Tuesday, December 09, 2014

Top-selling eye vitamins found not to match scientific evidence

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-12/aaoo-tev120914.php

PUBLIC RELEASE DATE: 9-Dec-2014

Contact: Dayle Kern
American Academy of Ophthalmology
Top-selling eye vitamins found not to match scientific evidence
Research shows that, of 11 popular supplements analyzed, 7 do not adhere to proven formulas; all 11 have misleading claims

With Americans spending billions of dollars each year on nutritional supplements, researchers have analyzed popular eye vitamins to determine whether their formulations and claims are consistent with scientific findings. They determined that some of the top-selling products do not contain identical ingredient dosages to eye vitamin formulas proven effective in clinical trials. In addition, the study found that claims made on the products' promotional materials lack scientific evidence. The results of their study were published online in Ophthalmology, the journal of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

The leading cause of blindness among older adults in the United States is age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This is the deterioration of the eye's macula, which is the central part of the retina that enables the eye to see fine details clearly. Recommended treatment for AMD at certain stages of the disease includes nutritional supplements. The landmark Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) found in 2001 that a specific formula of nutritional supplements containing high doses of antioxidants and zinc could slow the worsening of AMD in those who have intermediate AMD and those with advanced AMD in only one eye. A follow-up study that concluded in 2011, AREDS2, determined that the formula was still effective if one ingredient, beta-carotene (a form of vitamin A), was replaced with related nutrients, lutein and zeaxanthin. Beta-carotene was substituted in AREDS2 due to its link to increased risk of lung cancer in smokers. The two studies prompted a surge in sales of eye supplements which are marketed as containing the AREDS or AREDS2 formulas.

•••••

They found that, while all of the products studied contained the ingredients from the AREDS or AREDS2 formulas:

Only four of the products had equivalent doses of AREDS or AREDS2 ingredients

Another four of the products contained lower doses of all the AREDS or AREDS2 ingredients

Four of the products also included additional vitamins, minerals and herbal extracts that are not part of the AREDS or AREDS2 formulas

In addition, while all 11 of the products' promotional materials contained claims that the supplements "support," "protect," "help" or "promote" vision and eye health, none had statements specifying that nutritional supplements have only been proven effective in people with specific stages of AMD. There were also no statements clarifying that currently there is not sufficient evidence to support the routine use of nutritional supplements for primary prevention of eye diseases such as AMD and cataracts..

•••••

No comments:

Post a Comment