Biochemistry/Molecular Biology - ARVO

ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts by Scientific Section/Group - Biochemistry/Molecular BiologyVisucam data (e.g. multiple regression of max MP from the Visucamon Densitometer MP at eccentricities 0.25 and 0.5 degrees had anassociated R 2 value of just 0.008 and was not statistically significant,p=0.843). Regression analysis also showed a weak relationshipbetween MP measurements from the Spectralis and Visucam devices(e.g. multiple regression of max MP from the Visucam on SpectralisMP at eccentricities 0.23 and 0.27 degrees had an associated R 2 valueof just 0.047 and was not statistically significant, p=0.348).Regression results between readings obtained on the Visucam andthose obtained on each of the other two instruments remained poorwhen orthogonal regression was used in place of ordinary leastsquares.Conclusions: MP values obtained using the Heidelberg Spectralis arecomparable to MP values obtained using the Densitometer. Incontrast, MP values obtained using the Zeiss Visucam are notcomparable with either the Densitometer or the Spectralis MPmeasuring devices. Taking cHFP as the current gold standard, theSpectralis is suitable for use in a clinical and research setting,whereas the Visucam is not.Commercial Relationships: Jessica L. Dennison, None; Jim Stack,None; Stephen Beatty, None; John M. Nolan, NoneSupport: European Research Council: CREST 281096Program Number: 3777 Poster Board Number: A0116Presentation Time: 2:45 PM - 4:30 PMA Comparison of the MacuScope and QuantifEye MacularPigment Densitometers in Two Distinct Population TypesRobert J. Donati, Elizabeth Wyles. Illinois College of Optometry,Chicago, IL.Purpose: Studies have suggested that reduced levels of macularpigment (MP) may increase risk for developing age-related maculardegeneration (AMD). There are two compact commercially availableheterochromic flicker photometry instruments that measure MP in theUSA. Previous studies revealed significant variability betweeninstruments. Our aim was to determine if the same variability wouldbe found in a young, healthy, population compared to an olderpopulation for which these instruments have more significance.Methods: Twenty young healthy adults (21-29 years old) and 28older adults (50-70 years old) with and without early signs of AMDwere recruited from the Illinois Eye Institute patient base. Macularpigment optical density (MPOD) was measured using the MacuScopeand QuantifEye. Data was collected for each patient in one session. Asingle, but different operator collected data for each of the patientpopulations. Two measurements per eye were taken on eachinstrument and each eye was used as a separate data point. If thedifference was greater than 0.04 absorbance units between twomeasurements on a single instrument, a third measurement was taken.Invalid readings were excluded. Paired t-tests and ANOVA weredone to compare the statistical significance of the results from bothinstruments and age groups. Bland-Altman plots were done for anadded comparison.Results: Mean MPOD for the combined age groups was 0.335 ±0.137 for the MacuScope (n=83) and 0.350 ± 0.186 for theQuantifEye (n=83). There was no significant difference between theMPOD means. The mean standard deviation of each subject’s MPODreadings was 0.0943 ± 0.0822 for the MacuScope (n=87) and 0.0508± 0.0496 for the QuantifEye (n=86). There is a significant differencebetween the two instruments (p