Materials and Methods
A prospective, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind cross-over trial (Registered on Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, 9 July 2012, ACTRN12612000729820) was conducted on 100 participants attending a single tertiary retinal clinic between January 2013 and March 2015. All participants who successfully completed this earlier cross-over trial were then invited to join this 1-year, open-label, single-arm extension trial following completion of that study, which concluded in May 2016. Of the original cohort, 93 participants enrolled in the extension trial.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
All participants underwent baseline dilated ophthalmic examination and general medical review to confirm the presence of AMD and to assess eligibility under the exclusion/inclusion criteria listed below. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) age greater than 50 years, (b) moderate severity AMD (defined as AREDS grade 2 or 3) in at least one eye,13 (c) best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) greater than 55 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters (approximately 20/70 Snellen equivalent) in the eye(s) meeting criteria (a) and (b), and (d) ability to provide written consent.5 Exclusion criteria were as follows: (a) the presence of any ocular lesion in the study eye(s) that might confound results, including nAMD, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, macular hole or epiretinal membrane, prior macula-off retinal detachment, uncontrolled glaucoma, significant corneal or lenticular opacities or active uveitis, (b) prior macular laser therapy for AMD or other retinal disorders, (c) prior or current intravitreal pharmacotherapy and (d) gastric or hepatic disorders altering either absorption or metabolism of orally administered saffron, such as prior intestinal resection, inflammatory bowel disease or liver cirrhosis.8 In participants in whom both eyes met eligibility criteria, both eyes were included in the analysis, with 153 eyes meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Age-related macular degeneration
The diagnosis of AMD was confirmed by both dilated retinal examination by a retinal specialist (AAC) and dilated retinal fundus photography (Zeiss Visucam NM/FA, Zeiss Industries, Dublin). Macular centred fundus photos (45°) were graded according to the AREDS trial criteria.13 All participants also underwent baseline spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and fundus autofluorescence (FAF). Where necessary, additional investigations, including fundus fluorescein angiography and indocyanine green angiography, were undertaken to evaluate potential exclusion criteria such as nAMD.
Study protocol
The initial cross-over study consisted of 100 participants with mild/moderate AMD who underwent a 6-month, double-blinded, placebo-controlled cross-over study of 20 mg saffron versus placebo (3 months of either saffron or placebo followed by cross-over to the other arm of the study). All participants met the inclusion criteria detailed above, and baseline investigations for that study included a dilated fundus examination with lens grading, SD-OCT, FAF, intraocular pressure (IOP) and BCVA measurement, multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG), microperimetry (MP) and a single once off full field electroretinogram to exclude occult retinal diseases.8 14
All participants were offered saffron supplementation. Participants were provided oral capsules containing 20 mg saffron and instructed to consume one capsule daily for the duration of the study. This dosage was chosen based on prior small pilot studies that had suggested that this dose was sufficient to have a neuroprotective effect on the retina.9 Compliance was evaluated via self-reporting at interview at scheduled regular assessments, which may have impacted the accuracy of the reported compliance. In the case of missed doses, these were instructed not to be retaken or ‘double dosed’, but to instead be recorded as missed or absent and regular daily dosing continued from the next day. No participant reported <80% compliance with dosing throughout the study.
All participants underwent 3-monthly assessment for a period of 12 months. At each visit, complete ophthalmic examination was undertaken, including (a) IOP monitoring via Goldmann applanation tonometry, (b) adverse event monitoring, (c) standardised BCVA assessment in ETDRS letters and (d) colour fundus photography. As mentioned above, at each visit, compliance with supplementation use was assessed by interview.
Additionally, at the baseline and 12 months visits, participants also underwent (MP, SD-OCT, FAF, lens grading (cataract grading) using AREDS lens assessment criteria15 and mfERG assessment. Electroretinography and perimetric examinations were performed prior to any investigations that may have affected photoreceptor response, such as fundus examination, colour photography, OCT, FAF or fundus photography.
Autofluorescence and OCT
SD-OCT was conducted using a 19-line, 1024 A-scans per line scan via a Heidelberg Spectalis system (Heidelberg Industries, Heidelberg, Germany), and inbuilt Heidelberg licensed software with eye tracking and image recognition (Tru-Track and AutoRescan respectively) was employed to ensure continuity of the scan location. All scans were reviewed, recentred and resegmented as necessary by two independent graders, with any disputes adjudicated by a third, independent grader. Central macular thickness was measured via SD-OCT and was defined as the distance between the Internal Limiting Membrane and Bruch’s Membrane within the central 1 mm of the ETDRS subfield.
FAF was conducted using a Heidelberg Spectralis FAF acquisition module, and hypoautofluorescence area (a measure of retinal pigment epithelial atrophy) was measured using FAF images by two independent graders, with any disputes >15% in area being adjudicated by a third, independent grader.
Microperimetry
MP was undertaken with a Macular Assessment Integrity Analyser (MAIA, CenterVue, Padova, Italy). The MAIA uses a scanning light ophthalmoscope to perform fundus tracking, using the whole fundus as a reference. Participants were tested using an automated macular assessment protocol. Fixation was ensured via the use of a red circle target of 1° diameter, and stimuli were presented in a 4–2 strategy across an array of 37 points at 0°, 1°, 3° and 5° from central fixation. Throughout the test, Goldmann III stimuli are displayed across a dynamic range of 36 dB, with a background luminescence of 1.27 cd×cm2 .
All participants were dilated/redilated after earlier mfERG with 1% tropicamide/2.5% phenylephrine prior to testing, and all received a standardised set of instructions regarding test performance prior to test commencement. Tests were conducted in a standardised, non-illuminated room, prior to any tests that may have affected photoreceptor response (such as fundus photos). Participants with false positive responses of >25% were retested, and if these responses persisted, were excluded from analysis.
Results were grouped into concentric rings at 1°, 3° and 5° from central fixation (rings 1–3, respectively) and analysed as the average sensitivity of each of these rings, as well as the overall average macular sensitivity.
Multifocal electroretinography
mfERG is an objective test of retinal function that measures macular function and was acquired using a VERIS Science (Veris) device following International Society for Electroretinogaphy in Vision (ISCEV) guidelines.16 All participants’ pupils were maximally dilated to at least 7 mm diameter using 0.5% tropicamide and/or 2.5% phenylephrine, with the cornea anaesthetised with 0.4% oxybupivicaine hydrochloride. The mfERG data were acquired using a gold foil electrode. Test stimuli consisted of 103 scaled hexagons presented in a pseudorandom fashion at a rate of 75 Hz, using a luminescence of 200 cd for the white hexagons and 1.0 cd for black hexagons. Fixation was ensured using a fixation device, and recordings that contained blinks or other artefacts were not saved and were rerecorded. Signals obtained were band pass filtered from 10 to 100 Hz and amplified 100 000 times. Noise-contaminated segments were rejected and repeated.
The mfERG responses for the hexagons across the retina were separated into six concentric rings (rings 1–6) for data analysis. The latencies and average response densities of the six concentric rings were measured (figure 1), with greater response density and lower latency indicative of better retinal function. The rings of 1–6 correspond to the foveola at 1°, 4°, 8°, 12°, 17° and 22°, respectively, according to the eccentricity, with the fixation target at the central 0.75°. The response amplitudes in each ring were measured between the first negative trough (N1) and the first positive peak (P1), yielding the N1P1 response densities (amplitudes per unit retinal area in nV/deg2). The P1 peak latencies (ms) of the positive waveform were also measured.
Figure 1Imaging and functional output from a trial participant. Clockwise from top left: pseudocolour fundus imaging, autofluorescence fundus imaging, multifocal electroretinogram output.
All participants had previously undergone a full field ERG under ISCEV conditions14 to exclude the presence of potential confounding retinal degenerative diseases that may have mimicked AMD.
Statistical analysis
The primary outcomes were mean change in mfERG N1P1 response density, mean change in BCVA and mean change in mfERG latency. Secondary outcomes included change in individual ring mfERG N1P1 response density and latency, mean change in MP ring response, and safety of saffron longer-term. Incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) was recorded.
Additional exploratory analyses were also conducted to explore the effect of saffron on those participants already consuming other supplementation therapy, and the effect of baseline atrophy on response observed. Participants on AREDS supplementation (current best-practice treatment at trial commencement) were analysed to assess the efficacy of saffron in this subgroup.
Of the 93 participants enrolled, 85 completed the full year of the trial (figure 2). Two participants passed away during the trial, one withdrew soon after enrolment due to travel difficulties, and five failed to attend for final follow-up despite repeated reminders and efforts at communication. All participants enrolled in the study were included in the safety data. Efficacy analysis was conducted on a modified intention to treat basis, however, participants who developed confounding visual pathologies (nAMD) during the trial had the eye(s) thus affected excluded from visual outcome analysis. There were 5 cases of nAMD development in their only eligible eye during the 12-month period, leaving 80 participants for with complete visual outcome data.
Figure 2Flow diagram of participants through the trial.
Given the hierarchical nature of data (two eyes for some patients, multiple time points and six rings for mfERG results) a linear mixed effects model was used to account for within patient, eye and ring correlations using the lme and lmer functions in R packages nlme and lme4, respectively. To combine mfERG results over all rings, a linear mixed effects model was fitted on the mfERG logarithm with a quadratic term for reduction of log(mfERG) by ring. The choice for taking the logarithm of mfERG results, and for using a quadratic term for reduction by ring, was made to ensure assumptions on residual values were not violated. The fixed effects were time point only for BCVA and time point, ring and ring squared for log (mfERG) and for latency. Random effects were chosen to be consistent with the parent study and were intercept only for BCVA and individual mfERG ring analysis; and intercept, ring and ring squared terms for mfERG. The effects of AREDS supplementation were assessed with additional fixed effects.
All analyses were conducted using the software R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing V.3.6.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).