PURPOSE: Animal models suggest that early markers of Sjögren syndrome (EMS)-antibodies against salivary protein 1, parotid secretory protein, and carbonic anhydrase 6 (CA6)-are more accurate signals of early Sjögren when compared with classic markers (anti-Ro and anti-La). To further understand the relationship between EMS and dry eye (DE), we compared symptoms and signs of DE in subjects who tested positive versus negative for EMS. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, patients at the Miami Veterans Affairs Eye Clinic who were tested for EMS underwent a standard ocular surface examination. Indications for EMS testing included DE symptoms in combination with dry mouth symptoms, low tear production, corneal staining, or a Sjögren disease-associated autoimmune disease. Statistical tests performed were the χ test, Fisher exact test, independent sample t test, and Spearman correlation. RESULTS: Seventy-three percent of 44 patients tested positive for 1 or more EMS. CA6 IgG was most frequently elevated, followed by CA6 IgM and parotid secretory protein IgG. EMS-positive versus EMS-negative subjects were more likely to escalate DE treatment past artificial tears to topical cyclosporine (n = 32, 100% vs. n = 9, 75%, P = 0.02). There were no demographic or comorbidity differences between EMS-positive and EMS-negative subjects, and marker levels did not correlate with more severe tear film measures. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the individuals with DE tested positive for 1 or more EMS antibodies, including men and Hispanics. Future studies will be needed to understand how to incorporate EMS data into the care of an individual with DE.
PURPOSE: Animal models suggest that early markers of Sjögren syndrome (EMS)-antibodies against salivary protein 1, parotid secretory protein, and carbonic anhydrase 6 (CA6)-are more accurate signals of early Sjögren when compared with classic markers (anti-Ro and anti-La). To further understand the relationship between EMS and dry eye (DE), we compared symptoms and signs of DE in subjects who tested positive versus negative for EMS. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, patients at the Miami Veterans Affairs Eye Clinic who were tested for EMS underwent a standard ocular surface examination. Indications for EMS testing included DE symptoms in combination with dry mouth symptoms, low tear production, corneal staining, or a Sjögren disease-associated autoimmune disease. Statistical tests performed were the χ test, Fisher exact test, independent sample t test, and Spearman correlation. RESULTS: Seventy-three percent of 44 patients tested positive for 1 or more EMS. CA6 IgG was most frequently elevated, followed by CA6 IgM and parotid secretory protein IgG. EMS-positive versus EMS-negative subjects were more likely to escalate DE treatment past artificial tears to topical cyclosporine (n = 32, 100% vs. n = 9, 75%, P = 0.02). There were no demographic or comorbidity differences between EMS-positive and EMS-negative subjects, and marker levels did not correlate with more severe tear film measures. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the individuals with DE tested positive for 1 or more EMS antibodies, including men and Hispanics. Future studies will be needed to understand how to incorporate EMS data into the care of an individual with DE.
Authors: S C Shiboski; C H Shiboski; L A Criswell; A N Baer; S Challacombe; H Lanfranchi; M Schiødt; H Umehara; F Vivino; Y Zhao; Y Dong; D Greenspan; A M Heidenreich; P Helin; B Kirkham; K Kitagawa; G Larkin; M Li; T Lietman; J Lindegaard; N McNamara; K Sack; P Shirlaw; S Sugai; C Vollenweider; J Whitcher; A Wu; S Zhang; W Zhang; J S Greenspan; T E Daniels Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: James S Wolffsohn; Reiko Arita; Robin Chalmers; Ali Djalilian; Murat Dogru; Kathy Dumbleton; Preeya K Gupta; Paul Karpecki; Sihem Lazreg; Heiko Pult; Benjamin D Sullivan; Alan Tomlinson; Louis Tong; Edoardo Villani; Kyung Chul Yoon; Lyndon Jones; Jennifer P Craig Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 5.033
Authors: Priya M Mathews; Sarah Hahn; Michelle Hessen; Jean Kim; Thomas Grader-Beck; Julius Birnbaum; Alan N Baer; Esen K Akpek Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Troy E Daniels; Lindsey A Criswell; Caroline Shiboski; Stephen Shiboski; Hector Lanfranchi; Yi Dong; Morten Schiødt; Hisanori Umehara; Susumu Sugai; Stephen Challacombe; John S Greenspan Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2009-05-15
Authors: Peter M Izmirly; Jill P Buyon; Isabella Wan; H Michael Belmont; Sara Sahl; Jane E Salmon; Anca Askanase; Joan M Bathon; Laura Geraldino-Pardilla; Yousaf Ali; Ellen M Ginzler; Chaim Putterman; Caroline Gordon; Charles G Helmick; Hilary Parton Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Vatinee Y Bunya; Gui-Shuang Ying; Maureen G Maguire; Eric Kuklinski; Meng C Lin; Ellen Peskin; Penny A Asbell Journal: Cornea Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Arjun Watane; Kara M Cavuoto; Mario Rojas; Harrison Dermer; Joanne O Day; Santanu Banerjee; Anat Galor Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 5.258