September 18, 2015
1 min read
Save

Screening protocol may detect eye disease in American Indian, Alaskan Native population

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

A specified ophthalmic screening protocol accurately detected eye disease in an American Indian and Alaskan Native population. However, the protocol needs to be tested in diverse populations with varying disease profiles, a study found.

Investigators randomly selected 429 American Indian and Alaskan Native participants from the northwestern region of the U.S. All patients were older than 40 years.

Twenty percent of the population was diabetic, 31.9% had hypertension, and 22.8% reported a history of eye disease.

The screening examination comprised medical and ocular history, best corrected visual acuity, limbal anterior chamber depth assessment, frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry, confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, non-mydriatic digital photography and tonometry.

Comprehensive eye examinations were performed on participants who had one or more abnormal screening test results and on a random subset of participants who had normal screening results.

One hundred twenty subjects (28%) passed all screening tests.

FDT perimetry was the most commonly failed screening test (195 subjects, 45.5%).

Abnormal or poor-quality confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy results were seen in 146 subjects (34%).

Forty of 51 subjects with BCVA worse than 20/40 most frequently had abnormal FDT results. Four of 11 subjects with IOP greater than 21 mm Hg had abnormal FDT results.

Visually significant eye disease was significantly associated with visual acuity worse than 20/40, abnormal or poor-quality non-mydriatic imaging, abnormal FDT, and abnormal or poor-quality confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy; all associations were significant (all P < .001). – by Matt Hasson

Disclosure: See the study for a full list of the authors’ relevant financial disclosures.