This is the first study in the Indian subcontinent to report on the prevalence of the full spectrum of ARM based on fundus photography and internationally accepted grading systems. There are sparse data on the prevalence of ARM outside Western countries, although studies in the United States have examined the prevalence of ARM by ethnic group, predominantly African Americans and Hispanic Americans. Several studies have found the prevalence of AMD is extremely low in African Americans or African Caribbeans compared with European or European origin populations.
12 13 14 15 In a pooled analysis of the major population based studies in Europe, the United States, and Barbados, the rates for African American participants were around a third of those of participants of European origin and around a tenth in the oldest age group.
16 For Hispanic Americans the results from studies are less consistent. The largest study, the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study (LALES)
17 found that rates of AMD were comparable to those in populations of European origin but the Proyecto Ver study
18 reported lower rates than did LALES. In the NHANES III (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) population, rates of AMD in Mexican Americans were lower than those of non-Hispanic whites
13 15 but early ARM (defined as drusen and pigmentary irregularities) was of a similar prevalence in non-Hispanic blacks, non-Hispanic whites, and Mexican-Americans.
15 The Baltimore Eye Survey
14 found that small, hard drusen were equally prevalent in white and black subjects; however, large drusen (>125 μm) occurred more frequently among whites than blacks, and this difference was particularly noticeable in the age group above 70 years. The finding of a lower prevalence of large drusen in African Americans was also shown in the pooled analysis of the major population studies.
16 The LALES study reported even higher rates of large drusen compared with the rates reported for European Americans or African Americans.
17 The prevalence of soft, distinct or pigmentary irregularities (ARM grade 1) in INDEYE participants was similar to that reported in the seven-country EUREYE study which used similar methods of fundus photography and grading to those used in INDEYE.
19 In EUREYE, 36.5% of the 65+ population had ARM1 compared with 33.9% in the INDEYE population, despite its lower age. For stage 2 (large, soft, indistinct drusen or soft, distinct drusen with pigmentary irregularities) the figures were 10.1% and 5.7%, respectively. Whereas the finding of differences in the present study may represent real racial variation in the frequencies in which the features of early ARM occur in populations, the high percentage of cataract precluding assessment of a significant number of the fundus images in the older Indian participants may have resulted in an underestimation of the prevalence of the more severe drusen types that normally increase with increasing age.