Development of a dry eye index as a new biomarker of dry eye disease
Metadatos
Afficher la notice complèteAuteur
Gala Núñez, César; Ortiz Peregrina, Sonia; Castanera Gratacós, Diego; González Anera, María Del RosarioEditorial
Wiley-Blackwell Verlag GmbH
Materia
Biomarker Dry eye disease Dry Eye Severity Index
Date
2024-08-02Referencia bibliográfica
Gala-Núñez C, Ortiz-Peregrina S, Castanera-Gratacós D, Anera RG. Development of a dry eye index as a new biomarker of dry eye disease. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2024;00:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.13373
Patrocinador
Grant PID2020-115184RB-I00, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033; Grant C-EXP-194-UGR23 funded by FEDER/Junta de Andalucía-Consejería de Transformación Económica, Industria, Conocimiento y Universidades; Funding for open access charge: Universidad de Granada / CBUA.Résumé
Purpose: To evaluate signs and symptoms in patients diagnosed with dry eye disease
(DED), divided into dry eye (DE) groups, in order to find a new biomarker that
allows an accurate diagnosis, management and classification of DED.
Methods: This cross-sectional,
observational study included 71 DED subjects.
Subjective symptoms, visual quality and DE signs were assessed using the Ocular
Surface Disease Index (OSDI), the Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire, best corrected
distance visual acuity (VA), functional visual acuity (FVA), contrast sensitivity
(CS), high-and
low-order
corneal aberrations (HOA and LOA, respectively), tear
break-up
time (TBUT), Meibomian Gland Dysfunction (MGD), Schirmer test, corneal
staining, lid wiper epitheliopathy (LWE) and meibography. Participants were
classified into three groups based on dryness severity using a cluster analysis, i.e.,
mild (N = 17, 55.8 ± 15.4 years), moderate (N = 41, 63.5 ± 10.6 years) and severe (N = 13,
65.0 ± 12.0). A new Dry Eye Severity Index (DESI) based on ocular surface signs has
been developed and its association with symptoms, visual quality and signs was
assessed. Comparisons between groups were made using Kruskal–Wallis and Chi-squared
tests. Spearman correlation analysis was also performed.
Results: The DESI was based on three tests for DE signs: TBUT, Schirmer test and
MGD. The DESI showed significant differences between different pairs of groups:
Mild Dryness versus Moderate Dryness (p < 0.001), Mild Dryness versus Severe
Dryness (p < 0.001) and Moderate Dryness versus Severe Dryness (p < 0.001).
The DESI was significantly correlated with age (rho = −0.30; p = 0.01), OSDI score
(rho = −0.32; p = 0.007), QoV score (rho = −0.35; p = 0.003), VA (rho = −0.34; p = 0.003),
FVA (rho = −0.38; p = 0.001) and CS (rho = 0.42; p < 0.001) Also, significant differences
between the severity groups were found for OSDI and QoV scores, VA, FVA, CS and
MGD (p < 0.05).
Conclusions: The DESI has good performance as a biomarker for the diagnosis,
classification and management of DED.