You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Epidemiology
Clinical science
Prevalence and risk factors of myopic macular degeneration: the Aier-SERI high myopia adult cohort
  1. Li Lian Foo1,2,3,
  2. Yanfeng Jiang4,
  3. Quan V Hoang1,2,3,5,6,
  4. Hla Myint Htoon1,2,3,
  5. Ziqi Hu7,
  6. Wei Pan4,
  7. Kai Xiong Cheong1,2,3,
  8. Ecosse Luc Lamoureux1,2,3,
  9. Zhikuan Yang4,8,
  10. Weizhong Lan4,8,9,
  11. Seang-Mei Saw1,2,3,10
  1. 1 Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore
  2. 2 Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore
  3. 3 Duke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore
  4. 4 Aier Academy of Ophthalmology, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, People's Republic of China
  5. 5 Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
  6. 6 Dept. of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
  7. 7 Changsha Aier Eye Hospital, Changsha, People's Republic of China
  8. 8 Hefei Aier Eye Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, People's Republic of China
  9. 9 Aier School of Optometry and Vision Science, Hubei University of Science and Technology, Xianning, Hubei, People's Republic of China
  10. 10 Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore
  1. Correspondence to Dr Seang-Mei Saw; ephssm{at}nus.edu.sg

Abstract

Purpose To assess the prevalence and risk factors of myopic macular degeneration (MMD) in young and middle-aged individuals with high myopia in Changsha, central China.

Methods A total of 445 adults with high myopia (worse than or equal to −5.0 D) were examined between 2021 and 2023. Autorefraction and biometry using IOLMaster were conducted, and fundus photos were graded for MMD using Meta-PM criteria. MMD was diagnosed if category 2, 3, 4 or any plus lesion was present. Risk factors such as age, gender, spherical equivalent (SE)/axial length (AL), body mass index, education and residence were analysed via logistic regression.

Results Participants had an average age of 42.3±7.3 years. MMD prevalence was 21.8% (71 adults) with a mean SE of −9.5±4.7 D and AL of 27.3±1.9 mm. Significant risk factors included greater myopic SE (OR=1.7 per 1 D decrease) and longer AL (OR=3.6 per 1 mm increase). MMD prevalence rose sharply with myopia worse than −10.00 D and AL >27.00 mm, reaching up to 100% for myopia worse than −14.00 D or AL ≥29.00 mm.

Conclusion MMD affects about one in five young to middle-aged adults with high myopia. Those exceeding critical myopia and AL thresholds are at higher risk and should be closely monitored. Further research on interventions to prevent axial elongation is needed, particularly for those with high genetic risk.

  • Epidemiology
  • Risk Factors

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2024-326116

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • LLF and YJ are joint first authors.

    • Contributors LLF and YJ contributed equally to the conceptualisation, study design, data interpretation and manuscript drafting. QVH contributed to the study’s supervision, data analysis and critical revision of the manuscript. HMH was responsible for data collection, analysis and interpretation. ZH and WP contributed to statistical analysis and interpretation of the results. KXC provided technical support and contributed to the data validation. ELL assisted with data interpretation and critical review of the manuscript. ZY and WL contributed to data acquisition, methodology development and manuscript editing. S-MS provided oversight for the entire project, contributed to the study design, was involved in the manuscript revision, and also served as the guarantor of the study. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.