Evidence Hub

Omega-3 Fatty Acids as Protective Factors for Age-related Macular Degeneration: Prospective Cohort and Mendelian Randomization Analyses

Can-Can Xue, Heng-Tong Li, M. Yu, C. Chong, Qiao Fan, Y. Tham, Chui Ming Gemmy Cheung, Tien Y. Wong et al.

Ophthalmology (Rochester, Minn.), 2024

208,690 participants · 20 citations

Abstract

Purpose: Epidemiological studies and clinical trials have reported inconsistent findings regarding the protective role of omega-3 fatty acids in age-related macular degeneration (AMD), we investigated their association in a prospective cohort and examined causality using Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses. Design: Prospective cohort study and two-sample MR analyses. Participants: We included individuals of European descent from UK Biobank with plasma omega-3 and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) measurement. Our MR analyses used genome-wide association study data on plasma level of omega-3 and DHA (UK Biobank, n=115,006) and AMD (dry, wet, and any) (FinnGen, n=208,690 to 209,122). Methods: Cox regression models was used to assess the association between plasma omega-3/DHA levels and AMD incidence, adjusting for systemic covariates and AMD polygenetic risk score (PRS). Interaction effects of AMD genetic risk (PRS, CFH/ARMS2 genotypes) and plasma omega-3/DHA levels were tested. For MR analyses, we used random-effect inverse-variance weighted (RE-IVW) model as primary model and five other models for sensitivity. Causality between omega-3/DHA and AMD was considered significant if P-values were 0.05). Conclusions: Our prospective cohort and MR analyses both suggested a protective effect of omega-3 and DHA on AMD, supporting the need for further clinical trials to test their effectiveness in AMD prevention and treatment.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 208,690 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free