Purchase this article with an account.
K. Tarczy–Hornoch, M. Ying–Lai, R. Varma, Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group; Myopic Refractive Error in Latino Adults: The Los Angeles Latino Eye Study . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):4626.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Purpose: To estimate the prevalence of myopia in a population–based cohort of adult Latinos. Methods: The LALES examined a population–based cohort of Latinos (primarily Mexican–Americans) aged 40 years and older in Los Angeles, California. Each participant underwent a complete ophthalmic examination, including measurement of presenting distance visual acuity with the patient’s presenting correction. Non–cycloplegic automated refraction was performed on any eye with presenting visual acuity worse than 20/20, and further refined by standardized subjective refraction as needed. Refractive error of an eye was defined as plano or according to the patient’s own correction if presenting visual acuity was 20/20, and otherwise by the refraction performed. Refractive error on a per–patient basis was defined as the spherical equivalent refractive error of the eye with the larger absolute value spherical equivalent refractive error. Phakic patients were stratified by gender and 5 year age intervals to determine the proportion of patients in each stratum with myopic refractive error < –1.0 D and high myopic refractive error < –5.0 D. Results: 5947 phakic participants were included in this analysis. The overall observed prevalence of myopic refractive error < –1.0 D in males was 24.4% (95% CI: 22.7–26.1), and in females 24.0% (95% CI: 22.6–25.4). The overall observed prevalence of high myopic refractive error < –5.0 D in males was 3.5% (95% CI: 2.8–4.3), and in females 3.4% (95% CI: 2.8–4.1). Stratification by age revealed a trend toward increasing prevalence of myopia in the older age groups (except in the case of high myopia in females); the trend was most evident for myopia < –1.0 D in males, in whom 58% older than 80 years were myopic (95% CI: 41–74), contrasted with 24% (95% CI: 20–28) aged 40–44 years. While there was a suggestion of an initial decline in prevalence of both myopia and high myopia across younger age groups, this decline was less pronounced and seemed to reverse earlier than that previously noted in Hispanic and Non–Hispanic Whites. Conclusions: There is a significant burden of myopia among adult Latinos aged 40 years and older, similar to Latinos in the Proyecto VER study in Arizona, though with a higher prevalence of myopia in older Latinos compared to younger Latinos. Ocular biometric evaluation may further elucidate the mechanisms for age–related variation in myopia prevalence in Latinos.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only