Purchase this article with an account.
Gabriëlle H. S. Buitendijk, Ada J. Hooghart, Corina Brussee, Paulus T. V. M. de Jong, Albert Hofman, Johannes R. Vingerling, Caroline C. W. Klaver; Epidemiology of Reticular Pseudodrusen in Age-Related Macular Degeneration: The Rotterdam Study. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(13):5593-5601. doi: 10.1167/iovs.15-18816.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Reticular pseudodrusen (RPD) are considered to be a distinct feature in AMD. Population studies have studied the epidemiology of RPD using standard color fundus photographs (CFP). However, recent studies have shown that RPD are better imaged using near-infrared (NIR) imaging. We studied the epidemiology of RPD in a large population-based study using NIR and CFP.
Participants aged 65+ years from the Rotterdam Study underwent ophthalmologic examination including NIR and CFP. Both images were graded for the presence of RPD and soft indistinct drusen (SID). Associations with demographic and environmental factors, 26 genetic variants, and total genetic risk score were analyzed using logistic regression analysis.
Reticular pseudodrusen were detected in 137 (4.9%) of 2774 study participants; of these, 92.7% were detected with NIR imaging and 38% on CFP. Most eyes with RPD showed presence of SID, whereas other drusen types coincided less frequently. Reticular pseudodrusen were significantly associated with age (odds ratio [OR] 1.21, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.17–1.24) and female sex (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.41–3.13). Environmental factors did not show a significant association with RPD. Major AMD risk variants were significantly associated with RPD and SID; however, ARMS2, C3, and VEGFA were more associated with RPD (RPD vs. SID P < 0.05). Total genetic risk score did not differ significantly (P = 0.88).
Detection of RPD was better with NIR imaging than on CFP in a population-based setting. Presence of RPD often coincided with presence of SID; however, they showed quantitative differences in genetic risk profile.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only