Anat Galor1, Hatim Batawi1, Elizabeth R Felix2, Todd P Margolis3, Konstantinos D Sarantopoulos4, Eden R Martin5, Roy C Levitt6. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Miami Veterans Administration Medical Center, Miami, Florida, USA Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Miami Veterans Administration Medical Center, Miami, Florida, USA Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA. 3. Departement of Ophthalmology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Miami Veterans Administration Medical Center, Miami, Florida, USA Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Medicine and Pain Management, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA. 5. John P. Hussman Institute for Human Genomics, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA John T Macdonald Foundation Department of Human Genetics, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, Miami Veterans Administration Medical Center, Miami, Florida, USA Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Medicine and Pain Management, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA John P. Hussman Institute for Human Genomics, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA John T Macdonald Foundation Department of Human Genetics, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Artificial tears are first-line therapy for patients with dry eye symptoms. It is not known, however, which patient factors associate with a positive response to therapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether certain ocular and systemic findings are associated with a differential subjective response to artificial tears. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of 118 individuals reporting artificial tears use (hypromellose 0.4%) to treat dry eye-associated ocular pain. An evaluation was performed to assess dry eye symptoms (via the dry eye questionnaire 5 and ocular surface disease index), ocular and systemic (non-ocular) pain complaints and ocular signs (tear osmolarity, tear breakup time, corneal staining, Schirmer testing with anaesthesia, and eyelid and meibomian gland assessment). The main outcome measures were factors associated with differential subjective response to artificial tears. RESULTS: By self-report, 23 patients reported no improvement, 73 partial improvement and 22 complete improvement in ocular pain with artificial tears. Patients who reported no or partial improvement in pain with artificial tears reported higher levels of hot-burning ocular pain and sensitivity to wind compared with those with complete improvement. Patients were also asked to rate the intensity of systemic pain elsewhere in the body (other than the eye). Patients who reported no or incomplete improvement with artificial tears had higher systemic pain scores compared with those with complete improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Both ocular and systemic (non-ocular) pain complaints are associated with a differential subjective response to artificial tears. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
AIMS: Artificial tears are first-line therapy for patients with dry eye symptoms. It is not known, however, which patient factors associate with a positive response to therapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether certain ocular and systemic findings are associated with a differential subjective response to artificial tears. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of 118 individuals reporting artificial tears use (hypromellose 0.4%) to treat dry eye-associated ocular pain. An evaluation was performed to assess dry eye symptoms (via the dry eye questionnaire 5 and ocular surface disease index), ocular and systemic (non-ocular) pain complaints and ocular signs (tear osmolarity, tear breakup time, corneal staining, Schirmer testing with anaesthesia, and eyelid and meibomian gland assessment). The main outcome measures were factors associated with differential subjective response to artificial tears. RESULTS: By self-report, 23 patients reported no improvement, 73 partial improvement and 22 complete improvement in ocular pain with artificial tears. Patients who reported no or partial improvement in pain with artificial tears reported higher levels of hot-burning ocular pain and sensitivity to wind compared with those with complete improvement. Patients were also asked to rate the intensity of systemic pain elsewhere in the body (other than the eye). Patients who reported no or incomplete improvement with artificial tears had higher systemic pain scores compared with those with complete improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Both ocular and systemic (non-ocular) pain complaints are associated with a differential subjective response to artificial tears. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Entities:
Keywords:
Epidemiology; Ocular surface; Treatment Medical
Authors: Wan Chen; Hatim Ismail M Batawi; Jimmy R Alava; Anat Galor; Jin Yuan; Constantine D Sarantopoulos; Allison L McClellan; William J Feuer; Roy C Levitt; Jianhua Wang Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: John A Gonzales; Annie Chou; Jennifer R Rose-Nussbaumer; Vatinee Y Bunya; Lindsey A Criswell; Caroline H Shiboski; Thomas M Lietman Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 5.258
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
Authors: Ashley M Crane; Roy C Levitt; Elizabeth R Felix; Konstantinos D Sarantopoulos; Allison L McClellan; Anat Galor Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Anat Galor; Leslie Small; William Feuer; Roy C Levitt; Konstantinos D Sarantopoulos; Gil Yosipovitch Journal: Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc Date: 2018-01-17