Population-based analysis indicates macular drusen relate to age-related macular degeneration and cholesterol levels.
Purpose To assess associations of macular drusen in a general population, affected by age‐related macular degeneration (AMD) or free of any retinal disease. Methods Participants of the population‐based cross‐sectional Beijing Eye Study underwent optical coherence tomography. Macular volume scans were assessed for macular drusen. Results The study included 870 eyes (870 participants) (age: 64.7 ± 9.9 years; range: 50–91 years), randomly selected within the groups of early AMD ( n = 356 (40.9%) eyes), intermediate AMD ( n = 201; 23.1%), late AMD ( n = 6; 0.7%) and within eyes without AMD ( n = 307; 35.3%). In multivariable analysis, higher drusen count was associated ( r 2 = 25) with older age (beta: 0.08; p = 0.048), higher serum concentration of cholesterol (beta: 0.10; p = 0.008), shorter axial length (beta: −0.09; p = 0.03), thicker subfoveal choroidal thickness (beta: 0.08; p = 0.04), higher prevalences of macular hyperpigmentations (beta: 0.13; p < 0.001), hyperreflective foci (HRFs) (beta: 0.12; p = 0.004) and reticular pseudodrusen (beta: 0.27; p < 0.001), and a lower prevalence of a visible Henle's layer (beta: −0.15; p < 0.001). Larger drusen size was associated with shorter axial length (beta: −0.08; p = 0.03), thicker subfoveal choroidal thickness (beta: 0.18; p < 0.001), higher prevalences of macular hypopigmentations (beta: 0.14; p < 0.001) and HRFs (beta: 0.31; p < 0.001), and lower prevalences of a visible Henle's layer (beta: −0.19; p < 0.001) and of reticular pseudodrusen (beta: −0.09; p = 0.02). Conclusions In this population‐based study on Chinese, higher macular drusen count was associated with shorter axial length, thicker subfoveal choroidal thickness, higher prevalences of macular hyperpigmentations, HRFs and reticular pseudodrusen and lower prevalence of a visible Henle's layer. These findings may be clinically helpful and etiologically interesting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jonas et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: