and astaxanthin (4mg) for 12 months.

Control Variables

  • Age
  • Clinical diagnosis of AMD based on Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) category.
Description of Actual Data Sample:
  • Initial N: 93 patients (41 males, 52 females)
  • Attrition (final N): 27 randomly divided into 15 (six males, nine females) in the oral daily supplementation group and 12 (six males, six women) receiving no dietary supplementation and 15 eyes from 15 age-similar normal control subjects (six males, nine females)
  • Age: 
    • Oral daily supplementation group: Mean age 69.4+4.31 years
    • No dietary supplementation group: Mean age 69.6+6.23 years
    • Control group: 69.6+5.1 years
  • Ethnicity: Italian
  • Location: Italy.

 

Summary of Results:

A selective dysfunction in the central retina (0° to 5°) was improved by supplementation. No functional changes were present in the more peripheral (5° to 20°) retinal areas. 

The following charts summarize the results.

Multifocal Electroretinogram Responses: 0° to 5° Central Degrees (R1 and R2) 

  Baseline Six months 12 months
NT-AMD

Highly significant RAD reductions were found compared to healthy controls.

P<0.01

Non-significant changes in RADs were found compared to baseline.

P>0.05

RAD values were similar to baseline.

P>0.05

T-AMD

Highly significant RAD reductions were found compared to healthy controls.

P<0.01

Highly significant increases in RADs were found compared to baseline.

P<0.01

Highly significant increases in RADS were found compared to baseline.

P<0.01

The increases in the T-AMD group found at 12 months were not increased compared to the RADs found at six months.

Multifocal Electroretinogram Responses: 5° to 20° Central Degrees (R3, R4 and R5) 

  Baseline Six months 12 months
NT-AMD

Non-significant differences in RADs were found compared to healthy controls.

P<0.05

Non-significant changes in RADs were found compared to baseline.

P>0.05

Non-significant changes in RADs were found compared to baseline.

P>0.05

T-AMD

Non-significant differences in RADs were found compared to healthy controls.

P<0.05

Non-significant changes in RADs were found compared to baseline.

P>0.05

Non-significant changes in RADs were found compared to baseline.

P>0.05

 

 

Author Conclusion:
  • Untreated eyes with non-advanced AMD (NT-AMD eyes) showed, after six and 12 months, unmodified mfERG responses with respect to baseline conditions. This is in accordance with another study that did not find a progressive reduction in mfERG responses in patients with early AMD. A period of more than 12 months is reported to be necessary to detect a progression of mfERG impairment in the presence of a stable visual acuity.
  • In eyes of treated patients (T-AMD eyes), the supplementation with the combination of vitamin C, vitamin E, zinc, copper, lutein, zeaxanthin and astaxanthin induced an increase of mfERG responses derived from the central retina (0° to 5°), whereas no changes in bioelectrical responses were observed in the other retinal areas (5° to 20°). The reduction of mfERG impairment was present after six months of treatment and an additional six months of treatment did not induce a further improvement of mfERGs.
  • The normal concentration of lutein and zeaxanthin seems to have a protective role against the development of AMD. The results of this study showed that supplementation of lutein and xeaxanthin induced an increase in mfERG N1-P1 and R2 (zero to five central degrees) RAD, which reflects the functional improvement of preganglionic elements. Overall, there is a significant antioxidant effect which prevents or delays photoreceptor dysfunction or death.
Funding Source:
University/Hospital: CARMIS Study Group
Reviewer Comments:

The authors note the following limitations:

  • Because of the small number of patients enrolled, the present trial can be considered a pilot study and caution must be taken against drawing general conclusions. The findings must be confirmed in a larger population with a longer follow-up term. Although no side effects were observed in the treated patients, no final conclusions could be drawn regarding safety.
  • To clarify whether the improvement observed in T-AMD eyes was supplement dependent, it would be useful to perform mfERG recordings after a period of suspension of antioxidant supplementation. Because antioxidant supplementation is beneficial, the suspension of supplementation and possible decrease in macular functions could be an ethical problem. The author's ethics committee is debating this issue. 

 

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? ???
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? No
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? ???
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) Yes
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) Yes
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? N/A
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? No
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? ???
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) No
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? ???
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? ???
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? Yes
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? Yes
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) Yes
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? N/A
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? Yes
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? N/A
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? Yes
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? Yes
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? ???
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? ???
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? Yes
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? ???
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? ???
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? No
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? ???
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? ???
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? No
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? ???