Subthreshold Nanosecond Laser Treatment of Intermediate AMD without Reticular Pseudodrusen: Real-world Three-year Follow-up Study
=================================================================================================================================

* David R. Worsley
* Jennie Louise
* Susan P. Bull

## Abstract

**Background** Subthreshold nanosecond laser (SNL) has been proposed to reduce the risk of intermediate agerelated macular degeneration (iAMD) progressing to late AMD. The phase 3 LEAD Study posthoc analysis indicates a potentially large benefit from SNL treatment of eyes without reticular pseudodrusen. This real-world study reports the three-year outcomes of SNL treatment of iAMD without reticular pseudodrusen (RPD).

**Methods** An observational retrospective single-centre cohort study of all patients with iAMD, centreinvolving large soft drusen without RPD, treated with SNL and with three-year follow up. The primary outcome measured was progression to late AMD; neovascular AMD (nAMD) or geographic atrophy (GA).

**Results** There were 120 eyes of 64 patients. At baseline, the cohort had a high risk profile; drusen median area, volume and largest diameter were 0.70mm2 (IQR: 0.20 to 1.50), 0.03mm3 (IQR: 0.01 to 0.08) and 835μm (IQR: 446.50 to 1398.50) respectively and hyperreflective foci were present in 56.67% and hyporeflective drusen cores in 25.83%. Eyes had a mean of 3.03 treatments. By three years, progression to late AMD occurred in 5.83% of eyes, all to GA. Mean visual acuity declined very slightly.

**Conclusion** The three-year progression rate was low compared with published 36-month natural histories for iAMD without RPD. The progression rate was similar to the LEAD study SNL-treated group without RPD. This study supports the hypothesis that SNL for the iAMD without RPD may reduce progression to late AMD. Further investigation is warranted.

## Introduction

Intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy has led to a major reduction in vision loss from neovascular AMD (nAMD) however there is no proven therapy for geographic atrophy (GA).1 Altering modifiable lifestyle risk factors are associated with some slowing of the earlier disease stages. AREDS-2 supplementation has a modest effect on slowing progression to late-stage nAMD, but not to GA.2 There remains an unmet need for effective therapies to reduce the risk of progression from early to late-stage AMD.

The pathogenesis of AMD is incompletely understood and considered to be multifactorial. A hallmark of early AMD is progressive focal accumulation of abnormal extracellular debris between the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) and Bruch’s membrane (BM), termed soft drusen, whilst diffuse accumulation occurring within BM leads to reduced transmembrane transport.3

The clinical classification of AMD is: early AMD with medium soft drusen (63-125 μm diameter) and no pigment abnormalities; intermediate AMD (iAMD) with any very large soft drusen (≥125 μm diameter) or medium soft drusen with pigment abnormalities and late AMD (nAMD or GA).4

In early and iAMD, the drusen load (number, area and volume) progressively increases over time.5 Soft drusen load is a major biomarker of risk of progression to late AMD.6 Extremely large soft drusen, termed drusenoid pigment epithelial detachment (DPED), are at the high end of the risk spectrum.7 Pigmentary changes, hyperreflective foci (HRF) and hyporeflective drusen cores (HDC) are high-risk SD-OCT biomarkers.6, 8, 9

Although not included in the AMD classification, reticular pseudodrusen (RPD), focal accumulations of debris in the subretinal space, is now recognized as a phenotype with a high risk of progression.8,10

Furthermore, RPD, with many distinct genetic and systemic associations, has been proposed as a separate disease pathway (from soft drusen) to late AMD.11

Continuous wave (CW) laser is absorbed by the RPE and converted to thermal energy, resulting in destruction of RPE with collateral damage to the adjacent neuro-retina and choroid.12 ‘Laserinduced retinal damage’ is considered to generate the therapeutic effect for a range of retinal diseases. Following observations that CW laser leads to soft drusen regression in AMD, numerous studies looked at whether it reduces the rate of progression to late AMD. A Cochrane review of pooled data from 11 RCTs concluded that, although CW laser leads to drusen regression, it does not influence progression to late disease, nor result in an increased risk of nAMD, GA or vision loss. CW laser causes substantial destruction of RPE and outer retina, which may cause scotomata and laser-induced choroidal neovascular membrane.

Subthreshold laser refers to delivery of reduced laser energy such that no retinal changes are observed at the time of application.13 The aim is to achieve targeted RPE energy absorption sufficient for cell damage, with minimized collateral damage to adjacent tissues. The therapeutic effect is considered to arise from consequent RPE cell repair processes. Diode micropulse lasers (SDM) employ a burst of 100-300 microsecond (ms) pulses, a duration for which thermal damage may extend into adjacent tissues.14 Below a 4 ms pulse threshold, thermal damage is believed to be entirely intracellular with no collateral damage together with non-thermal - mechanical damage from small bubbles of steam formation adjacent to melanosomes.

Subthreshold micropulse laser (SML) uses an 810 nm laser to deliver a series of microsecond laser pulse trains.11 A retrospective treatment cohort analysis reports that SML is associated with a low incidence of progression to nAMD.15

2RT (AlphaRET, Adelaide, Australia) is a Q-switched, frequency doubled laser delivering a 3 ns pulse.12 A 400-μm diameter speckled beam profile results in variable fluence within the laser spot. Animal (in-vivo and ex-vivo) and human eye (ex-vivo) studies showed that, at clinically relevant doses, RPE cell apoptosis within the treatment spot was both sporadic and selective.

There was no collateral damage to adjacent tissues, including the immediately adjacent photoreceptors, BM and choriocapillaris. RPE regeneration was by dedifferentiation, proliferation, and migration of surrounding RPE cells. In the ApoE-null mouse model of AMD there were alterations in expression of a range of genes important in extracellular matrix turnover. This mouse model has a thickened BM, which then showed significantly reduced thickness after SNL treatment. Human retinal function improved short-term and there were no long-term detrimental effects. 16

In a pilot study, a single SNL treatment of patients with iAMD was associated with a reduction in drusen load without evidence of progression and without clinical evidence of photoreceptor damage.17

The phase 3 LEAD study compared 6-monthly SNL treatment to sham treatment in 292 patients with iAMD and large soft drusen.18-20 At 36 months follow-up there was no delay in the rate of progression to late AMD. The authors postulated that, as the speckled beam profile of SNL causes selective RPE photothermolysis, the therapeutic effect might differ depending on the degree of RPE dysfunction.10 The presence of RPD or pigmentary abnormalities were considered to indicate greater RPE dysfunction. A post-hoc effect modification analysis indicated a different laser effect dependent on RPD phenotype, but not pigmentary abnormality. SNL appeared to be highly effective in the RPD-phenotype (>4-fold reduction in progression) while the RPD+ phenotype fared worse.

As the post-hoc analysis is biologically plausible, the authors concluded that SNL may slow progression of the RPD-phenotype, however this would need validation through further randomized trials. There was a slightly greater drop in visual acuity of SNL-treated eyes, but this did not correlate with secondary outcome visual function measures which were not significantly different. Unexpectedly, there was no reduction in drusen load in treated eyes. The LEAD study group recently published an observational 24-month extension study showing that the RPD-phenotype had a persistence of the potential benefit.21 The FDA has very recently provided guidance on the registration pathway for SNL treatment of the RPD-phenotype.22

Here we report a single-centre, retrospective, three-year follow-up consecutive case series of 120 eyes with iAMD, large soft drusen and RPD-phenotype, treated with SNL.

## Methods

A retrospective observational single-centre study was undertaken at Hamilton Eye Clinic, New Zealand. Written study consent was obtained for all patients, except for those lost to follow-up and uncontactable. The office of the Health and Disability Ethics Committee advised that, as the study uses only de-identified data with no active human participants, it poses minimal risk and no further ethics review was required. The study and clinical care complied with the Declaration of Helsinki.

### Participants

Potential participants were identified from the laser procedure log of patients with iAMD first SNL-treated prior to September 2016.

Assessment of baseline imaging immediately prior to the first treatment was used to assess for inclusion. For this purpose, spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT) imaging (Spectralis, Heidelberg Technologies; high resolution volume scan, 15°x 15°, ART 15 frames and 37 sections), fundus autofluorescence (FAF) and colour retinal photographs were used.

Included eyes had large soft drusen (≥125 μm diameter) present within a 3000 μm diameter circle centered on the fovea present on SD-OCT. Patients with the RPD+ phenotype, defined as either >5 definite SD-OCT RPD on a single OCT slice, or definite RPD on FAF in either eye, were excluded. This is based on published definitions of the RPD+ phenotype, including that used in the LEAD study and a recently proposed definition based on a current understanding of RPD and imaging techniques.10,18 Excluded were patients with clinical features (slit lamp biomicroscopy, HD-OCT or fluorescein angiography) in either eye indicating presence of nAMD or GA (as defined by Sadda et al22). Nascent GA (as defined by Wu et al23) was not excluded. Excluded were eyes with current or prior retinal or other ocular disease that may influence the natural history of AMD or any prior macular laser treatment.

To reduce positive bias, eyes were selected for inclusion before the clinical file was accessed for last follow-up and outcome data.

### Baseline data

Data collected at baseline included gender, age, family history, smoking history, AREDS supplementation, and Snellen visual acuity (converted to logMAR visual acuity for statistical analysis).

For each eye, important prognostic features present within the central 3000 μm diameter circle were recorded. Drusen area and volume (Cirrus SD-OCT 512 × 128 cube 6×6 mm and the ‘Advanced RPE Analysis’) were derived. On the Spectralis SD-OCT, largest drusen diameter was measured, and presence of HRF or HDC.

### Subthreshold nanosecond laser treatment protocol

At the beginning of the study the LEAD study protocol of 12 spots with power determined by a titration method was used.16 The protocol evolved as the 2RT safety profile became clearer. Following a positive LEAD study interim safety report the number of spots per treatment was increased.25 By the end of the study period a typical treatment was approximately 50 spots at the lower of 70% of threshold or 0.24 mJ, placed in a double row temporal arc outside a 4000µm diameter circle centered on the fovea. All laser spots were spaced by greater than a two-spot diameter.

### Follow-up and SNL re-treatment

Follow-up examination was performed 6-12 monthly. This included SD-OCT and FAF evaluation for progression to late disease: nAMD was defined by typical SD-OCT features, such as intraretinal fluid, subretinal fluid or hemorrhage. GA was defined by SD-OCT features of complete RPE and outer retinal atrophy (cRORA).23

As proposed by Garcia-Filho et al26, drusen growth, subjectively assessed using SD-OCT, was used as a biomarker of presence or absence of a treatment effect. For eyes with larger size drusen, a six-month interval was suitable for assessing a change. For eyes with smaller drusen, 12 or more months was needed to confidently assess a change. This relates to the limitations of subjectively assessing change in size of smaller versus larger drusen. A reduction of drusen load was considered a biomarker for a positive treatment effect. Re-treatment was not offered for an eye with drusen regression.

Re-treatment laser parameters were adjusted according to laser-induced RPE changes seen on FAF. Treatment powers were modestly increased if there were no changes, unaltered if there was hypofluorescence and reduced if there was hyperfluorescence.

### Last follow-up data

Last visit was either at three years (34-36 months) after the first treatment, when progression was noted or when lost to follow-up. Data collected at last visit was Snellen visual acuity (converted to logMAR), months of follow-up, drusen area and volume, progression to late disease, number of treatments and adverse events. Where possible, the reason for loss to follow-up was ascertained.

### Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using Stata v16 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Baseline characteristics of patients were assessed descriptively. Continuous variables were summarized using means and standard deviations, or medians and interquartile ranges as appropriate.

Categorical variables were summarized as frequencies and percentages. The risk of progression was modelled using log binomial regression, with Generalized Estimating Equations to account for correlation due to patients with two eyes included in the study. An offset was also included to account for variable length of follow-up time. The estimates from these models are the overall risk of progression within three years, presented as a percentage, and 95% Confidence Interval. The strength of association between potential prognostic factors (drusen diameter ≥1000µm, hyperreflective foci and hyporeflective drusen cores) was assessed descriptively and using Fisher’s Exact test due to the small number of progressions.

## Results

One hundred and twenty eyes in 64 patients were identified. The baseline patient and eye characteristics are in Table 1.

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/30/2022.05.29.22275655/T1)

Table 1: Patient Baseline Characteristics

The mean and median months of follow-up were 36.00 months (IQR 36.00, 36.00) and 36.13 (SD 7.89) respectively. The mean number of treatments was 3.03 (range 1-5, SD 1.03). Because of re-treatment decision-making based on high-risk characteristics and the change of drusen load, for drusen diameter of 250-349μm, 350-999μm and ≥1000μm, the mean number (SD) of treatments was 2.52 (0.81), 2.93 (0.98) and 3.32 (1.07) respectively.

### Progression to late AMD

Using raw data, progression to late AMD within three-years was seen in seven eyes of seven patients (5.83% of eyes; 95% confidence interval: 2.76, 11.81), all to GA and none to nAMD. No patient with bilateral treatment had bilateral progression.

The estimated risk of eye progression was 5.82% (95% CI: 2.55, 13.30) with the log binomial regression model with GEEs and offset for variable follow-up time. With the Adjusted GEE + Offset model the estimated risk is 5.10% (95% CI: 0.37, 9.33). The cumulative hazard function is shown in Figure 1. As far fewer than 50% progressed estimating median time to progression is not possible. Largest drusen diameter (as a measure of drusen size), HRF and HDC were each strongly associated with risk of progression at three years (Table 2.1). All seven eyes that progressed had a baseline drusen diameter ≥1000μm. The interrelationship of largest drusen diameter with other measures of drusen size (drusen area and volume), with other risk factors for progression (HRF and HDC), and with visual acuity outcomes is shown in Table 2.2.

View this table:
[Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/30/2022.05.29.22275655/T2)

Table 2: Eye Baseline Characteristics

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/05/30/2022.05.29.22275655/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/30/2022.05.29.22275655/F1)

Figure 1. Cumulative Hazard Function

By three years, baseline drusen area had increased in 71 (68.93%), was unchanged in 6 (5.83%) and decreased in 26 (25.24%) eyes.

### Visual acuity

Visual acuity results are in Table 3.

View this table:
[Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/30/2022.05.29.22275655/T3)

Table 3: Visual Acuity Results

Six patients with ten SNL-treated eyes were lost to follow-up: three deceased, two due to frailty and one due to travel issues. No adverse events related to laser application were observed. Two informally documented laser spot-related effects were reported; after-images which resolved over days to weeks and focal pigment changes without corresponding OCT signs of outer retinal changes.

## Discussion

This study assessed “real-world” three-year outcomes of patients with iAMD and RPD-phenotype treated with SNL.

Progression to late AMD was 5.83% (using the preferred GEE + Offset model), all to GA. Baseline, drusen load, particularly DPED (largest drusen diameter >1000μm), HRF and HDC were strongly associated with progression.

Progression by three years in this study compares favorably with two studies with natural history progression rates for the RPD-phenotype. However, the definition of RPD is somewhat different in both natural history studies, and each with this study. The AREDS Study 2 published Kaplan Meier curves from which estimates of progression to late AMD can be extrapolated to be 18% (nAMD 8%, GA 10%).29 However, the definition of GA is restricted to foveal involvement. The LEAD sham treatment group had a progression rate of 19.1% (nAMD 3.65%, GA 15.5%). LEAD has a similar definition of GA to this study, but nascent GA is a baseline exclusion and then a progression endpoint.18, 19

The estimated risk of progression, using an intercept-only log binomial regression model, was very close to the observed proportion. This model accounted for correlation due to patients with two eyes included, and for variable length of follow-up time. It was not adjusted for potential confounding factors, as the small number of progressions observed meant that a multivariable model was not recommended. However, an additional sensitivity analysis was carried out in which age, sex, family history, smoking history, AREDS use and drusen area were included as covariates; this model produced results consistent with the main analysis.

The LEAD study provides the only other published 2RT iAMD RPD-treatment group. Three-year progression was 5.36% (4.5% GA, 0.9% nAMD), similar to 5.83% and 0% respectively in this study.19 LEAD’s inclusion and exclusion criteria differ from this study. In this study group, most patients had bilateral treatment, the treatment protocol evolved over the study period and treatment intervals varied and then ceased if drusen regression observed. Additionally, patients occasionally declined or deferred re-treatment.

In this study, with small numbers progressing to late AMD by three years, the absence of progression to nAMD may be fortuitous.

The study cohort is notable for high-risk characteristics at baseline (Table 7). Drusen load was high with median largest diameter of 835.00 µm (IQR 446.50, 1398.50) with DPED present in 82.53% (ARED 2 definition of ≥350μm) or 44.16% (≥1000μm definition of Roudout-Thoroval et al).7, 26 HDC was present in 25.83%. HRF was present in 56.67% compared to pigmentary changes in LEAD sham and treatment groups of 35.2% and 31.3% respectively.18

The preponderance of eyes with high-risk characteristics may result from a real-world bias by not recommending treatment for eyes with low-risk characteristics. Thereby, arguably, a comparative natural history 3-year progression rate for this study cohort would be higher than the 18-19.1% in the above referred studies.

Mean visual acuity declined modestly by 0.01 LogMAR over three years. Visual acuity was unchanged or improved in 80.00% of eyes and reduced in 20.00%; 1-2 lines (22 eyes, 18.33%) and 3-4 lines (2 eyes, 1.67%). The two eyes (two patients) with 3-4 lines loss had DPED at baseline. By three years both had developed foveal pigmentary change with disrupted outer retinal layers but without progression to GA or nAMD. The natural history of iAMD, in particular when high-risk factors are present, as in this study, is of a progressive decline in visual function. 27,28,30 Visual acuity decline is common with DPED.27

There is no evidence-based guidance on optimal SNL treatment protocol; fluence, number of or placement of spots, and retreatment. LEAD found no evidence of a dose–response relationship.31 In this study the SNL treatment protocol varied, particularly in number of spots per treatment, retreatment decision-making and retreatment intervals. Variance was both over the duration of the study and on a per patient basis. By three years, the mean number of treatments was 3.03 (range 1-5) compared to six in LEAD. These variances may indicate that SNL has a wide therapeutic window and is titratable according to individual patient needs.

No adverse events related to laser application were observed. The occurrence of after images and pigment changes have been reported with other subthreshold laser systems.32

Limitations of this study include being retrospective, single-center and an inherent risk of positive bias. As detailed in the methods, measures were taken to reduce positive bias.

This “real world” retrospective case series suggests a potential role for SNL to reduce progression of iAMD without coexistent RPD to late disease. Further studies are required to confirm any benefit, give guidance for laser dosimetry, and investigate SNL in other AMD phenotypes.

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

## Footnotes

*   The study was conducted at Hamilton Eye Clinic,130 Grantham Street, Hamilton Central, 3204, New Zealand

*   The authors have no financial/conflicting interest to disclose.

*   Funding: JL’s organisation (Adelaide Health Technology Assessment, University of Adelaide) received payment from Nova-Eye Medical for initial statistical analyses; however further analyses and collaboration on the manuscript was subsequently done independently.

*   Received May 29, 2022.
*   Revision received May 29, 2022.
*   Accepted May 30, 2022.


*   © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Hadziahmetovic M, Malek G. Age-Related Macular Degeneration Revisited: From Pathology and Cellular Stress to Potential Therapies. Front Cell Dev Biol 2020, 8:612812.
    
    

2.  2.Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 Research Group. Lutein + zeaxanthin and omega-3 fatty acids for age-related macular degeneration: the Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2013, 309:2005–2015.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2013.4997&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23644932&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F30%2F2022.05.29.22275655.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000318855500023&link_type=ISI) 

3.  3.1.  Marmor MF
    
    Marshall J, Ha SC, Moore DJ, Patmore A. Ageing and Bruch’s Membrane. In: Marmor MF ed. Retinal Pigment Epithelium: Function and Disease. Oxford University Press; 1998;669–692.
    
    

4.  4.Ferris FL, 3rd., Wilkinson CP, Bird A, et al. Beckman Initiative for Macular Research Classification C: Clinical classification of age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2013, 120:844–851.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.10.036&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23332590&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F30%2F2022.05.29.22275655.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000317343500030&link_type=ISI) 

5.  5.Schlanitz FG, Baumann B, Kundi M, et al. Drusen volume development over time and its relevance to the course of age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 2017, 101:198–203.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTI6ImJqb3BodGhhbG1vbCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxMDEvMi8xOTgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8wNS8zMC8yMDIyLjA1LjI5LjIyMjc1NjU1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

6.  6.Klein R, Klein BE, Knudtson MD, Meuer SM, Swift M, Gangnon RE. Fifteen-year cumulative incidence of age-related macular degeneration: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2007, 114:253–262.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.10.040&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17270675&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F30%2F2022.05.29.22275655.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000243844600010&link_type=ISI) 

7.  7.Yu JJ, Agron E, Clemons TE, et al. Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 Research G: Natural History of Drusenoid Pigment Epithelial Detachment Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 Report No. 17. Ophthalmology 2019, 126:261–273.
    
    

8.  8.Heesterbeek TJ, Lores-Motta L, Hoyng CB, Lechanteur, YTE, den Hollander AI. Risk factors for progression of age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2020, 40:140–170.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F30%2F2022.05.29.22275655.atom) 

9.  9.Fragiotta S, Abdolrahimzadeh S, Dolz-Marco R, Sakurada Y, Gal-Or O, Scuderi G. Significance of Hyperreflective Foci as an Optical Coherence Tomography Biomarker in Retinal Diseases: Characterization and Clinical Implications. J Ophthalmol 2021, 2021:6096017.
    
    

10. 10.Wu Z, Fletcher EL, Kumar H, Greferath U, Guymer RH. Reticular pseudodrusen: A critical phenotype in age-related macular degeneration. Prog Retin Eye Res. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2021.101017.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.preteyeres.2021.101017&link_type=DOI) 

11. 11.Thomson RJ, Chazaro J, Otero-Marquez O, et al. Systemic and Genetic Risk Factors for Reticular Macular Disease and Soft Drusen in Age-Related Macular Degeneration. doi: [https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.27.21263712](https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.27.21263712)
    
    

12. 12.Cohn AC, Wu Z, Jobling AI, Fletcher EL, Guymer RH. Subthreshold Nano-Second Laser Treatment and Age-Related Macular Degeneration. J Clin Med 2021, 10.
    
    

13. 13.Querques G, Cicinelli MV, Rabiolo A, et al. Laser photocoagulation as treatment of non-exudative age-related macular degeneration: state-of-the-art and future perspectives. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018, 256:1–9.
    
    

14. 14.Brinkmann R, Huttmann G, Rogener J, Roider J, Birngruber R, Lin CP. Origin of retinal pigment epithelium cell damage by pulsed laser irradiance in the nanosecond to microsecond time regimen. Lasers Surg Med 2000, 27:451–464.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/1096-9101(2000)27:5<451::AID-LSM1006>3.0.CO;2-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11126439&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F30%2F2022.05.29.22275655.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000165146900007&link_type=ISI) 

15. 15.Luttrull JK, Sinclair SH, Elmann S, Glaser BM. Low incidence of choroidal neovascularization following subthreshold diode micropulse laser (SDM) in high-risk AMD. PLoS One 2018, 13:e0202097.
    
    

16. 16.Gunawan JR, Thiele SH, Isselmann B, Caruso E, Guymer RH, Luu CD. Effect of subthreshold nanosecond laser on retinal structure and function in intermediate age-related macular degeneration. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2022,, 50:31–39
    
    

17. 17.Jobling AI, Guymer RH, Vessey KA, et al. Nanosecond laser therapy reverses pathologic and molecular changes in age-related macular degeneration without retinal damage. FASEB J 2015, 29:696–710.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1096/fj.14-262444&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25392267&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F30%2F2022.05.29.22275655.atom) 

18. 18.Lek JJ, Brassington KH, Luu CD, et al. Laser in Early Stages of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Study Writing C: Subthreshold Nanosecond Laser Intervention in Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Study Design and Baseline Characteristics of the Laser in Early Stages of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Study (Report Number 1). Ophthalmol Retina 2017, 1:227–239.
    
    

19. 19.Guymer RH, Wu Z, Hodgson LAB, et al. Subthreshold Nanosecond Laser Intervention in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: The LEAD Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Ophthalmology 2019, 126:829–838.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F30%2F2022.05.29.22275655.atom) 

20. 20.Wu Z, Luu CD, Hodgson LAB, et al. Secondary and Exploratory Outcomes of the Subthreshold Nanosecond Laser Intervention Randomized Trial in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A LEAD Study Report. Ophthalmol Retina 2019, 3:1026–1034.
    
    

21. 21.Guymer RH, Chen FK, Hodgson LAB, et al. Subthreshold Nanosecond Laser in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Observational Extension Study of the LEAD Clinical Trial. Ophthalmol Retina 2021, 5:1196–1203.
    
    

22. 22.Australian Stock Exchange. Nova Eye Medical Announces Regulatory Pathway for AlphaRET2RT®in the USA, 2022. Accessed May 2022. Available from: [https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02517355-2A1371751?access\_token=83ff96335c2d45a094df02a206a39ff4](https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02517355-2A1371751?access_token=83ff96335c2d45a094df02a206a39ff4)
    
    

23. 23.Sadda SR, Guymer R, Holz FG, et al. Consensus Definition for Atrophy Associated with Age-Related Macular Degeneration on OCT: Classification of Atrophy Report 3. Ophthalmology 2018, 125:537–548.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.09.028&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F30%2F2022.05.29.22275655.atom) 

24. 24.Wu Z, Luu CD, Ayton LN, et al. Optical coherence tomography-defined changes preceding the development of drusen-associated atrophy in age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2014, 121:2415–2422.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.06.034&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25109931&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F30%2F2022.05.29.22275655.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000345509500026&link_type=ISI) 

25. 25.Australian Stock Exchange. Ellex Announces Interim Review of 2RT Clinical Trial, 2016. Accessed March 2017. Available from: [https://www.asxcomau/asxpdf/20160530/pdf/437kllxn3z99ympdf](https://www.asxcomau/asxpdf/20160530/pdf/437kllxn3z99ympdf)
    
    

26. 26.Garcia Filho CA, Yehoshua Z, Gregori G, et al. Change in drusen volume as a novel clinical trial endpoint for the study of complement inhibition in age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2014, 45:18–31.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3928/23258160-20131217-01&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24354307&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F30%2F2022.05.29.22275655.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000333812200003&link_type=ISI) 

27. 27.Roquet W, Roudot-Thoraval F, Coscas G, Soubrane G. Clinical features of drusenoid pigment epithelial detachment in age related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 2004, 88:638–642.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTI6ImJqb3BodGhhbG1vbCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI4OC81LzYzOCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzA1LzMwLzIwMjIuMDUuMjkuMjIyNzU2NTUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

28. 28.Hsu ST, Thompson AC, Stinnett SS, et al. Longitudinal Study of Visual Function in Dry Age-Related Macular Degeneration at 12 Months. Ophthalmol Retina 2019, 3:637–648.
    
    

29. 29.Domalpally A, Agron E, Pak JW, et al. Prevalence, Risk, and Genetic Association of Reticular Pseudodrusen in Age-related Macular Degeneration: Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 Report 21. Ophthalmology 2019, 126:1659–1666.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F05%2F30%2F2022.05.29.22275655.atom) 

30. 30.Chew EY, Clemons TE, Agron E, et al. Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group: Ten-year follow-up of age-related macular degeneration in the age-related eye disease study: AREDS report no. 36. JAMA Ophthalmol 2014, 132:272–277.
    
    

31. 31.Cohn AC, Runciman J, Hodgson LAB, et al. Dose Response in the Subthreshold Nanosecond Laser Trial in Early Stages of AMD: A LEAD Study Report. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2021, 52:380–386.
    
    

32. 32.Eng VA, Wood EH, Boddu S, Karth PA, Leng T. Preventing Progression in Nonexudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration With Subthreshold Laser Therapy: A Systematic Review. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2019, 50:e61–e70.