Dry macular degeneration is not an uncommon condition among elderly clients, so a referral is made via the GOS18 and a suggestion that a lutein supplement (recommending a private purchase) could help and a consideration to simvastatin.
Is it me, or are ophthalmologists ignoring age-related macular degeneration (AMD)?
Dry macular degeneration is not an uncommon condition among elderly clients, so a referral is made via the GOS18 and a suggestion that a lutein supplement (recommending a private purchase) could help and a consideration to simvastatin.
In the 'Risk of macular degeneration in users of statins: cross sectional study' (British Medical Journal, August 18, 2001), funded by the MRC, the basis of the paper relates to the use of statins (hydroxymethyl glutaryl coenzyme) - which are used to modify a patient's lipid profile - researchers indicate a possible association between statin use and lower risk of AMD.
It claims that statins might prevent the accumulation of basal linear deposits in Bruch's membrane which occurs with a higher concentration of plasma cholesterol.
Last year, a German ophthalmology journal reported that the antioxidant properties of statins might protect the outer retina from oxidative damage, and that simvastatin inhibits endothelial cell apoptosis and preserves ischaemic vasculature, thus possibly maintaining a competent vascular supply to the macula.
NICE does not allow GPs to prescribe simvastatin for AMD (however some seem willing).
The problem seems to be that most ophthalmologists actively discourage a lutein food supplement telling the client and relatives, 'I have never heard of this and nothing can be done'.
I have had irate relatives calling me to say that the ophthalmologist does not know what I am talking about.
So let me ask, is this an isolated situation in my area or does it happen elsewhere, and is there a nationally agreed protocol among our esteemed colleagues to ignore dry AMD?
John Snelgrove
St Albans, Hertfordshire
I would like to respond to the letter by Peter Black (March 30) concerning the recently published article ‘Studying the solutions’ (March 2).
As the principal investigator of the ‘Staining Grid study’ I can assure Mr Black that Sauflon Synergy was not excluded from the results because as he contends ‘the research proves that excluded products are superior and hence omits them from the results’. Our research is time consuming and the simple fact is that we have not yet had time to test all multipurpose solutions available around the world.
Since our intent is to provide practitioners with useful, complete and unbiased information concerning lens/solution compatibility I am officially extending an invitation to Sauflon Pharmaceuticals and other multipurpose solution manufacturers to contact me at www.StainingGrid.com concerning inclusion of your products onto our Staining Grid. If your solution is truly as good as Mr Black and others contend, the world should know.
Gary Andrasko, OD, MS
Columbus, OH, USA