PURPOSE: To estimate the value of macular pigment optical density (MPOD) in adult south Indian population with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: A total of 33 patients with wet AMD and 29 age-matched controls >50 years of age underwent MPOD measurement with the macular densitometer. The patients were also tested for their dietary intake of carotenoids, smoking history, and lifetime UV exposure. RESULTS: The mean MPOD values in the Indian population with wet AMD was 0.23 (95% CI: 0.18-0.29) vs control was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.37-0.49), P<0.0001, at 0.5° eccentricity. Ex-smokers had a lower MPOD than non-smokers (0.16 (0.09-0.23) vs 0.28 (0.22-0.34), P=0.026) and the lowest level of carotenoids intake had 48% lower MPOD than the highest level (0.14 (0.08-0.21) vs 0.33 (0.24-0.43), P=0.012). There was no significant age-related decline or gender variation in MPOD. CONCLUSION: This study establishes the MPOD in adult Indian population with wet AMD, with a lack of macular pigment in association with wet AMD.
PURPOSE: To estimate the value of macular pigment optical density (MPOD) in adult south Indian population with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: A total of 33 patients with wet AMD and 29 age-matched controls >50 years of age underwent MPOD measurement with the macular densitometer. The patients were also tested for their dietary intake of carotenoids, smoking history, and lifetime UV exposure. RESULTS: The mean MPOD values in the Indian population with wet AMD was 0.23 (95% CI: 0.18-0.29) vs control was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.37-0.49), P<0.0001, at 0.5° eccentricity. Ex-smokers had a lower MPOD than non-smokers (0.16 (0.09-0.23) vs 0.28 (0.22-0.34), P=0.026) and the lowest level of carotenoids intake had 48% lower MPOD than the highest level (0.14 (0.08-0.21) vs 0.33 (0.24-0.43), P=0.012). There was no significant age-related decline or gender variation in MPOD. CONCLUSION: This study establishes the MPOD in adult Indian population with wet AMD, with a lack of macular pigment in association with wet AMD.
Authors: J R Hebert; P C Gupta; R B Bhonsle; P R Murti; H Mehta; F Verghese; M Aghi; K Krishnaswamy; F S Mehta Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Sannapaneni Krishnaiah; Taraprasad Das; Praveen K Nirmalan; Rishita Nutheti; Bindiganavale R Shamanna; Gullapalli N Rao; Ravi Thomas Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Silke Schmidt; Michael A Hauser; William K Scott; Eric A Postel; Anita Agarwal; Paul Gallins; Frank Wong; Yu Sarah Chen; Kylee Spencer; Nathalie Schnetz-Boutaud; Jonathan L Haines; Margaret A Pericak-Vance Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: B R Hammond; E J Johnson; R M Russell; N I Krinsky; K J Yeum; R B Edwards; D M Snodderly Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Julie A Mares; Tara L LaRowe; D Max Snodderly; Suzen M Moeller; Michael J Gruber; Michael L Klein; Billy R Wooten; Elizabeth J Johnson; Richard J Chappell Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: John Paul SanGiovanni; Emily Y Chew; Traci E Clemons; Frederick L Ferris; Gary Gensler; Anne S Lindblad; Roy C Milton; Johanna M Seddon; Robert D Sperduto Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2007-09
Authors: Robin G Abell; Alex W Hewitt; Marko Andric; Penelope L Allen; Nitin Verma Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2014-01-05 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Christopher D Conrady; James P Bell; Brian M Besch; Aruna Gorusupudi; Kelliann Farnsworth; Igor Ermakov; Mohsen Sharifzadeh; Maia Ermakova; Werner Gellermann; Paul S Bernstein Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 4.799