4.6 Article

Visual impairment certification secondary to ARMD in Leeds, 2005-2010: is the incidence falling?

Journal

EYE
Volume 26, Issue 7, Pages 933-936

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2012.61

Keywords

age-related macular degeneration; ARMD; visual impairment certification

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate trends in visual impairment certification due to age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) in the Leeds metropolitan area between 2005 and 2010. Methods In this retrospective study, the primary causes of visual impairment certification in the Leeds metropolitan area between 2005 and 2010 were reviewed. ARMD was considered to be the cause of certification when recorded as the primary factor contributing to visual impairment in one or both eyes. The incidence of visual impairment certification due to ARMD was calculated using population estimates from the Office of National Statistics. Results ARMD was the primary cause of visual impairment certification in all study years, accounting for 58.7 and 50.8% of certifications in 2005 and 2010, respectively. For the same period, the incidence of certification due to ARMD fell from 364 to 248 per million population per year. This was largely the result of a fall in the incidence of visual impairment certification due to neovascular ARMD from 225 to 137 per million population per year, beginning in 2008 after the introduction of a local commissioning policy on the use of intra-vitreal ranibizumab. Conclusion The incidence of visual impairment certification due to ARMD in the Leeds metropolitan area appears to be falling. This is largely the result of a decrease in certification secondary to neovascular ARMD. This represents a change in the previously described trend for ARMD visual impairment certification. Eye (2012) 26, 933-936; doi:10.1038/eye.2012.61; published online 13 April 2012

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available