The Association Between Eye Disease and Incidence of Dementia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To better demonstrate the relationship between common eye diseases and the risk of dementia, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies to investigate the relationship between common eye diseases and dementia.

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients with common eye diseases.

We conducted a systematic search of articles published up to August 25, 2022, of online databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. We included cohort studies that evaluated the association of glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy (DR), and cataracts with all-cause dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD), and vascular dementia (VaD). Relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were pooled using random effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed by the I² statistic. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were also performed.

In total, 25 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total of 11,410,709 participants. Pooled estimates suggested an increased risk of all-cause dementia associated with AMD (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.13-1.48), glaucoma (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.32), DR (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63), and cataract (RR,1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.40); an increased risk of AD associated with AMD (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.52), glaucoma (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02-1.38), DR (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.41), and cataracts (RR,1.22; 95% CI, 1.07-1.38). No association was observed between incident VaD and any eye diseases. The results of subgroup analyses were consistent with those in meta-analysis of DR and risk of all-cause dementia. Meta-regressions suggested geographic regions as potential sources of heterogeneity for the association between AMD and all-cause dementia, AMD and AD, glaucoma and dementia, glaucoma, and AD, respectively.

AMD, glaucoma, DR, and cataract may be associated with an increased risk of all-cause dementia and AD, but not VaD. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously because of the high heterogeneity and unstable findings in some subgroup analyses.