September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Appropriate use of AREDS vitamins in the ophthalmic population
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Clinton Ellingson
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States
  • Jayakrishna Ambati
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Clinton Ellingson, None; Jayakrishna Ambati, Allergan (R), Inflammasome Therapeutics (I), Inflammasome Therapeutics (S), iVeena Delivery Systems (I), iVeena Delivery Systems (P), iVeena Delivery Systems (S), iVeena Holdings (I), iVeena Holdings (P), iVeena Holdings (S), iVeena Pharmaceuticals (I), iVeena Pharmaceuticals (P), iVeena Pharmaceuticals (S), Olix Pharmaceuticals (F)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 17. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Clinton Ellingson, Jayakrishna Ambati; Appropriate use of AREDS vitamins in the ophthalmic population. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):17.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose : Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of blindness in the developing world and can be sub-classified as exudative and non-exudative. In 2007 a vitamin formulary was studied and recommended for specific classifications of non-exudative AMD by the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS). The purpose of this study is to assess the appropriate use of eye vitamins based on AREDS recommendations and estimate the associated cost utility.

Methods : This is a random, prospective, cross-sectional clinic-based study. Patients presenting to the ophthalmology clinic at an academic medical center who had a diagnosis of AMD or were actively taking eye vitamins were enrolled. Fundus examination was performed, and the participant’s stage of AMD based on AREDS criteria and best-corrected visual acuity were recorded. A questionnaire inquiring about eye vitamin use, brand preference, estimated quarterly costs, length of use, family history, awareness of adverse effects, and reasons for starting vitamins, was administered.

Results : 134 patients met the inclusion criteria and elected to participate in the study. Of the 101 participants taking eye vitamins, 73.5% did not meet AREDS criteria. 29.6% of the respondents reported taking a vitamin preparation identical to the AREDS formulation. The number needed to treat (NNT) was adjusted to account for participants taking eye vitamins that did not meet AREDS criteria or were taking a formulary different than the one recommended and was determined to be 220. Participants reported an average estimated quarterly cost of $39.65-$59.75. Depending on the initial visual acuity, the direct cost utility from inappropriate vitamin use ranged between $218,000-$657,000 per quality adjusted life year. 86% of participants who were active smokers were unaware that certain eye vitamins may place them at an increased risk for lung cancer.

Conclusions : An overwhelming proportion of eye vitamin users did not meet AREDS treatment criteria or used an unproven vitamin formula, thereby effectively increasing the NNT, which increases costs per benefit, reduces therapy effectiveness, and increases exposure to unnecessary adverse drug effects.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.



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.