4.6 Article

Plasma lutein and zeaxanthin and other carotenoids as modifiable risk factors for age-related maculopathy and cataract: The POLA study

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 47, 期 6, 页码 2329-2335

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.05-1235

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To assess the associations of plasma lutein and zeaxanthin and other carotenoids with the risk of age-related maculopathy (ARM) and cataract in the population-based Pathologies Oculaires Liees a l'Age (POLA) Study. METHODS. Retinal photographs were graded according to the international classification. ARM was defined by the presence of late ARM (neovascular ARM, geographic atrophy) and/or soft indistinct drusen (> 125 mu m) and/or soft distinct drusen (> 125 gm) associated with pigmentary abnormalities. Cataract classification was based on a direct standardized lens examination at the slit lamp, according to Lens Opacities Classification System III. Plasma carotenoids were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), in 899 subjects of the cohort. RESULTS. After multivariate adjustment, the highest quintile of plasma zeaxanthin was significantly associated with reduced risk of ARM (OR = 0.07; 95% CI: 0.01-0.58-1 P for trend = 0.005), nuclear cataract (OR = 0.23-1 95% CI: 0.08-0.68; P for trend = 0.003) and any cataract (OR = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.31-0.89; P for trend = 0.01). ARM was significantly associated with combined plasma lutein and zcaxanthin (OR = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.05-0.79; P for trend = 0.01), and tended to be associated with plasma lutein (OR = 0.31; 95% CI: 0.09-1.07; P for trend = 0.04), whereas cataract showed no such associations. Among other carotenoids, only beta-carotene showed a significant negative association with uncle at. cataract, but not ARM. CONCLUSIONS. These results are strongly suggestive of a protective role of the xanthophylls, in particular zeaxanthin, for the protection against ARM and cataract.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据