1. |
- Burstedt, Marie, et al.
(author)
-
Retinal dystrophy associated with RLBP1 retinitis pigmentosa : a five-year prospective natural history study
- 2023
-
In: Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. - : Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO). - 0146-0404 .- 1552-5783. ; 64:13
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: To assess the progression in functional and structural measures over a five-year period in patients with retinal dystrophy caused by RLBP1 gene mutation.Methods: This prospective, noninterventional study included patients with biallelic RLBP1 mutations from two clinical sites in Sweden and Canada. Key assessments included ocular examinations, visual functional measures (best-corrected visual acuity [BCVA], contrast sensitivity [CS], dark-adaptation [DA] kinetics up to six hours for two wavelengths [450 and 632 nm], Humphrey visual fields [HVF], full-field flicker electroretinograms), and structural ocular assessments.Results: Of the 45 patients enrolled, 38 completed the full five years of follow-up. At baseline, patients had BCVA ranging from -0.2 to 1.3 logMAR, poor CS, HVF defects, and prominent thinning in central foveal thickness. All patients had extremely prolonged DA rod recovery of approximately six hours at both wavelengths. The test-retest repeatability was high across all anatomic and functional endpoints. Cross-sectionally, poorer VA was associated with older age (right eye, correlation coefficient [CC]: 0.606; left eye, CC: -0.578; P < 0.001) and HVF MD values decreased with age (right eye, CC: -0.672, left eye, CC: -0.654; P < 0.001). However, no major changes in functional or structural measures were noted longitudinally over the five-year period.Conclusions: This natural history study, which is the first study to monitor patients with RLBP1 RD for five years, showed that severely delayed DA sensitivity recovery, a characteristic feature of this disease, was observed in all patients across all age groups (17-69 years), making it a potentially suitable efficacy assessment for gene therapy treatment in this patient population.
|
|