Nicole L Lanza1, Allison L McClellan2, Hatim Batawi1, Elizabeth R Felix3, Konstantinos D Sarantopoulos4, Roy C Levitt5, Anat Galor6. 1. Miami Veterans Administration Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA; Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA. 2. Miami Veterans Administration Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA. 3. Miami Veterans Administration Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 4. Miami Veterans Administration Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA; Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Medicine and Pain Management, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 5. Miami Veterans Administration Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA; Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Medicine and Pain Management, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA; John P. Hussman Institute for Human Genomics, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA; John T. Macdonald Foundation Department of Human Genetics, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 6. Miami Veterans Administration Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA; Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA. Electronic address: agalor@med.miami.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare dry eye (DE) symptoms and signs in subjects who tested positive versus those who tested negative for ocular surface matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9) using the InflammaDry point-of-care test (RPS, Sarasota, FL). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, individuals seen in the Miami Veterans Affairs eye clinic with DE symptoms, as evidenced by DE questionnaire 5 (DEQ5) ≥6, were given standardized questionnaires to assess DE symptoms and ocular and non-ocular pain complaints. Also, a complete evaluation was conducted to measure ocular surface signs of DE. MMP-9 testing was performed using the InflammaDry once in each eye, per the manufacturer's instructions. The main outcome measure was a comparison of DE symptoms and signs in MMP-9 positive versus negative subjects. RESULTS: Of 128 subjects, 50 (39%) were positive for MMP-9 for InflammaDry testing in either eye. No statistically significant differences in mental health indices, DE symptoms, or ocular surface signs were seen in subjects based on MMP-9 status. CONCLUSION: In our population, there was no difference in the DE profile by both symptoms and signs between those testing positive versus negative for MMP-9 on the ocular surface. This suggests that clinical exam alone cannot predict patients with clinically significant inflammation. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: To compare dry eye (DE) symptoms and signs in subjects who tested positive versus those who tested negative for ocular surface matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9) using the InflammaDry point-of-care test (RPS, Sarasota, FL). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, individuals seen in the Miami Veterans Affairs eye clinic with DE symptoms, as evidenced by DE questionnaire 5 (DEQ5) ≥6, were given standardized questionnaires to assess DE symptoms and ocular and non-ocular pain complaints. Also, a complete evaluation was conducted to measure ocular surface signs of DE. MMP-9 testing was performed using the InflammaDry once in each eye, per the manufacturer's instructions. The main outcome measure was a comparison of DE symptoms and signs in MMP-9 positive versus negative subjects. RESULTS: Of 128 subjects, 50 (39%) were positive for MMP-9 for InflammaDry testing in either eye. No statistically significant differences in mental health indices, DE symptoms, or ocular surface signs were seen in subjects based on MMP-9 status. CONCLUSION: In our population, there was no difference in the DE profile by both symptoms and signs between those testing positive versus negative for MMP-9 on the ocular surface. This suggests that clinical exam alone cannot predict patients with clinically significant inflammation. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Jerry Y Niederkorn; Michael E Stern; Stephen C Pflugfelder; Cintia S De Paiva; Rosa M Corrales; Jianping Gao; Karyn Siemasko Journal: J Immunol Date: 2006-04-01 Impact factor: 5.422
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: Thomas John; Sean Tighe; Hosam Sheha; Pedram Hamrah; Zeina M Salem; Anny M S Cheng; Ming X Wang; Nathan D Rock Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 1.909