AMD supplements may not contain ingredients as per AREDS & AREDS2 study recommendations

from NEI

Researchers have found that most best-selling products advertised to slow the progression of age-related macular degeneration do not follow the proven AREDS formula, as per the paper published in the journal Ophthalmology.





The two pivotal studies, AREDS and AREDS2, concluded that patients evaluated in AREDS with intermediate AMD in one or both eyes or advanced AMD in one eye should consider taking a supplement of antioxidants plus zinc (smokers were cautioned not to take beta carotene), while the AREDS2 study indicated that lutein + zeaxanthin could be an appropriate carotenoid substitute in the AREDS formulation, because of potential increased incidence of lung cancer in former smokers. To read more, head to the National Eye Institute's website that provides details of "what AREDS means to you", as well as information about "The AREDS Formulation and Age-Related Macular Degeneration".

In this study, the researchers compared ingredients in top-selling brands of ocular nutritional supplements with the recommendation in the two studies, to investigate the validity of claims made by manufacturers. Five top-selling brands of ocular nutritional supplements in the United States according to dollar sales tracked by SymphonyIRI (Waltham, MA) from June 2011 to June 2012. The ingredients and manufacturers' claims of 11 ocular nutritional supplements were reviewed on the companies' consumer information websites; these ingredients were compared with those contained in the AREDS and AREDS2 formulae.

All of the ocular nutritional supplements contained the ingredients from the AREDS or AREDS2 formula. Of the 11 supplements, only 4 contained equivalent doses of AREDS or AREDS2 ingredients. About 55% (6/11) supplements included some information about the AREDS on their consumer information websites. Product descriptions from 4 of the 11 supplements (36%) stated that the supplements were important to maintain general eye health, but none of these supplements duplicated the AREDS or AREDS2 formula. All the individual supplements claimed to support, protect, help, or promote vision and eye health, but none specified that there is no proven benefit in using nutritional supplements for primary prevention of eye disease.

The authors indicate that majority of top-selling ocular nutritional supplements do not contain the identical ingredient dosages of the AREDS or AREDS2 formula and had product description claims that lacked level 1 evidence. They go on to state that it is important for ophthalmologists to educate their patients on the evidence-based role of nutritional supplements in the management of eye health.

Additional source: New York Times