December 2013
Volume 54, Issue 14
Free
Articles  |   December 2013
The Prevalence of Age-Related Eye Diseases and Visual Impairment in Aging: Current Estimates
Author Notes
  • Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin 
  • Correspondence: Ronald Klein, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 610 N. Walnut Street, 417 WARF, Madison, WI 53726; kleinr@epi.ophth.wisc.edu
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science December 2013, Vol.54, ORSF5-ORSF13. doi:10.1167/iovs.13-12789
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Ronald Klein, Barbara E. K. Klein; The Prevalence of Age-Related Eye Diseases and Visual Impairment in Aging: Current Estimates. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(14):ORSF5-ORSF13. doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-12789.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose.: To examine prevalence of five age-related eye conditions (age-related cataract, AMD, open-angle glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy [DR], and visual impairment) in the United States.

Methods.: Review of published scientific articles and unpublished research findings.

Results.: Cataract, AMD, open-angle glaucoma, DR, and visual impairment prevalences are high in four different studies of these conditions, especially in people over 75 years of age. There are disparities among racial/ethnic groups with higher age-specific prevalence of DR, open-angle glaucoma, and visual impairment in Hispanics and blacks compared with whites, higher prevalence of age-related cataract in whites compared with blacks, and higher prevalence of late AMD in whites compared with Hispanics and blacks. The estimates are based on old data and do not reflect recent changes in the distribution of age and race/ethnicity in the United States population. There are no epidemiologic estimates of prevalence for many visually-impairing conditions.

Conclusions.: Ongoing prevalence surveys designed to provide reliable estimates of visual impairment, AMD, age-related cataract, open-angle glaucoma, and DR are needed. It is important to collect objective data on these and other conditions that affect vision and quality of life in order to plan for health care needs and identify areas for further research.

Introduction
Prevalence estimates indicate the burden of a condition (e.g., visual impairment) at a defined location at a point or period in time. Accurate prevalence estimates are needed to plan for availability of health care services, associated monetary costs, and quality of life connected with having the condition. Such data are also of importance in planning future studies, such as controlled clinical trials of prevention and treatment of the disease. Periodic estimates of prevalence enable the tracking of temporal trends; this is important especially in situations where new, costly interventions are being introduced. Prevalence estimates reflect disparities in vision loss and vision-threatening conditions among racial/ethnic groups as well as age, income and education groups, as well as between the sexes. In addition to these characteristics, nutritional and environmental exposures may affect prevalences or disparities among groups. Aside from true disparities, apparent differences may be related to differences in case definition. For eye conditions this may rely upon self-reported history of a condition, findings at a clinical exam, or imaging (e.g., digital fundus photography, film fundus photography, optical coherence tomography). Variations in diagnostic procedures to define conditions (phenotypes) may further confound the ability to estimate prevalence as well as to identify temporal trends and cohort effects. 
Definitional differences of conditions frequently occur among different groups of investigators, even when attempts are made to use the same characteristics and standardized protocols to classify subjects. For example, estimates of the prevalence of AMD may vary depending on whether size, type, and/or area of drusen or presence of pigmentary abnormalities are used to define its presence. This occurred among three population-based cohorts that used the Wisconsin Age-Related Maculopathy Grading System to classify and grade AMD lesions. Each group made modifications to the protocol. These modifications led to several systematic differences in grading fundus photographs that exaggerated differences in the prevalence of early AMD among the studies. 1 Harmonization was required to achieve a uniform definition of early AMD to facilitate meta-analyses. Similar problems affect other conditions (e.g., open-angle glaucoma and cataract) because definitions and methods used to assess the conditions vary among studies. 
Despite these problems, estimates, even if imperfect, are needed to describe public health and clinical burden as well as to plan for future needs. We describe estimates of prevalence of age-related cataract, open-angle glaucoma, AMD, diabetic retinopathy (DR), and visual impairment using data from several sources. We also highlight current needs in an effort to obtain data that will be used to successfully prevent visual loss due to these conditions. 
Methods
Data are derived from the Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group (EDPRG), 28 the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III, 9 the NHANES 1999 to 2008, 1013 and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). 14 Other sources of data include local population-based studies (the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study [LALES], 1518 Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy [WESDR], 19 and the Beaver Dam Eye Study [BDES]). 20  
The EDPRG was a collaborative effort that combined data from up to 10 different studies of mostly European-derived populations, but including cohorts with persons of African or Mexican heritage: the Baltimore Eye Survey, the Barbados Eye Study, the BDES, the Blue Mountains Eye Study, Proyecto Vision Evaluation and Research, the Rotterdam Study, the Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project, the San Antonio Heart Study, the San Luis Valley Diabetes Study, and the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. 38 The number of studies contributing data depended upon each study's availability of information on a given disease or visual function. The purpose of this collaborative effort was to estimate prevalence in the year 2000 of visual impairment and of five specific eye conditions (refractive error, cataract, open-angle glaucoma, DR, and AMD) in people 40 years of age or older and to project prevalence estimates to the year 2020. 2 The data in these studies were collected from as early as 1980 to as recently as 2000. An attempt was made to standardize diagnostic criteria among the studies. The EDPRG's findings were presented in an issue of the Archives of Ophthalmology in 2004 and included tables and figures showing the prevalence of the specific condition by age, sex, and race/ethnicity for each study and combined estimates of prevalence and total numbers of persons of each condition in the United States (US) by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. These papers, along with their tables and figures, are available electronically. 38  
The NHANES was conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 9,11,12,22,23 A stratified four-stage area probability sampling procedure was used to obtain a cross-sectional representative sample of the US civilian noninstitutionalized population aged 13 years and older for the NHANES III. It provided estimates of the prevalence of AMD and DR based on gradings of fundus photographs between 1988 and 1994 (one 45° nonstereoscopic field centered on the optic nerve head). In the 2005 to 2008 survey, two 45° nonstereoscopic fields, one centered on the optic nerve head and the other on the fovea of both eyes, were taken of people 40 years of age and older. In the 1999 to 2004 and 2005 to 2008 NHANES, the best-corrected visual acuity was measured and prevalence estimates of visual impairment were reported. 11,13,24,25  
The NHIS Vision Health supplement published in 2002 provides data based on self-reported diagnosed eye conditions (Table 1). 14 The survey, involving 31,044 persons aged 18 years and older, was conducted by the US Census Bureau through in-person household interviews. The household response rate for the NHIS was 89.5%. 
Table 1. 
 
Prevalence of Ever Being Diagnosed With Cataract, Glaucoma, and Macular Degeneration Among US Adults 18 Years and Older: National Health Interview Survey, 2002
Table 1. 
 
Prevalence of Ever Being Diagnosed With Cataract, Glaucoma, and Macular Degeneration Among US Adults 18 Years and Older: National Health Interview Survey, 2002
Cataract, % (95% CI) Glaucoma, % (95% CI) Macular Degeneration, % (95% CI)
Total 8.6 (8.2, 9.0) 2.0 (1.8, 2.2) 1.1 (1.0, 1.3)
Age group, y
 18–44 0.5 (0.4, 0.7) 0.4 (0.2, 0.5) 0.2 (0.1, 0.2)
 45–54 2.7 (2.2, 3.2) 1.3 (1.0, 1.7) 0.4 (0.2, 0.6)
 55–64 9.3 (8.2, 10.3) 2.5 (2.0, 3.1) 0.9 (0.6, 1.1)
 65–74 31.0 (29.0, 32.9) 5.7 (4.7, 6.6) 2.8 (2.1, 3.5)
 ≥75 53.4 (51.2, 55.5) 10.3 (9.1, 11.6) 8.7 (7.5, 9.8)
Sex*
 Men 7.8 (7.3, 8.3) 1.9 (1.6, 2.1) 1.0 (0.8, 1.2)
 Women 9.8 (9.4, 10.2) 2.2 (2.0, 2.5) 1.3 (1.1, 1.5)
Race/ethnicity*
 Non-Hispanic Black 7.5 (6.7, 8.4) 4.0 (3.3, 4.7) 0.5 (0.2, 0.7)
 Non-Hispanic White 9.3 (9.0, 9.7) 1.9 (1.7, 2.0) 1.3 (1.2, 1.5)
 Hispanic† 6.0 (5.1, 6.9) 1.9 (1.4, 2.3) 0.6 (0.3, 0.9)‡
Income level*
 Below 200% of FPL 10.2 (9.6, 10.7) 2.5 (2.2, 2.9) 1.2 (0.9, 1.4)
 Above 200% of FPL 8.4 (8.0, 8.8) 1.9 (1.7, 2.1) 1.2 (1.1, 1.4)
Education level*
 Less than high school 11.6 (10.8, 12.5) 2.9 (2.4, 3.4) 1.2 (0.9, 1.4)
 High school graduate 10.2 (9.5, 10.8) 2.3 (2.0, 2.7) 1.4 (1.1, 1.7)
 Some college or associate's degree 10.6 (9.9, 11.3) 2.1 (1.8, 2.5) 1.5 (1.2, 1.9)
 Bachelor's degree or higher 9.1 (8.3, 9.8) 2.0 (1.6, 2.5) 1.5 (1.1, 1.9)
Diagnosed diabetes*
 Persons with diabetes 13.9 (12.5, 15.3) 3.9 (2.8, 5.1) 1.4 (1.0, 1.9)
 Persons without diabetes 8.3 (8.0, 8.6) 1.8 (1.7, 2.0) 1.2 (1.1, 1.3)
Total* 8.9 (8.6, 9.3) 2.1 (1.9, 2.2) 1.2 (1.1, 1.3)
In the current paper, we include data from the LALES because of the limited amount of data on Hispanics, especially for cataract status. 15 The study involved examination of 6357 Latinos 40 years and older living in six census tracts in Los Angeles, California. It included standard protocols to measure visual acuity and the grading of lens for identification of presence and severity of cataract at the slit lamp using the Lens Opacity Classification System II and fundus and optic disc photography; the Wisconsin Age-Related Maculopathy Grading System and the Airlie House classification scheme for DR were used in the grading of these photographs. The main outcomes included the prevalence and incidence of visual impairment, blindness, cataract, glaucoma, DR, and AMD. More detailed information is presented elsewhere. 15  
Results
Estimated age-specific prevalence and number of people with the condition in the year 2000 from the EDPRG appear in Table 2. 46 Estimates vary from a prevalence of 0.8% for geographic atrophy to 17.2% for cataract. Most estimates of eye disease prevalence increase with age. The heaviest burden of age-related eye disease was in those 80 years of age or older who had one-third of all cases of cataract, open-angle glaucoma, and early AMD and two-thirds of persons with late AMD. 
Table 2
 
Estimated Prevalence and Number of People in the Year 2000 With Various Age-Related Eye Conditions From the Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group 46
Table 2
 
Estimated Prevalence and Number of People in the Year 2000 With Various Age-Related Eye Conditions From the Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group 46
Age, y Cataract Open-Angle Glaucoma Large Drusen ≥125-μm Diameter Late AMD, Any Neovascular AMD Geographic Atrophy
Subjects No. ×1000 Prev % Subjects No. ×1000 Prev % Subjects No. ×1000 Prev % Subjects No. ×1000 Prev % Subjects No. ×1000 Prev % Subjects No. ×1000 Prev %
40–49 1046 2.5 290 0.7 851 2.0 20 0.05 20 0.05 NA NA
50–54 902 5.1 160 0.9 519 2.9 60 0.3 40 0.2 27 0.2
55–59 1221 9.1 158 1.2 534 4.0 53 0.4 36 0.3 25 0.2
60–64 1679 15.5 170 1.6 585 5.4 60 0.6 41 0.4 31 0.3
65–69 2382 25.0 199 2.1 709 7.4 87 0.9 60 0.6 46 0.5
70–74 3270 36.9 248 2.8 906 10.2 147 1.7 101 1.2 80 0.9
75–79 3703 49.9 282 3.8 1043 14.1 241 3.2 166 2.2 132 1.8
≥80 6272 68.3 711 7.7 2164 23.6 1081 11.8 751 8.9 632 0.9
Total 20476 17.2 2218 1.9 7311 6.1 1749 1.5 1215 1.0 973 0.8
Visual Impairment
In the EDPRG, the estimated number of persons with low vision (best-corrected visual acuity of <20/40 in the better seeing eye) and severe visual impairment (best-corrected visual acuity of <20/200 in the better seeing eye) for persons 40 years of age and older in the year 2000 was estimated to be 2,400,000 and 937,000, respectively. 3 Visual impairment and severe visual impairment increased with age and age-specific prevalence were higher in blacks and Hispanics than whites (Table 3). Specific causes of blindness and visual impairment in the EDPRG vary by race/ethnicity. 3 Severe visual impairment was most commonly attributed to cataract in blacks (36.8%) and in Hispanics (28.6%), and to AMD in whites (54.4%, Figure). The second most common cause of blindness was glaucoma in blacks (26.0%), AMD, cataract, and DR (14.3% for each) in Hispanics, and cataract in non-Hispanic whites (8.7%). 
Figure
 
Causes of (A) blindness (best-corrected visual acuity < 6/60 [<20/200]) and (B) low vision (best-corrected visual acuity < 6/12 [<20/40] in the better seeing eye), excluding persons categorized as being blind (best-corrected visual acuity < 6/60 [<20/200]), by race/ethnicity. Reprinted with permission from Congdon N, O'Colmain B, Klaver CC, et al. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:477–485. Copyright 2004 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Figure
 
Causes of (A) blindness (best-corrected visual acuity < 6/60 [<20/200]) and (B) low vision (best-corrected visual acuity < 6/12 [<20/40] in the better seeing eye), excluding persons categorized as being blind (best-corrected visual acuity < 6/60 [<20/200]), by race/ethnicity. Reprinted with permission from Congdon N, O'Colmain B, Klaver CC, et al. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:477–485. Copyright 2004 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Table 3
 
Prevalence of Blindness and Low Vision by Age and Race/Ethnicity*
Table 3
 
Prevalence of Blindness and Low Vision by Age and Race/Ethnicity*
Variable Prevalence per 100 Individuals (95% CI)
White Persons Black Persons Hispanic Persons
Blindness by WHO definition†
 Age, y
  40–49 0.11 (0.08–0.14) 0.13 (0.07–0.23) 0.04 (0.02–0.08)
  50–54 0.08 (0.07–0.09) 0.22 (0.14–0.35) 0.08 (0.05–0.14)
  55–59 0.08 (0.07–0.09) 0.32 (0.22–0.46) 0.13 (0.08–0.20)
  60–64 0.10 (0.80–0.11) 0.45 (0.32–0.64) 0.20 (0.14–0.29)
  65–69 0.14 (0.12–0.17) 0.65 (0.46–0.91) 0.31 (0.21–0.45)
  70–74 0.25 (0.22–0.30) 0.93 (0.63–1.36) 0.48 (0.32–0.73)
  75–79 0.55 (0.48–0.62) 1.32 (0.84–2.07) 0.75 (0.46–1.22)
≥80 4.27 (3.42–5.31) 2.67 (1.42–4.98) 1.80 (0.91–3.53)
Blindness by US definition‡
 Age, y
  40–49 0.12 (0.08–0.17) 0.18 (0.13–0.24) 0.05 (0.03–0.08)
  50–54 0.10 (0.08–0.13) 0.34 (0.26–0.43) 0.10 (0.08–0.15)
  55–59 0.11 (0.09–0.14) 0.52 (0.42–0.65) 0.16 (0.12–0.22)
  60–64 0.15 (0.11–0.19) 0.81 (0.67–0.98) 0.26 (0.20–0.33)
  65–69 0.23 (0.18–0.30) 1.25 (1.04–1.51) 0.41 (0.32–0.52)
  70–74 0.43 (0.34–0.54) 1.93 (1.56–2.38) 0.64 (0.48–0.84)
  75–79 0.93 (0.75–1.14) 2.96 (2.30–3.80) 0.99 (0.72–1.38)
≥80 6.82 (4.85–9.52) 6.85 (4.85–9.58) 2.42 (1.53–3.79)
Low vision§
 Age, y
  40–49 0.20 (0.15–0.25) 0.04 (0.02–0.07) 0.27 (0.19–0.38)
  50–54 0.26 (0.22–0.30) 0.17 (0.12–0.23) 0.52 (0.42–0.64)
  55–59 0.35 (0.30–0.40) 0.39 (0.29–0.54) 0.82 (0.68–1.00)
  60–64 0.53 (0.46–0.62) 0.86 (0.62–1.18) 1.35 (1.10–1.64)
  65–69 0.90 (0.78–1.04) 1.72 (1.27–2.33) 2.25 (1.85–2.72)
  70–74 1.71 (1.50–1.95) 3.16 (2.41–4.13) 3.83 (3.22–4.56)
  75–79 3.57 (3.13–4.08) 5.31 (3.99–7.04) 6.63 (5.56–7.87)
≥80 16.05 (12.95–19.73) 10.84 (5.89–19.11) 17.72 (13.02–23.66)
In the NHIS there were 19.1 million civilian, noninstitutionalized adults who reported some visual impairment by answering affirmatively the question: “Do you have any trouble seeing even when wearing glasses or contact lenses?,” of whom 0.7 million reported being blind by answering affirmatively the question: “Are you blind or unable to see at all?” 14 Self-reported visual impairment was 9.3% and increased with age, from 5.7% among people 18 to 44 years of age to 21.1% among people 75 years of age or older. Visual impairment was more frequent among women than among men and was inversely associated with education and income (Table 4). The prevalence of visual impairment was higher in non-Hispanic blacks than in non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics. In 2002, 30.6% of visually impaired people reported having 1 or more of 4 eye diseases in the past 12 months; the prevalence of cataract, glaucoma, AMD, and DR among people with visual impairment was 19.4%, 6.1%, 6.0%, and 3.4%, respectively. The prevalence of blindness among US adults was 0.3%, rose with age and was similar between men and women. The prevalence of blindness was higher in those aged 75 years and older than for younger people and was inversely related to education and income. 14  
Table 4
 
Prevalence of Visual Impairment and Blindness Among US Adults 18 Years and Older: National Health Interview Survey, 2002
Table 4
 
Prevalence of Visual Impairment and Blindness Among US Adults 18 Years and Older: National Health Interview Survey, 2002
Visual Impairment,* % (95% CI) Blindness, % (95% CI)
Total 9.3 (8.9, 9.7) 0.3 (0.3, 0.4)
Age group, y
 18–44 5.7 (5.2, 6.2) 0.2 (0.1, 0.2)
 45–54 11.5 (10.5, 12.5) 0.3 (0.2, 0.5)
 55–64 10.4 (9.3, 11.4) 0.3 (0.1, 0.5)
 65–74 14.5 (13.0, 16.0) 0.5 (0.3, 0.8)
 ≥75 21.1 (19.4, 22.8) 1.5 (1.0, 2.0)
Sex†
 Men 7.8 (7.3, 8.4) 0.3 (0.2, 0.5)
 Women 10.6 (10.0, 11.1) 0.3 (0.3, 0.4)
Race/ethnicity†
 Non-Hispanic Black 11.7 (10.5, 13.0) 0.5 (0.2, 0.7)
 Non-Hispanic White 9.1 (8.6, 9.6) 0.3 (0.3, 0.4)
 Hispanic‡ 9.0 (7.9, 10.1) 0.4 (0.2, 0.7)
Income level†
 Below 200% of FPL 13.3 (12.5, 14.2) 0.7 (0.5, 0.9)
 Above 200% of FPL 7.9 (7.4, 8.3) 0.2 (0.2, 0.3)
Education level†
 Less than high school 14.4 (13.2, 15.5) 0.6 (0.4, 0.8)
 High school graduate 10.2 (9.4, 11.0) 0.4 (0.2, 0.6)
 Some college or
 associate's degree
9.9 (9.1, 10.7) 0.3 (0.2, 0.4)
 Bachelor's degree or
 higher
7.4 (6.6, 8.2) 0.3 (0.1, 0.4)
Diagnosed diabetes†
 Persons with diabetes 18.4 (15.4, 21.3) 0.9 (0.3, 1.4)§
 Persons without diabetes 8.6 (8.2, 9.0) 0.3 (0.2, 0.4)
Total† 9.3 (8.9, 9.7) 0.4 (0.3, 0.4)
Cataract
It was estimated by the EDPRG that there were 20.5 million persons older than 40 years of age in the United States with cataract (Table 2) and 6.1 million persons with aphakia/pseudophakia in the year 2000. 5 The prevalence was 17.2% for cataract and 5.1% for aphakia/pseudophakia. The prevalence of cataract increased with age and for each specific age was higher in females than males and higher in whites than blacks (Table 5). 5 Data were not available for cataract prevalence in Hispanics in the EDPRG. Data from the LALES, not included in the EDPRG, provided estimates of cataract prevalence based on slit-lamp evaluation using the Lens Opacity Classification System II (Table 6). 15,16  
Table 5
 
Prevalence of Cataract by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity*
Table 5
 
Prevalence of Cataract by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity*
Sex/Age, y Prevalence per 100 Individuals (95% CI)
White Persons Black Persons
Females
 40–49 1.9 (1.2–2.8) 2.2 (1.4–3.5)
 50–54 5.0 (4.0–6.2) 7.3 (5.7–9.3)
 55–59 9.4 (7.7–11.5) 12.8 (10.2–16.0)
 60–64 16.9 (14.1–20.0) 20.1 (16.4–24.2)
 65–69 27.7 (24.1–31.6) 28.5 (24.3–33.1)
 70–74 41.0 (36.9–45.1) 37.4 (32.6–42.5)
 75–79 54.7 (50.2–59.1) 46.1 (40.1–52.2)
 ≥80 76.6 (71.2–81.2) 60.9 (51.0–69.9)
Males
 40–49 2.8 (2.1–3.7) 1.7 (1.1–2.5)
 50–54 4.9 (4.2–5.7) 4.5 (3.6–5.6)
 55–59 8.2 (7.0–9.5) 7.6 (6.2–9.3)
 60–64 13.8 (12.1–15.7) 11.9 (9.9–14.2)
 65–69 22.4 (20.1–24.8) 17.5 (15.0–20.3)
 70–74 33.9 (31.2–36.8) 24.1 (21.0–27.5)
 75–79 47.2 (43.9–50.4) 31.3 (27.1–36.0)
 ≥80 71.3 (67.0–75.2) 46.2 (37.9–54.6)
Table 6
 
Estimated Prevalence of Eye Conditions in the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study 16 19
Table 6
 
Estimated Prevalence of Eye Conditions in the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study 16 19
Age, y Cataract, % Open-Angle Glaucoma, % Large Drusen ≥125-μm Diameter, % Late AMD, % Any Visual Impairment, %
PSC NSC Cortical
40–49 0.6 0.6 2.0 1.3 8.5 0 0.9
50–59 1.4 2.2 8.0 2.9 13.6 0.2 0.9
60–69 5.7 15.1 27.8 7.4 19.3 0.3 3.6
70–79 10.4 44.5 43.6 14.7 26.3 1.5 10.6
≥80 28.4 76.9 60.2 21.8 45.3 8.5 27.8
Total 3.2 9.0 13.5 4.7 14.5 0.4 3.0
In the NHIS, the lifetime prevalence for self-reported diagnosed cataract was 8.6% (Table 1). 14 Prevalence of diagnosed cataract increased with age, with the highest self-reported prevalence in persons 75 years and older (53%). Whites were more likely to report being diagnosed with cataract than black or Hispanic adults. These associations were similar to those reported in the EDPRG. There was no information on cataract prevalence in the NHANES because the study did not measure this endpoint. 
Open-Angle Glaucoma
In the EDPRG, open-angle glaucoma was estimated to be present in 2,218,000 persons in the United States, a prevalence of 2%. 6 Open-angle glaucoma increased with age and was highest in blacks and lowest in whites, with Hispanics between whites and blacks (Table 7). Age-specific prevalence was higher in younger women than in younger men and was similar between men and women after age 70 years. In the 2002 NHIS, in persons aged 18 years and older, the lifetime prevalence for self-reported diagnosed glaucoma was 2% (Table 1). 14 Blacks were twice as likely as whites and Hispanics to have glaucoma, and more education and higher income were associated with lower prevalence of glaucoma. Data from the LALES for age-specific prevalence of glaucoma are presented in Table 6. 15,17 The prevalence in Mexican Americans was higher than in whites. 
Table 7
 
Prevalence of Open-Angle Glaucoma by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity
Table 7
 
Prevalence of Open-Angle Glaucoma by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity
Age, y Prevalence per 100 Persons (95% CI)
White Subjects Black Subjects Hispanic Subjects
Women
 40–49 0.83 (0.65–1.06) 1.51 (0.94–2.41) 0.34 (0.15–0.72)
 50–54 0.89 (0.78–1.02) 2.24 (1.59–3.14) 0.65 (0.37–1.15)
 55–59 1.02 (0.89–1.16) 2.86 (2.16–3.78) 0.98 (0.61–1.58)
 60–64 1.23 (1.07–1.41) 3.65 (2.83–4.69) 1.49 (0.97–2.28)
 65–69 1.58 (1.37–1.82) 4.64 (3.54–6.05) 2.24 (1.43–3.49)
 70–74 2.16 (1.87–2.49) 5.89 (4.28–8.05) 3.36 (2.00–5.60)
 75–79 3.12 (2.68–3.63) 7.45 (5.06–10.84) 5.01 (2.68–9.15)
≥80 6.94 (5.40–8.88) 9.82 (6.08–15.48) 10.05 (4.35–21.52)
Men
 40–49 0.36 (0.27–0.47) 0.55 (0.31–0.95) 0.39 (0.18–0.85)
 50–54 0.61 (0.50–0.74) 1.71 (1.25–2.32) 0.69 (0.39–1.25)
 55–59 0.85 (0.72–1.00) 3.06 (2.30–4.04) 1.00 (0.61–1.64)
 60–64 1.18 (1.02–1.37) 4.94 (3.69–6.59) 1.44 (0.92–2.24)
 65–69 1.64 (1.40–1.91) 7.24 (5.40–9.63) 2.07 (1.32–3.23)
 70–74 2.27 (1.90–2.72) 9.62 (7.29–12.59) 2.97 (1.79–4.89)
 75–79 3.14 (2.53–3.90) 11.65 (8.81–15.25) 4.23 (2.32–7.60)
≥80 5.58 (4.15–7.47) 13.21 (7.85–21.38) 7.91 (3.53–16.77)
Age-Related Macular Degeneration
For AMD, estimates in the EDPRG were made only for blacks and non-Hispanic whites. 4 There was an estimated 1.75 million persons with advanced AMD in at least one eye and 7.3 million had large drusen, a measure used to define early AMD, in the year 2000. The prevalence of advanced AMD was 1.5%, with neovascular AMD estimated to be present in 1%, while pure geographic atrophy was estimated to be present in 0.8% (Table 2). 4 The prevalence of early AMD, defined by the presence of at least one large druse (≥125 μm in diameter) in at least one eye, was 6% (Table 2). In the LALES, for Mexican Americans, the age-specific prevalence increased with age for signs of both early and late AMD (Table 6). 15,18 In the NHIS, the prevalence of AMD was 1% and rose with age (Table 1). 14 Diagnosed AMD was twice as prevalent among whites as among blacks. 
Overall, the prevalence of any AMD in the 2005 to 2008 NHANES was 6.5%. 10 This was lower than the 9.4% prevalence reported in the 1988 to 1994 NHANES III. 26 This finding might be explained, in part, by possible methodological differences and differences in race/ethnicity distributions between the surveys. The lower overall prevalence of AMD in the more recent NHANES is consistent with a decreasing incidence of AMD in whites reported in the BDES and it has important public health care implications. 27 It suggests that there may be fewer people with early AMD than expected based on projections that assumed that the prevalence would not change. 4  
Diabetic Retinopathy
Diabetic retinopathy is an important cause of severe visual impairment in persons 25 to 64 years of age. Its prevalence has been changing as a result of marked improvements in management of blood sugar, dyslipidemia, and blood pressure, as well as the development of new technology and medications to monitor blood sugar and treat high lipid and blood pressure levels. 28  
The EDPRG estimated DR to be present in 4 million persons, of whom 900,000 were estimated to have vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR) defined as the presence of severe non-proliferative DR or worse, or presence of macular edema. 7 The prevalence was 40% and 8% for any DR and VTDR, respectively. In the NHANES 2005 to 2008, the prevalence of VTDR varied from 9.3% in non-Hispanic blacks and 7.3% in Mexican Americans to 3.2% in non-Hispanic whites (Table 8) 12 and was lower than the EDPRG estimates. In the NHIS in 2000, the estimated prevalence of diagnosed diabetes among adults was 6.5%, or 13.4 million people; the estimated prevalence of DR among adults was 0.7%, or 1.3 million people; and the prevalence of DR among those with diagnosed diabetes was 9.9% (Table 9). 14  
Table 8
 
Estimated Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy and Vision-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy in Individuals With Diabetes Aged 40 Years and Older and in the Adult US Population, by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity: NHANES 2005 to 2008
Table 8
 
Estimated Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy and Vision-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy in Individuals With Diabetes Aged 40 Years and Older and in the Adult US Population, by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity: NHANES 2005 to 2008
Characteristic No.* No. Weighted Size, in Thousands Diabetes Population US Population
95% CI P Value 95% CI P Value
Crude prevalence of DR
 Total 1006 324 4202 28.5 (24.9–32.5) 3.8 (3.2–4.5)
 Age, y
  40–64 575 189 2588 28.0 (23.0–33.6) 0.64 3.1 (2.4–3.9) <0.001
   ≥65 431 135 1613 29.5 (25.4–33.9) 6.1 (5.1–7.3)
 Sex
  Male 504 173 2257 31.6 (26.8–36.8) 0.04 4.3 (3.5–5.3) 0.046
  Female 502 151 1944 25.7 (21.7–30.1) 3.3 (2.7–4.1)
 Race/ethnicity
  Non-Hispanic white 396 107 2507 26.4 (21.4–32.2) 0.008 2.9 (2.2–3.9) <0.001
  Non-Hispanic black 306 119 1006 38.8 (31.9–46.1) 9.6 (7.7–11.9)
  Mexican American 197 70 401 34.0 (26.7–42.1) 6.7 (5.4–8.4)
  Other 107 28 286 19.7 (12.5–29.7) 3.3 (2.3–4.7)
Crude prevalence of vision-threatening DR
 Total 1006 62 655 4.4 (3.5–5.7) 0.6 (0.5–0.8)
 Age, y
  40–64 575 36 376 4.1 (2.8–5.8) 0.41 0.4 (0.3–0.7) 0.009
   ≥ 65 431 26 278 5.1 (3.5–7.3) 1.0 (0.7–1.5)
 Sex
  Male 504 24 298 4.2 (2.8–6.1) 0.67 0.6 (0.4–0.9) 0.81
  Female 502 38 356 4.7 (3.2–6.9) 0.6 (0.4–0.9)
 Race/ethnicity
  Non-Hispanic white 396 13 304 3.2 (2.0–5.1) 0.006 0.4 (0.2–0.6) <0.001
  Non-Hispanic black 306 28 241 9.3 (5.9–14.4) 2.3 (1.5–3.6)
  Mexican American 197 16 85 7.3 (3.9–13.3) 1.4 (0.8–2.7)
  Other 107 5 22 1.6 (0.6–3.8)§ 0.3 (0.1–0.6)
Table 9
 
Prevalence of Ever Being Diagnosed With Diabetes and DR Among US Adults 18 Years and Older: National Health Interview Survey, 2002
Table 9
 
Prevalence of Ever Being Diagnosed With Diabetes and DR Among US Adults 18 Years and Older: National Health Interview Survey, 2002
Diabetes Mellitus, % (95% CI) DR, % (95% CI) DR Among Adults With Diabetes, % (95% CI)
Total 6.5 (6.2, 6.8) 0.7 (0.5, 0.9) 9.9 (8.5, 11.4)
Age group, y
 18–44 1.9 (1.7, 2.2) 0.2 (0.1, 0.2) 8.0 (5.0, 11.1)
 45–54 7.4 (6.6, 8.2) 0.8 (0.5, 1.1) 9.8 (6.0, 13.6)
 55–64 12.6 (11.4, 13.9) 1.3 (0.9, 1.6) 9.5 (6.7, 12.2)
 65–74 17.3 (15.8, 18.7) 2.4 (1.7, 3.1) 12.4 (9.1, 15.8)
  ≥75 14.9 (13.4,16.4) 1.5 (1.1, 2.0) 9.2 (6.3, 12.2)
Sex*
 Male 7.3 (6.8, 7.8) 0.7 (0.6, 0.9) 8.0 (5.4, 10.5)
 Female 6.1 (5.7, 6.5) 0.7 (0.6, 0.9) 8.1 (6.4, 9.9)
Race/ethnicity*
 Non-Hispanic Black 10.1 (9.1, 11.1) 1.2 (0.8, 1.6) 8.6 (5.5, 11.7)
 Non-Hispanic White 5.8 (5.4, 6.1) 0.6 (0.5, 0.7) 7.3 (5.4, 9.2)
 Hispanic† 9.3 (8.2, 10.4) 1.3 (0.8, 1.8) 10.6 (6.2, 14.9)
Income level*
 Below 200% of FPL 9.0 (8.2, 9.7) 1.1 (0.9, 1.4) 9.0 (6.5, 11.5)
 Above 200% of FPL 5.7 (5.4, 6.1) 0.6 (0.5, 0.7) 7.3 (5.4, 9.2)
Education level*
 Less than high school 11.3 (10.2, 12.3) 1.5 (1.1, 1.9) 10.4 (6.5, 14.2)
 High school graduate 7.8 (7.2, 8.5) 0.7 (0.5, 1.0) 7.1 (4.5, 9.7)
 Some college or associate's degree 7.2 (6.5, 7.9) 0.9 (0.6, 1.1) 10.0 (7.0, 13.0)
 Bachelor's degree or higher 4.8 (4.2, 5.4) 0.5 (0.3, 0.7) 10.7 (5.0, 16.4)
Total* 6.6 (6.3, 6.9) 0.7 (0.6, 0.8) 8.0 (6.5, 9.4)
Prevalence of DR appears to be declining. In the 8 years between the beginning of the WESDR and the beginning of the BDES, the prevalence of any DR in persons with type 2 diabetes fell by 30% (from 50% in the WESDR in 1980–1982 to 35% in the BDES in 1988–1990) and prevalence of VTDR fell by 70% (from 10% in the WESDR in 1980–1982 to 3% in the BDES in 1988–1990). 20,21  
Discussion
We have presented national estimates of the prevalence of visual impairment, cataract, open-angle glaucoma, AMD, and DR showing that they increase with age, and may vary by race/ethnicity and sex. Differences among studies regarding the age-specific prevalences of these conditions may be due to methodological issues (e.g., ophthalmoscopy versus grading of fundus photos) and differences in the definitions used. The prevalence estimates are largely from data collected mostly in the 1980s and 1990s, 25 to 30 years ago. There are no national data estimates for most corneal diseases, conditions affecting the optic nerve, and less common retinal conditions. 
The following needs were identified: 
  1.  
    Ongoing surveillance, through national surveys (e.g., the NHANES); objectively measuring the presence and severity of common conditions (e.g., age-related cataract, AMD, DR, and open-angle glaucoma); and those conditions not routinely measured in population-based studies (e.g., Fuchs' dystrophy, ischemic optic neuropathy, macular hole, and dry eye);
  2.  
    Standardize protocols to be used in the field to assess each condition and establish consensus on how to define the conditions being studied;
  3.  
    Incorporate into classification schemes and validate new technologies (e.g., spectral domain optical coherence tomography) used to define the presence and severity of disease;
  4.  
    Identify cost-effective methods to measure phenotypes;
  5.  
    Incorporate economic analyses and quality of life measures in epidemiologic cohort studies;
  6.  
    Train clinicians in understanding and interpreting epidemiologic data; and
  7.  
    Educate the public and Congress on why collecting epidemiologic data is important.
Acknowledgments
Supported by National Institutes of Health Grants EY06594 and EY016379, as well as an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, New York. 
Disclosure: R. Klein, None; B.E.K. Klein, None 
References
Klein R Meuer SM Myers CE Harmonizing the classification of age-related macular degeneration in the Three Continent AMD Consortium. Ophthalmic Epidemiol . In press.
Ferris FL III Tielsch JM. Blindness and visual impairment: a public health issue for the future as well as today. Arch Ophthalmol . 2004; 122: 451–452. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Congdon N O'Colmain B Klaver CC Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol . 2004; 122: 477–485. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Friedman DS O'Colmain BJ Munoz B Prevalence of age-related macular degeneration in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol . 2004; 122: 564–572. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Congdon N Vingerling JR Klein BE Prevalence of cataract and pseudophakia/aphakia among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol . 2004; 122: 487–494. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Friedman DS Wolfs RC O'Colmain BJ Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol . 2004; 122: 532–538. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kempen JH O'Colmain BJ Leske MC The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol . 2004; 122: 552–563. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
The Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group. The prevalence of refractive errors among adults in the United States, Western Europe, and Australia. Arch Ophthalmol . 2004; 122: 495–505. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Plan and operation of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–94. Series 1: programs and collection procedures. Vital Health Stat 1 . 1994; 1–407.
Ko F Vitale S Chou CF Cotch MF Saaddine J Friedman DS. Prevalence of nonrefractive visual impairment in US adults and associated risk factors, 1999–2002 and 2005–2008. JAMA . 2012; 308: 2361–2368. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Klein R Chou CF Klein BE Zhang X Meuer SM Saaddine JB. Prevalence of age-related macular degeneration in the US population. Arch Ophthalmol . 2011; 129: 75–80. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zhang X Saaddine JB Chou CF Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in the United States, 2005–2008. JAMA . 2010; 304: 649–656. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zhang X Gregg EW Cheng YJ Diabetes mellitus and visual impairment: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2004. Arch Ophthalmol . 2008; 126: 1421–1427. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ryskulova A Turczyn K Makuc DM Cotch MF Klein RJ Janiszewski R. Self-reported age-related eye diseases and visual impairment in the United States: results of the 2002 National Health Interview Survey. Am J Public Health . 2008; 98: 454–461. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Varma R Paz SH Azen SP The Los Angeles Latino Eye Study: design, methods, and baseline data. Ophthalmology . 2004; 111: 1121–1131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Varma R Torres M. Prevalence of lens opacities in Latinos: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology . 2004; 111: 1449–1456. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Varma R Ying-Lai M Francis BA Prevalence of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in Latinos: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology . 2004; 111: 1439–1448. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Varma R Fraser-Bell S Tan S Klein R Azen SP. Prevalence of age-related macular degeneration in Latinos: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology . 2004; 111: 1288–1297. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Varma R Ying-Lai M Klein R Azen SP ; Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. Prevalence and risk indicators of visual impairment and blindness in Latinos: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Ophthalmology . 2004; 111: 1132–1140. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Klein R Klein BE Moss SE Davis MD DeMets DL. The Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy. III. Prevalence and risk of diabetic retinopathy when age at diagnosis is 30 or more years. Arch Ophthalmol . 1984; 102: 527–532. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Klein R Klein BE Moss SE Linton KL. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Retinopathy in adults with newly discovered and previously diagnosed diabetes mellitus. Ophthalmology . 1992; 99: 58–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Harris MI Klein R Cowie CC Rowland M Byrd-Holt DD. Is the risk of diabetic retinopathy greater in non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican Americans than in non-Hispanic whites with type 2 diabetes? A U.S. population study. Diabetes Care . 1998; 21: 1230–1235. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Klein R Rowland ML Harris MI. Racial/ethnic differences in age-related maculopathy. Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Ophthalmology . 1995; 102: 371–381. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chou CF Frances CM Vitale S Age-related eye diseases and visual impairment among U.S. adults. Am J Prev Med . 2013; 45: 29–35. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Vitale S Cotch MF Sperduto RD. Prevalence of visual impairment in the United States. JAMA . 2006; 295: 2158–2163. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Klein R Klein BE Jensen SC Mares-Perlman JA Cruickshanks KJ Palta M. Age-related maculopathy in a multiracial United States population: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III. Ophthalmology . 1999; 106: 1056–1065. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Klein R Knudtson MD Lee KE Gangnon RE Klein BE. Age-period-cohort effect on the incidence of age-related macular degeneration: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology . 2008; 115: 1460–1467. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Antonetti DA Klein R Gardner TW. Diabetic retinopathy. N Engl J Med . 2012; 366: 1227–1239. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure
 
Causes of (A) blindness (best-corrected visual acuity < 6/60 [<20/200]) and (B) low vision (best-corrected visual acuity < 6/12 [<20/40] in the better seeing eye), excluding persons categorized as being blind (best-corrected visual acuity < 6/60 [<20/200]), by race/ethnicity. Reprinted with permission from Congdon N, O'Colmain B, Klaver CC, et al. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:477–485. Copyright 2004 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Figure
 
Causes of (A) blindness (best-corrected visual acuity < 6/60 [<20/200]) and (B) low vision (best-corrected visual acuity < 6/12 [<20/40] in the better seeing eye), excluding persons categorized as being blind (best-corrected visual acuity < 6/60 [<20/200]), by race/ethnicity. Reprinted with permission from Congdon N, O'Colmain B, Klaver CC, et al. Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:477–485. Copyright 2004 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Table 1. 
 
Prevalence of Ever Being Diagnosed With Cataract, Glaucoma, and Macular Degeneration Among US Adults 18 Years and Older: National Health Interview Survey, 2002
Table 1. 
 
Prevalence of Ever Being Diagnosed With Cataract, Glaucoma, and Macular Degeneration Among US Adults 18 Years and Older: National Health Interview Survey, 2002
Cataract, % (95% CI) Glaucoma, % (95% CI) Macular Degeneration, % (95% CI)
Total 8.6 (8.2, 9.0) 2.0 (1.8, 2.2) 1.1 (1.0, 1.3)
Age group, y
 18–44 0.5 (0.4, 0.7) 0.4 (0.2, 0.5) 0.2 (0.1, 0.2)
 45–54 2.7 (2.2, 3.2) 1.3 (1.0, 1.7) 0.4 (0.2, 0.6)
 55–64 9.3 (8.2, 10.3) 2.5 (2.0, 3.1) 0.9 (0.6, 1.1)
 65–74 31.0 (29.0, 32.9) 5.7 (4.7, 6.6) 2.8 (2.1, 3.5)
 ≥75 53.4 (51.2, 55.5) 10.3 (9.1, 11.6) 8.7 (7.5, 9.8)
Sex*
 Men 7.8 (7.3, 8.3) 1.9 (1.6, 2.1) 1.0 (0.8, 1.2)
 Women 9.8 (9.4, 10.2) 2.2 (2.0, 2.5) 1.3 (1.1, 1.5)
Race/ethnicity*
 Non-Hispanic Black 7.5 (6.7, 8.4) 4.0 (3.3, 4.7) 0.5 (0.2, 0.7)
 Non-Hispanic White 9.3 (9.0, 9.7) 1.9 (1.7, 2.0) 1.3 (1.2, 1.5)
 Hispanic† 6.0 (5.1, 6.9) 1.9 (1.4, 2.3) 0.6 (0.3, 0.9)‡
Income level*
 Below 200% of FPL 10.2 (9.6, 10.7) 2.5 (2.2, 2.9) 1.2 (0.9, 1.4)
 Above 200% of FPL 8.4 (8.0, 8.8) 1.9 (1.7, 2.1) 1.2 (1.1, 1.4)
Education level*
 Less than high school 11.6 (10.8, 12.5) 2.9 (2.4, 3.4) 1.2 (0.9, 1.4)
 High school graduate 10.2 (9.5, 10.8) 2.3 (2.0, 2.7) 1.4 (1.1, 1.7)
 Some college or associate's degree 10.6 (9.9, 11.3) 2.1 (1.8, 2.5) 1.5 (1.2, 1.9)
 Bachelor's degree or higher 9.1 (8.3, 9.8) 2.0 (1.6, 2.5) 1.5 (1.1, 1.9)
Diagnosed diabetes*
 Persons with diabetes 13.9 (12.5, 15.3) 3.9 (2.8, 5.1) 1.4 (1.0, 1.9)
 Persons without diabetes 8.3 (8.0, 8.6) 1.8 (1.7, 2.0) 1.2 (1.1, 1.3)
Total* 8.9 (8.6, 9.3) 2.1 (1.9, 2.2) 1.2 (1.1, 1.3)
Table 2
 
Estimated Prevalence and Number of People in the Year 2000 With Various Age-Related Eye Conditions From the Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group 46
Table 2
 
Estimated Prevalence and Number of People in the Year 2000 With Various Age-Related Eye Conditions From the Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group 46
Age, y Cataract Open-Angle Glaucoma Large Drusen ≥125-μm Diameter Late AMD, Any Neovascular AMD Geographic Atrophy
Subjects No. ×1000 Prev % Subjects No. ×1000 Prev % Subjects No. ×1000 Prev % Subjects No. ×1000 Prev % Subjects No. ×1000 Prev % Subjects No. ×1000 Prev %
40–49 1046 2.5 290 0.7 851 2.0 20 0.05 20 0.05 NA NA
50–54 902 5.1 160 0.9 519 2.9 60 0.3 40 0.2 27 0.2
55–59 1221 9.1 158 1.2 534 4.0 53 0.4 36 0.3 25 0.2
60–64 1679 15.5 170 1.6 585 5.4 60 0.6 41 0.4 31 0.3
65–69 2382 25.0 199 2.1 709 7.4 87 0.9 60 0.6 46 0.5
70–74 3270 36.9 248 2.8 906 10.2 147 1.7 101 1.2 80 0.9
75–79 3703 49.9 282 3.8 1043 14.1 241 3.2 166 2.2 132 1.8
≥80 6272 68.3 711 7.7 2164 23.6 1081 11.8 751 8.9 632 0.9
Total 20476 17.2 2218 1.9 7311 6.1 1749 1.5 1215 1.0 973 0.8
Table 3
 
Prevalence of Blindness and Low Vision by Age and Race/Ethnicity*
Table 3
 
Prevalence of Blindness and Low Vision by Age and Race/Ethnicity*
Variable Prevalence per 100 Individuals (95% CI)
White Persons Black Persons Hispanic Persons
Blindness by WHO definition†
 Age, y
  40–49 0.11 (0.08–0.14) 0.13 (0.07–0.23) 0.04 (0.02–0.08)
  50–54 0.08 (0.07–0.09) 0.22 (0.14–0.35) 0.08 (0.05–0.14)
  55–59 0.08 (0.07–0.09) 0.32 (0.22–0.46) 0.13 (0.08–0.20)
  60–64 0.10 (0.80–0.11) 0.45 (0.32–0.64) 0.20 (0.14–0.29)
  65–69 0.14 (0.12–0.17) 0.65 (0.46–0.91) 0.31 (0.21–0.45)
  70–74 0.25 (0.22–0.30) 0.93 (0.63–1.36) 0.48 (0.32–0.73)
  75–79 0.55 (0.48–0.62) 1.32 (0.84–2.07) 0.75 (0.46–1.22)
≥80 4.27 (3.42–5.31) 2.67 (1.42–4.98) 1.80 (0.91–3.53)
Blindness by US definition‡
 Age, y
  40–49 0.12 (0.08–0.17) 0.18 (0.13–0.24) 0.05 (0.03–0.08)
  50–54 0.10 (0.08–0.13) 0.34 (0.26–0.43) 0.10 (0.08–0.15)
  55–59 0.11 (0.09–0.14) 0.52 (0.42–0.65) 0.16 (0.12–0.22)
  60–64 0.15 (0.11–0.19) 0.81 (0.67–0.98) 0.26 (0.20–0.33)
  65–69 0.23 (0.18–0.30) 1.25 (1.04–1.51) 0.41 (0.32–0.52)
  70–74 0.43 (0.34–0.54) 1.93 (1.56–2.38) 0.64 (0.48–0.84)
  75–79 0.93 (0.75–1.14) 2.96 (2.30–3.80) 0.99 (0.72–1.38)
≥80 6.82 (4.85–9.52) 6.85 (4.85–9.58) 2.42 (1.53–3.79)
Low vision§
 Age, y
  40–49 0.20 (0.15–0.25) 0.04 (0.02–0.07) 0.27 (0.19–0.38)
  50–54 0.26 (0.22–0.30) 0.17 (0.12–0.23) 0.52 (0.42–0.64)
  55–59 0.35 (0.30–0.40) 0.39 (0.29–0.54) 0.82 (0.68–1.00)
  60–64 0.53 (0.46–0.62) 0.86 (0.62–1.18) 1.35 (1.10–1.64)
  65–69 0.90 (0.78–1.04) 1.72 (1.27–2.33) 2.25 (1.85–2.72)
  70–74 1.71 (1.50–1.95) 3.16 (2.41–4.13) 3.83 (3.22–4.56)
  75–79 3.57 (3.13–4.08) 5.31 (3.99–7.04) 6.63 (5.56–7.87)
≥80 16.05 (12.95–19.73) 10.84 (5.89–19.11) 17.72 (13.02–23.66)
Table 4
 
Prevalence of Visual Impairment and Blindness Among US Adults 18 Years and Older: National Health Interview Survey, 2002
Table 4
 
Prevalence of Visual Impairment and Blindness Among US Adults 18 Years and Older: National Health Interview Survey, 2002
Visual Impairment,* % (95% CI) Blindness, % (95% CI)
Total 9.3 (8.9, 9.7) 0.3 (0.3, 0.4)
Age group, y
 18–44 5.7 (5.2, 6.2) 0.2 (0.1, 0.2)
 45–54 11.5 (10.5, 12.5) 0.3 (0.2, 0.5)
 55–64 10.4 (9.3, 11.4) 0.3 (0.1, 0.5)
 65–74 14.5 (13.0, 16.0) 0.5 (0.3, 0.8)
 ≥75 21.1 (19.4, 22.8) 1.5 (1.0, 2.0)
Sex†
 Men 7.8 (7.3, 8.4) 0.3 (0.2, 0.5)
 Women 10.6 (10.0, 11.1) 0.3 (0.3, 0.4)
Race/ethnicity†
 Non-Hispanic Black 11.7 (10.5, 13.0) 0.5 (0.2, 0.7)
 Non-Hispanic White 9.1 (8.6, 9.6) 0.3 (0.3, 0.4)
 Hispanic‡ 9.0 (7.9, 10.1) 0.4 (0.2, 0.7)
Income level†
 Below 200% of FPL 13.3 (12.5, 14.2) 0.7 (0.5, 0.9)
 Above 200% of FPL 7.9 (7.4, 8.3) 0.2 (0.2, 0.3)
Education level†
 Less than high school 14.4 (13.2, 15.5) 0.6 (0.4, 0.8)
 High school graduate 10.2 (9.4, 11.0) 0.4 (0.2, 0.6)
 Some college or
 associate's degree
9.9 (9.1, 10.7) 0.3 (0.2, 0.4)
 Bachelor's degree or
 higher
7.4 (6.6, 8.2) 0.3 (0.1, 0.4)
Diagnosed diabetes†
 Persons with diabetes 18.4 (15.4, 21.3) 0.9 (0.3, 1.4)§
 Persons without diabetes 8.6 (8.2, 9.0) 0.3 (0.2, 0.4)
Total† 9.3 (8.9, 9.7) 0.4 (0.3, 0.4)
Table 5
 
Prevalence of Cataract by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity*
Table 5
 
Prevalence of Cataract by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity*
Sex/Age, y Prevalence per 100 Individuals (95% CI)
White Persons Black Persons
Females
 40–49 1.9 (1.2–2.8) 2.2 (1.4–3.5)
 50–54 5.0 (4.0–6.2) 7.3 (5.7–9.3)
 55–59 9.4 (7.7–11.5) 12.8 (10.2–16.0)
 60–64 16.9 (14.1–20.0) 20.1 (16.4–24.2)
 65–69 27.7 (24.1–31.6) 28.5 (24.3–33.1)
 70–74 41.0 (36.9–45.1) 37.4 (32.6–42.5)
 75–79 54.7 (50.2–59.1) 46.1 (40.1–52.2)
 ≥80 76.6 (71.2–81.2) 60.9 (51.0–69.9)
Males
 40–49 2.8 (2.1–3.7) 1.7 (1.1–2.5)
 50–54 4.9 (4.2–5.7) 4.5 (3.6–5.6)
 55–59 8.2 (7.0–9.5) 7.6 (6.2–9.3)
 60–64 13.8 (12.1–15.7) 11.9 (9.9–14.2)
 65–69 22.4 (20.1–24.8) 17.5 (15.0–20.3)
 70–74 33.9 (31.2–36.8) 24.1 (21.0–27.5)
 75–79 47.2 (43.9–50.4) 31.3 (27.1–36.0)
 ≥80 71.3 (67.0–75.2) 46.2 (37.9–54.6)
Table 6
 
Estimated Prevalence of Eye Conditions in the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study 16 19
Table 6
 
Estimated Prevalence of Eye Conditions in the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study 16 19
Age, y Cataract, % Open-Angle Glaucoma, % Large Drusen ≥125-μm Diameter, % Late AMD, % Any Visual Impairment, %
PSC NSC Cortical
40–49 0.6 0.6 2.0 1.3 8.5 0 0.9
50–59 1.4 2.2 8.0 2.9 13.6 0.2 0.9
60–69 5.7 15.1 27.8 7.4 19.3 0.3 3.6
70–79 10.4 44.5 43.6 14.7 26.3 1.5 10.6
≥80 28.4 76.9 60.2 21.8 45.3 8.5 27.8
Total 3.2 9.0 13.5 4.7 14.5 0.4 3.0
Table 7
 
Prevalence of Open-Angle Glaucoma by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity
Table 7
 
Prevalence of Open-Angle Glaucoma by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity
Age, y Prevalence per 100 Persons (95% CI)
White Subjects Black Subjects Hispanic Subjects
Women
 40–49 0.83 (0.65–1.06) 1.51 (0.94–2.41) 0.34 (0.15–0.72)
 50–54 0.89 (0.78–1.02) 2.24 (1.59–3.14) 0.65 (0.37–1.15)
 55–59 1.02 (0.89–1.16) 2.86 (2.16–3.78) 0.98 (0.61–1.58)
 60–64 1.23 (1.07–1.41) 3.65 (2.83–4.69) 1.49 (0.97–2.28)
 65–69 1.58 (1.37–1.82) 4.64 (3.54–6.05) 2.24 (1.43–3.49)
 70–74 2.16 (1.87–2.49) 5.89 (4.28–8.05) 3.36 (2.00–5.60)
 75–79 3.12 (2.68–3.63) 7.45 (5.06–10.84) 5.01 (2.68–9.15)
≥80 6.94 (5.40–8.88) 9.82 (6.08–15.48) 10.05 (4.35–21.52)
Men
 40–49 0.36 (0.27–0.47) 0.55 (0.31–0.95) 0.39 (0.18–0.85)
 50–54 0.61 (0.50–0.74) 1.71 (1.25–2.32) 0.69 (0.39–1.25)
 55–59 0.85 (0.72–1.00) 3.06 (2.30–4.04) 1.00 (0.61–1.64)
 60–64 1.18 (1.02–1.37) 4.94 (3.69–6.59) 1.44 (0.92–2.24)
 65–69 1.64 (1.40–1.91) 7.24 (5.40–9.63) 2.07 (1.32–3.23)
 70–74 2.27 (1.90–2.72) 9.62 (7.29–12.59) 2.97 (1.79–4.89)
 75–79 3.14 (2.53–3.90) 11.65 (8.81–15.25) 4.23 (2.32–7.60)
≥80 5.58 (4.15–7.47) 13.21 (7.85–21.38) 7.91 (3.53–16.77)
Table 8
 
Estimated Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy and Vision-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy in Individuals With Diabetes Aged 40 Years and Older and in the Adult US Population, by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity: NHANES 2005 to 2008
Table 8
 
Estimated Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy and Vision-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy in Individuals With Diabetes Aged 40 Years and Older and in the Adult US Population, by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity: NHANES 2005 to 2008
Characteristic No.* No. Weighted Size, in Thousands Diabetes Population US Population
95% CI P Value 95% CI P Value
Crude prevalence of DR
 Total 1006 324 4202 28.5 (24.9–32.5) 3.8 (3.2–4.5)
 Age, y
  40–64 575 189 2588 28.0 (23.0–33.6) 0.64 3.1 (2.4–3.9) <0.001
   ≥65 431 135 1613 29.5 (25.4–33.9) 6.1 (5.1–7.3)
 Sex
  Male 504 173 2257 31.6 (26.8–36.8) 0.04 4.3 (3.5–5.3) 0.046
  Female 502 151 1944 25.7 (21.7–30.1) 3.3 (2.7–4.1)
 Race/ethnicity
  Non-Hispanic white 396 107 2507 26.4 (21.4–32.2) 0.008 2.9 (2.2–3.9) <0.001
  Non-Hispanic black 306 119 1006 38.8 (31.9–46.1) 9.6 (7.7–11.9)
  Mexican American 197 70 401 34.0 (26.7–42.1) 6.7 (5.4–8.4)
  Other 107 28 286 19.7 (12.5–29.7) 3.3 (2.3–4.7)
Crude prevalence of vision-threatening DR
 Total 1006 62 655 4.4 (3.5–5.7) 0.6 (0.5–0.8)
 Age, y
  40–64 575 36 376 4.1 (2.8–5.8) 0.41 0.4 (0.3–0.7) 0.009
   ≥ 65 431 26 278 5.1 (3.5–7.3) 1.0 (0.7–1.5)
 Sex
  Male 504 24 298 4.2 (2.8–6.1) 0.67 0.6 (0.4–0.9) 0.81
  Female 502 38 356 4.7 (3.2–6.9) 0.6 (0.4–0.9)
 Race/ethnicity
  Non-Hispanic white 396 13 304 3.2 (2.0–5.1) 0.006 0.4 (0.2–0.6) <0.001
  Non-Hispanic black 306 28 241 9.3 (5.9–14.4) 2.3 (1.5–3.6)
  Mexican American 197 16 85 7.3 (3.9–13.3) 1.4 (0.8–2.7)
  Other 107 5 22 1.6 (0.6–3.8)§ 0.3 (0.1–0.6)
Table 9
 
Prevalence of Ever Being Diagnosed With Diabetes and DR Among US Adults 18 Years and Older: National Health Interview Survey, 2002
Table 9
 
Prevalence of Ever Being Diagnosed With Diabetes and DR Among US Adults 18 Years and Older: National Health Interview Survey, 2002
Diabetes Mellitus, % (95% CI) DR, % (95% CI) DR Among Adults With Diabetes, % (95% CI)
Total 6.5 (6.2, 6.8) 0.7 (0.5, 0.9) 9.9 (8.5, 11.4)
Age group, y
 18–44 1.9 (1.7, 2.2) 0.2 (0.1, 0.2) 8.0 (5.0, 11.1)
 45–54 7.4 (6.6, 8.2) 0.8 (0.5, 1.1) 9.8 (6.0, 13.6)
 55–64 12.6 (11.4, 13.9) 1.3 (0.9, 1.6) 9.5 (6.7, 12.2)
 65–74 17.3 (15.8, 18.7) 2.4 (1.7, 3.1) 12.4 (9.1, 15.8)
  ≥75 14.9 (13.4,16.4) 1.5 (1.1, 2.0) 9.2 (6.3, 12.2)
Sex*
 Male 7.3 (6.8, 7.8) 0.7 (0.6, 0.9) 8.0 (5.4, 10.5)
 Female 6.1 (5.7, 6.5) 0.7 (0.6, 0.9) 8.1 (6.4, 9.9)
Race/ethnicity*
 Non-Hispanic Black 10.1 (9.1, 11.1) 1.2 (0.8, 1.6) 8.6 (5.5, 11.7)
 Non-Hispanic White 5.8 (5.4, 6.1) 0.6 (0.5, 0.7) 7.3 (5.4, 9.2)
 Hispanic† 9.3 (8.2, 10.4) 1.3 (0.8, 1.8) 10.6 (6.2, 14.9)
Income level*
 Below 200% of FPL 9.0 (8.2, 9.7) 1.1 (0.9, 1.4) 9.0 (6.5, 11.5)
 Above 200% of FPL 5.7 (5.4, 6.1) 0.6 (0.5, 0.7) 7.3 (5.4, 9.2)
Education level*
 Less than high school 11.3 (10.2, 12.3) 1.5 (1.1, 1.9) 10.4 (6.5, 14.2)
 High school graduate 7.8 (7.2, 8.5) 0.7 (0.5, 1.0) 7.1 (4.5, 9.7)
 Some college or associate's degree 7.2 (6.5, 7.9) 0.9 (0.6, 1.1) 10.0 (7.0, 13.0)
 Bachelor's degree or higher 4.8 (4.2, 5.4) 0.5 (0.3, 0.7) 10.7 (5.0, 16.4)
Total* 6.6 (6.3, 6.9) 0.7 (0.6, 0.8) 8.0 (6.5, 9.4)
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×