Aim To describe the clinical features of a case series of patients with unilateral vitelliform maculopathy and the results of screening BEST1 and PRPH2 for disease-causing mutations.
Design/Methods This was a retrospective case series study of six patients ascertained over a 2-year period. Ophthalmological examination, fundus photography, autofluorescence imaging, optical coherence tomography and detailed electrophysiological assessment were undertaken. Blood samples were taken for DNA extraction and mutation screening of BEST1 and PRPH2 was performed.
Results Six patients (3 men and 3 women) with unilateral vitelliform maculopathy were identified, ranging in age from 30 to 68 years. Vision in the affected eye ranged from 20/10 to 20/100. There was no clinical, retinal imaging or electrophysiological evidence of fellow eye involvement. Direct sequencing of BEST1 and PRPH2 did not reveal any disease-causing variants.
Conclusions A case series of patients is reported with an unusual unilateral vitelliform phenotype, often associated with good visual function. The patients do not have the typical characteristics associated with age-related maculopathy or any inherited macular disorders, such as Best vitelliform macular dystrophy. Molecular screening of the candidate genes BEST1 and PRPH2 revealed no mutations.
- stem cells
- visual pathway
- treatment medical
- clinical trial
- treatment lasers
- embryology and development
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding The work was supported by grants from the Foundation Fighting Blindness (USA); Fight for Sight; Moorfields Special Trustees; and the National Institute for Health Research, UK, to the Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology based at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology. MM is supported by a Foundation Fighting Blindness Career Development Award.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Research Ethics Committees of Moorfields and Whittington Hospitals.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.