Cited by 94Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsNutrition, Genetics, and DiseaseRetinal Development and Disorders

No Clinically Significant Association between CFH and ARMS2 Genotypes and Response to Nutritional Supplements

Open access
Chew, Emily Y., Klein, Michael L., Clemons, Traci E., Agrón, Elvira, Ratnapriya, Rinki, Edwards, Albert O., Fritsche, Lars G., Swaroop, Anand +1 more·2014·Ophthalmology

Abstract

Objective To determine whether genotypes at 2 major loci associated with late age-related macular degeneration (AMD), complement factor H (CFH) and age-related maculopathy susceptibility 2 (ARMS2), influence the relative benefits of Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) supplements.Design Unplanned retrospective evaluation of a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of vitamins and minerals for the treatment of AMD.Subjects AREDS participants (mean age, 69 years) who were at risk of developing late AMD and who were randomized to the 4 arms of AREDS supplement treatment.Methods Analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model to predict progression to late AMD (neovascular or central geographic atrophy). Statistical models, adjusted for age, gender, smoking status, and baseline AMD severity, were used to examine the influence of genotypes on the response to therapy with 4 randomly assigned arms of AREDS supplement components: placebo, antioxidants (vitamin C, vitamin E, β-carotene), zinc, or a combination.Main outcome measures The influence of the genotype on the relative treatment response to the randomized components of the AREDS supplement, measured as progression to late AMD.Results Of the 1237 genotyped AREDS participants of white ethnicity, late AMD developed in 385 (31.1%) during the mean follow-up of 6.6 years. As previously demonstrated, CFH genotype (P = 0.005), ARMS2 (P< 0.0001), and supplement were associated individually with progression to late AMD. An interaction analysis found no evidence that the relative benefits of AREDS supplementation varied by genotype. Analysis of (1) CFH rs1061170 and rs1410996 combined with ARMS2 rs10490924 with the 4 randomly assigned arms of AREDS supplement and (2) analysis of the combination of CFH rs412852 and rs3766405 with ARMS2 c.372_815del443ins54 with the AREDS components resulted in no interaction (P = 0.06 and P = 0.45, respectively, before multiplicity adjustment).Conclusions The AREDS supplements reduced the rate of AMD progression across all genotype groups. Furthermore, the genotypes at the CFH and ARMS2 loci did not statistically significantly alter the benefits of AREDS supplements. Genetic testing remains a valuable research tool, but these analyses suggest it provides no benefits in managing nutritional supplementation for patients at risk of late AMD.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.008

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The AREDS investigators could not replicate the reported association between CFH, ARMS2, and AREDS supplementation, concluding that no significant associations existed.

    “The AREDS investigators reported that they could not replicate the findings, concluding that no significant associations existed [64,65].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 26 · Cited by 94

Authors
Chew, E. Y., Klein, M. L., Clemons, T. E., Agrón, E., Ratnapriya, R., Edwards, A. O., Fritsche, L. G., Swaroop, A., & Abecasis, G. R.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Emmes (United States) (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Chew, Emily Y.
Venue
Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
121
Issue
11
Pages
2173-2180
ISSN
0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2109647725
Cited by
94
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
15.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL117626)
  • National Eye Institute (R01EY021532, HHSNOI-EY-0-2127, ZIAEY000489)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Retinal Development and Disorders
Keywords
age-related macular degeneration, CFH gene, genetic polymorphism, dietary supplements, AMD progression, neovascular AMD, antioxidants, zinc, vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, genetic susceptibility, treatment response variability, AREDS, rs1061170, rs10490924
MeSH terms
Aged, Antioxidants, Female, Genotype, Humans, Macular Degeneration, Male, Prospective Studies, Proteins, Retrospective Studies, Vitamins, Complement Factor H, Zinc Compounds, Dietary Supplements, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review