Benjamin D Sullivan1, Leslie A Crews, Elisabeth M Messmer, Gary N Foulks, Kelly K Nichols, Philipp Baenninger, Gerd Geerling, Francisco Figueiredo, Michael A Lemp. 1. TearLab Corporation, San Diego, California, USADepartment of Ophthalmology, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, GermanyKentucky Lions Eye Center, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USACollege of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USARoyal Victoria Infirmary & Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, EnglandDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Dusseldorf, GermanyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, USADepartment of Ophthalmology, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between signs and symptoms of dry eye disease (DED) in a clinic-based population. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, clinical signs and symptoms were evaluated for 344 subjects (n = 82, normal; n = 263, dry eye), across 11 sites from the EU and United States. Pearson correlations between signs and symptoms (r(2) ) and an independent components analysis (ICA) mixing matrix were derived from the data set. Similar analysis was performed on an independent data set from 200 subjects in a previous study in Munich, Germany. RESULTS: No correlations above r(2) = 0.17 were found between any signs and symptoms, except for corneal and conjunctival staining, which reported an r(2) = 0.36. In the multisite study, the average r(2) for osmolarity (0.07), tear breakup time (0.12), Schirmer test (0.09), corneal (0.16) and conjunctival staining (0.17), meibomian grading (0.11) and Ocular Surface Disease Index(®) (0.11) were consistently low. Among patients who showed evidence of DED by consensus of clinical signs, only 57% reported symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of DED. Similar results were observed in the Munich-based study data set. Each component of the ICA mixing matrix exhibited minimal residual information. CONCLUSIONS: No consistent relationship was found between common signs and symptoms of DED. Each type of measurement provides distinct information about the condition of the ocular surface. These results also demonstrate that symptoms alone are insufficient for the diagnosis and management of DED and argue for a consensus of clinical signs that better reflect all aspects of the disease.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between signs and symptoms of dry eye disease (DED) in a clinic-based population. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, clinical signs and symptoms were evaluated for 344 subjects (n = 82, normal; n = 263, dry eye), across 11 sites from the EU and United States. Pearson correlations between signs and symptoms (r(2) ) and an independent components analysis (ICA) mixing matrix were derived from the data set. Similar analysis was performed on an independent data set from 200 subjects in a previous study in Munich, Germany. RESULTS: No correlations above r(2) = 0.17 were found between any signs and symptoms, except for corneal and conjunctival staining, which reported an r(2) = 0.36. In the multisite study, the average r(2) for osmolarity (0.07), tear breakup time (0.12), Schirmer test (0.09), corneal (0.16) and conjunctival staining (0.17), meibomian grading (0.11) and Ocular Surface Disease Index(®) (0.11) were consistently low. Among patients who showed evidence of DED by consensus of clinical signs, only 57% reported symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of DED. Similar results were observed in the Munich-based study data set. Each component of the ICA mixing matrix exhibited minimal residual information. CONCLUSIONS: No consistent relationship was found between common signs and symptoms of DED. Each type of measurement provides distinct information about the condition of the ocular surface. These results also demonstrate that symptoms alone are insufficient for the diagnosis and management of DED and argue for a consensus of clinical signs that better reflect all aspects of the disease.
Authors: Frederick B Vivino; Steven E Carsons; Gary Foulks; Troy E Daniels; Ann Parke; Michael T Brennan; S Lance Forstot; R Hal Scofield; Katherine M Hammitt Journal: Rheum Dis Clin North Am Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 2.670
Authors: Ian J Saldanha; Jimmy T Le; Sharon D Solomon; Michael X Repka; Esen K Akpek; Tianjing Li Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Carlos Belmonte; Jason J Nichols; Stephanie M Cox; James A Brock; Carolyn G Begley; David A Bereiter; Darlene A Dartt; Anat Galor; Pedram Hamrah; Jason J Ivanusic; Deborah S Jacobs; Nancy A McNamara; Mark I Rosenblatt; Fiona Stapleton; James S Wolffsohn Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Mark D P Willcox; Pablo Argüeso; Georgi A Georgiev; Juha M Holopainen; Gordon W Laurie; Tom J Millar; Eric B Papas; Jannick P Rolland; Tannin A Schmidt; Ulrike Stahl; Tatiana Suarez; Lakshman N Subbaraman; Omür Ö Uçakhan; Lyndon Jones Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Jerry P Kalangara; Anat Galor; Roy C Levitt; Derek B Covington; Katherine T McManus; Constantine D Sarantopoulos; Elizabeth R Felix Journal: Eye Contact Lens Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 2.018