Retinal Thickness Analysis by Race, Gender, and Age Using Stratus OCT

PURPOSE: To detect differences in retinal thickness among patients of different race, gender, and age using Stratus OCT. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: In a multicenter, university-based study, 126 patients with no history of ocular disease were enrolled (78 diabetics without retinopathy and 48 non-diabetics). Optical coherence tomography measurements were performed using Stratus OCT. Statistical comparisons of center point foveal thickness and mean foveal thickness were made using generalized estimating equations adjusting for diabetic status, race, age, and gender. 0 RESULTS: The study population consisted of 36% male subjects, 39% Caucasian, 33% African-American, and 28% Hispanic. Mean fovea) thickness was 191.6 +/- 2.7 mu m and 194.5 +/- 2.7 mu m for diabetics and nondiabetics, respectively (P = .49). Mean foveal thickness in male subjects was significantly larger than in female (201.8 +/- 2.7 mu m and 186.9 +/- 2.6 mu m, respectively; P < .001). Mean foveal thickness was 200.2 +/- 2.7 mu m for Caucasian, 181.0 +/- 3.7 mu m for African-American, and 194.7 +/- 3.9 mu m for Hispanic subjects. Mean foveal thickness was significantly less for African-American than Caucasian (P < .0001) or Hispanic subjects (P = .005). Center point foveal thickness and mean foveal thickness showed a significant increase with age. CONCLUSIONS: There are statistically significant differences in retinal thickness between subjects of different race, gender, and age. When compared to Caucasian and Hispanic subjects, African-American race is a predictor of decreased mean foveal thickness; and male sex (regardless of race) is a significant predictor of increased mean foveal thickness. Mean foveal thickness is similar among diabetics and nondiabetics when data are controlled for age, race, and sex. These results suggest that studies comparing OCT measurements should carefully control for age-based, race-based, and gender-based variations in retinal thickness. (Am J Ophthalmol 2010;149:496-502. (C) 2010 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)