4.6 Review

An appraisal of trials investigating the effects on macular pigment optical density of lutein and zeaxanthin dietary interventions: a narrative review

Journal

NUTRITION REVIEWS
Volume 80, Issue 3, Pages 513-524

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/nutrit/nuab038

Keywords

dietary intervention; lutein; macula; macular pigment optical density; zeaxanthin

Funding

  1. Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review critically evaluates the effect of increasing dietary intake of lutein and zeaxanthin (L/Z) on macular pigment optical density (MPOD) in adults. The results of the included studies showed inconsistent relationships between dietary L/Z interventions and MPOD response. Limited monitoring of habitual dietary L/Z intake was identified as a major limitation of the studies.
Lutein and zeaxanthin (L/Z), xanthophylls obtained from the diet, are deposited in the macula of the eye. The macular concentration of L/Z is quantifiable as macular pigment optical density (MPOD). The aim of this review was to critically appraise the effect on MPOD of increasing L/Z intake by dietary intervention in adults. Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Cinahl were searched up to April 2020. Ten studies investigating populations with and without age-related macular degeneration were included. MPOD increased significantly in 2 of the 8 controlled studies. Studies varied largely in the prescribed dietary L/Z dosage, duration, and participant characteristics. No relationships between types of dietary L/Z interventions and MPOD response could be determined. Limited monitoring of habitual dietary L/Z intake was identified as a major limitation of all 10 studies. Habitual dietary L/Z intake should be closely monitored in future studies to account for their effects on MPOD response to dietary L/Z interventions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available