| Literature DB >> 31275634 |
María A Del Buey1,2,3,4, Paula Casas1,2, Constanza Caramello1, Nuria López1, Marisa de la Rica2,4, Ana B Subirón2,4, Elena Lanchares3,4,5, Valentín Huerva6, Andrzej Grzybowski7,8, Francisco J Ascaso1,2,4.
Abstract
In the last decade, we have witnessed substantial progress in our understanding of corneal biomechanics and architecture. It is well known that diabetes is a systemic metabolic disease that causes chronic progressive damage in the main organs of the human body, including the eyeball. Although the main and most widely recognized ocular effect of diabetes is on the retina, the structure of the cornea (the outermost and transparent tissue of the eye) can also be affected by the poor glycemic control characterizing diabetes. The different corneal structures (epithelium, stroma, and endothelium) are affected by specific complications of diabetes. The development of new noninvasive diagnostic technologies has provided a better understanding of corneal tissue modifications. The objective of this review is to describe the advances in the knowledge of the corneal alterations that diabetes can induce.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31275634 PMCID: PMC6589322 DOI: 10.1155/2019/7645352
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ophthalmol ISSN: 2090-004X Impact factor: 1.909
Summary of prospective cross-sectional studies of CH, CRF, IOPg, and IOPcc in diabetes patients.
| Author, year, country | Study groups/sample size | Mean age (years) | ORA parameters (mean mmHg) controls/diabetes | Outcomes ( | Associations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goldich, 2008, Israel [ | 40 with diabetes (40 eyes)/40 controls (40 eyes) | 60.9/63.8 | CH: 10.7 ± 1.6/9.3 ± 1.4 |
| (i) Subjects with diabetes had |
| CRF: 10.9 ± 1.7/9.6 ± 1.6 |
| ||||
| IOPcc: 16.6 ± 4.4/17.7 ± 4.9 | 0.31 | (ii) There was | |||
| IOPg: 16.6 ± 4.3/16.1 ± 4.9 | 0.66 | ||||
|
| |||||
| Sahin, 2009, Turkey [ | 43 with diabetes (81 eyes)/61 control (120 eyes) | 55.3/53.1 | CH: 9.51 ± 1.82/10.41 ± 1.66 |
|
|
| CRF: 10.32 ± 1.76/10.36 ± 1.97 | 0.8 | (ii) There was no significant difference in terms of | |||
| IOPcc: 18.81 ± 4.71/15.85 ± 3.24 |
|
| |||
| IOPg: 17.68 ± 4.42/15.34 ± 3.66 |
| ||||
|
| |||||
| Castro, 2010, Brazil [ | 44 |
|
| Diabetic patients presented significantly | |
| 19 with diabetes (34 eyes)/25 without diabetes (40 eyes | |||||
|
| |||||
| Kotecha, 2010, UK [ | 61 with diabetes (61 eyes) | 41.9/61.6/54.0 | CH: 12.45 ± 1.74/10.90 ± 1.94/10.85 ± 1.68 CRF: 12.49 ± 2.01/11.50 ± 2.06/10.62 ± 1.64 | 0.008 | (i) The |
| T1D (13 eyes)/T2D (48 eyes)/controls (123 eyes) |
| (ii) The | |||
| (iii) CH and CRF were weakly correlated with blood glucose concentration | |||||
|
| |||||
| Kara, 2012, Turkey [ | 46 T1D children (46 eyes)/50 controls (50 eyes) | 14.2/14.5 | CH: 12.3 ± 1.3/12.5 ± 1.5 | 0.609 |
|
| CRF: 12.4 ± 1.7/11.9 ± 1.5 | 0.152 | (ii) IOPg and IOPcc in T1D are similar to those of healthy controls. | |||
| IOPg: 17.4 ± 3.6/16.7 ± 2.9 | 0.232 | ||||
| IOPcc: 15.5 ± 3.4/15.1 ± 2.7 | 0.446 | ||||
|
| |||||
| Nalcacioglu-Yuksekkaya, 2014, Turkey [ | 68 T1D children (68 eyes)/74 controls (74 eyes) | 12.7/12.9 | CH: 10.8 ± 1.5/10.7 ± 1.7 | 0.624 |
|
| CRF: 10.9 ± 1.9/10.5 ± 1.6 | 0.207 | (ii) IOPg and IOPcc in T1D are similar to those of healthy controls. | |||
| IOPcc: 15.8 ± 3.0/15.3 ± 3.4 | 0.395 | ||||
| IOPg: 15.9 ± 3.7/15.2 ± 3.4 | 0.263 | ||||
|
| |||||
| Yazgan, 2014, Turkey [ | 156 with T2D (156 eyes)/74 controls (74 eyes) | 57.75/57.91 | CH: 10.37 ± 1.9/8.98 ± 1.4 |
|
|
| CRF: 11.06 ± 2.3/8.99 ± 1.5 |
| ||||
| IOPg: 17.63 ± 3.9/14.80 ± 2.9 |
| ||||
| IOPcc: 17.70 ± 3.2/16.56 ± 2.4 |
| ||||
|
| |||||
| Pérez-Rico, 2015, Spain [ | 94 diabetic patients (94 eyes) | 59.8/62.2 | CH: 10.23 ± 1.83/10.9 ± 1.39/11.43 ± 1.69 |
| (i) |
| 54 uncontrolled diabetes/40 controlled diabetes/41 controls | CRF: 11.05 ± 1.97/11.21 ± 1.97/10.53 ± 1.78 | 0.263 | (ii) | ||
| IOPcc: 18.45 ± 3.79/14.68 ± 2.67/14.55 ± 3.72 |
| ||||
| IOPg: 18.16 ± 3.85/15.31 ± 3.14/14.46 ± 4.1 |
| ||||
|
| |||||
| Schweitzer, 2016, France [ | Diabetes (137 eyes)/controls (695 eyes) | — |
|
| Subjects with diabetes had |
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||||
| Akkaya, 2016, Turkey [ |
|
| 0.11 | (i) | |
| 60 with diabetes (60 eyes)/41 without diabetes (41 eyes) |
|
| (ii) RNFL thickness was measured by using Spectralis HRA + OCT. | ||
| (iii) | |||||
|
| |||||
| Bekmez, 2018, Turkey [ | 50 with T2D (50 eyes)/50 controls (50 eyes) | 63.3/61.7 | CH: 9.9 ± 1.5/10.5 ± 1.7 | 0.080 | (i) There was |
|
| 0.730 | ||||
| IOPcc: 17.8 ± 3.6/16.0 ± 3.1 |
| (ii) Corneal biomechanical differences seen in diabetic patients may be associated with significantly higher IOP measurements. | |||
| IOPg: 16.9 ± 3.5/15.4 ± 2.9 |
| ||||
T1D = type 1 diabetes; T2D = type 2 diabetes; ORA = ocular response analyzer; CH = corneal hysteresis; CRF = corneal resistance factor; GAT = Goldmann applanation tonometry; IOP = intraocular pressure; CCT = central corneal thickness; IOPg = Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure; IOPcc = corneal-compensated intraocular pressure.
Summary of “in vivo” studies about endothelial status in diabetic patients compared with healthy controls.
| Author, year | Type of study | Study groups | Technology | Parameters | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shenoy, 2009 [ | Case-control | 110 diabetic patients (110 eyes) | NIDEK® confoscan 2. | ECD, coefficient of variability of cell size of cells showing polymegathism, percentage of hexagonal cells showing pleomorphism. | (i) ECD in eyes was negatively associated with the diabetes status. |
| Módis, 2010 [ | Case-control | 21 insulin-dependent T1D patients (41 eyes) | Wide-field contact specular microscope (Tomey EM-1000, Tokyo, Japan) | ECD, mean cell area, CV, CCT, IOP |
|
| Urban, 2013 [ | Case-control | 123 children and adolescents with T1D (123 eyes) | Topcon SP-2000P endothelial microscope. | ECD and CCT | (i) ECD was lower in children-adolescent T1D compared to controls. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Calvo-maroto, 2015 [ | Retrospective | 77 noninsulin T2D (77 eyes): | Topcon SP-3000P noncontact specular microscope | CCT, ECD | (i) CCT higher in long-term diabetic patients when compared with short-term diabetic patients and controls. |
| Szalai, 2016 [ | Case-control | 28 T1D (28 eyes) | Corneal confocal microscopy with Heidelberg Retina Tomograph III Rostock Cornea Module (HRT III RCM, Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany) | ECD Other (epithelial, stromal density. Subbasal nerve morphology) | ECD was lower in T1D with and without DR compared to controls. |
| Anbar, 2016 [ | Case-control | 80 T1D children (160 eyes) | Noncontact specular microscope (Topcon SP-1P, Tokyo, Japan). | CCT, ECD, polymegathism, and pleomorphism | (i) CCT higher in the T1D group. |
| Leelawongtawun, 2016 [ | Case-control | 148 diabetes (271 eyes). Divided based on diabetes duration | Specular microscope (Confoscan4 (CS4), Nidek) | ECD, percentage of polymegathism and hexagonality percentage | (i) ECD was lower in all diabetes groups compared to controls. |
| Galgauskas, 2016 [ | Case-control | 62 T2D (123 eyes): | Noncontact specular microscope (SP-9000; Konan Medical Inc., Hyogo, Japan) | CCT, ECD, average size, hexagonality percentage and polymegathism | (i) ECD lower in diabetes than in controls. |
| El-agamy, 2017 [ | Case-control | 57 T2D (57 eyes): 36 eyes without DR | EM-3000 Specular Microscope | CCT, ECD, CV and hexagonality percentage | (i) ECD lower in diabetes than in controls. |
| Islam, 2017 [ | Case-control | 149 diabetes (149 eyes) | SP–3000P, Topcon Corporation, Japan | ECD, average cell size, CV and hexagonality percentage | (i) ECD lower in the diabetes group |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T1D: type 1 diabetes; T2D: type 2 diabetes; DR: diabetic retinopathy; NP-DR: nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy; P-DR: proliferative diabetic retinopathy; ECD: endothelial cell density; CV: coefficient of variation of cell area; CCT: central corneal thickness; IOP: intraocular pressure.
Summary of “in vitro” studies of the effect of diabetes on the corneal endothelium.
| Author, year | Type of study | Study groups | Technology | Parameters | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kwon, 2016 [ | Descriptive | 18,665 donors (34,234 corneas) | Specular microscopy (Konan Cell Chek EB-10; Konan Medical, Hyogo, Japan) | (i) Sex, age, race, surgery, disease (hypertension, diabetes, glaucoma, depression, dementia, Parkinson, hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism) and habits (smokers/nonsmokers) | (i) ECD decreased with age. |
| Schwarz, 2016 [ | Case-control | 22 donors (27 corneas): | (i) Specular microscopy (technology not specified) | (i) ECD, hexagonality, and CV. | (i) The three groups did not differ in ECD, hexagonality, and CV. |
| Liaboe, 2017 [ | Retrospective case-controls | 2112 donors (4185 corneas) divided in 4 groups: | Noncontact specular microscopy (KeratoAnalyzer EKA-10; Konan Medical USA, Irvine, CA) | Donor age, death to preservation time, ECD, hexagonality, and CV. | (i) I-diabetes with medical complications due to diabetes corneas showed a significant reduction in mean ECD compared with nondiabetic and NI-diabetes. |
| Aldrich, 2017 [ | Case-control | 159 donors (229 corneas) all of them with ECD> 2000 cells/mm2. Divided in 4 groups: | (i) Noncontact specular microscopy (KeratoAnalyzer EKA-10; Konan Medical USA, Irvine, CA, USA) | (i) ECD, hexagonality, and CV. | (i) ID-diabetes with medical complications due to diabetes displayed the lowest spare respiratory values compared to all other groups. |
| Chen, 2017 [ | Case-control | (i) 20,026 nondiabetes donor eyes | Specular microscope (Konan EB-10; Konan, Hyogo, Japan). | ECD | Amongst phakic donors, diabetic ECD was lower in the middle aged subgroups, between 21 and 40 years and between 41 and 60 years. There was no difference in ECD for phakic corneas from the subset aged 61 years or older. |
| Chocron, 2018 [ | Retrospective case-control | 17056 donors: | Specular microscopy (Konan Cell Check EB-10; Konan, Hyogo, Japan) | Age, sex, race, medical history, medication list at the time of death, and ECD. | (i) ECD was lower in patients with diabetes. |
| Skeie, 2018 [ | Case-control | 19 donors: | Multidimensional protein identification technology mass spectrometry | Corneal endothelial cell layer and descemet membrane proteome characterization | (i) Decrease in relative protein abundance in insulin-dependent samples (nonadvanced diabetes insulin-dependent and advanced diabetes) compared to non-insulin-dependent samples (nondiabetes and nonadvanced diabetes without insulin use). |
NID-diabetes: non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; ID-diabetes: insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. ECD: endothelial cell density; CV: coefficient of variation of cell area.