| Literature DB >> 31758085 |
Jiaxin Xiao1,2, Muhammed Yasin Adil3,4, Jonatan Olafsson3,5, Xiangjun Chen5,6,7,8,9, Øygunn A Utheim5, Sten Ræder5, Neil S Lagali6,10, Darlene A Dartt11, Tor P Utheim4,6,7,12,8,9,13.
Abstract
Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is the leading cause of dry eye and proposed treatments are based on disease severity. Our purpose was to establish reliable morphologic measurements of meibomian glands for evaluating MGD severity. This retrospective, cross-sectional study included 100 MGD patients and 20 controls. The patients were classified into dry eye severity level (DESL) 1-4 based on symptoms and clinical parameters including tear-film breakup time, ocular staining and Schirmer I. The gland loss, length, thickness, density and distortion were analyzed. We compared the morphology between patients and controls; examined their correlations to meibum expressibility, quality, and DESL. Relative to controls, the gland thickness, density and distortion were elevated in patients (p < 0.001 for all tests). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.0) for gland loss, and 0.96 (CI 0.91-1.0) for gland distortion, with a cutoff value of six distorted glands yielding a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 97% for MGD diagnosis. The gland distortion was negatively correlated to the meibum expressibility (r = -0.53; p < 0.001) and DESL (r = -0.22, p = 0.018). In conclusion, evaluation of meibomian gland loss and distortion are valuable complementary clinical parameters to assess MGD status.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31758085 PMCID: PMC6874668 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-54013-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Comparison of morphologic and functional parameters between MGD patients and healthy controls.
| Patients (n = 100) | Controls (n = 20) | Mann-Whitney U | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meibograde (score 0–6) | 2.39 ± 1.63 | 0.35 ± 0.53 | <0.001* |
| Computerized dropout (%) | 35.6 ± 14.2 | 27.1 ± 13.3 | 0.022* |
| MG thickness (ImageJ pixels) | 32.3 ± 10.6 | 20.9 ± 3.65 | <0.001* |
| MG density (ImageJ pixels) | 29.2 ± 8.9 | 20.4 ± 16.5 | <0.001* |
| MG length (ImageJ pixels) | 136.8 ± 52.9 | 298.5 ± 49.2 | <0.001* |
| Number of distorted glands | 6.8 ± 3.9 | 3.3 ± 2.1 | <0.001* |
| Meibum quality (score 0–24) | 9.8 ± 4.8 | 0.05 ± 0.22 | <0.001* |
| Meibum expressibility (score 0–3) | 1.0 ± 0.9 | 0.7 ± 0.8 | 0.387 |
MG = meibomian gland.
*Indicates significance after adjusting for the influence of age using a general linear model.
Figure 1The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve for the detection of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) using morphologic measurements. (A) Represents the ROC curves for the detection of MGD by meibograde (AUC = 0.98), number of distorted glands (AUC = 0.96) computerized dropout (AUC = 0.69), MG thickness (AUC = 0.66), MG density (AUC = 0.58), meibum expressibility (AUC = 0.62) and quality (AUC = 0.98). (B) Illustrates the ROC curve for detection of MGD by MG length (AUC = 0,95). ROC; receiver operative characteristic curve, MGD; meibomian gland dysfunction, MG:meibomian gland, AUC; area under the ROC curve.
Pearson correlation between morphologic parameters, DESL, and meibum expressibility and quality.
| DESL (score 0–4) | Meibum expressibility (score 0–3) | Meibum quality (score 0–24) | No. of distorted glands | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meibograde (score 0–6) | 0.17* | 0.53** | 0.18 | −0.60** |
| Computerized dropout (%) | 0.11 | 0.43** | 0.12 | −0.66** |
| MG thickness (ImageJ pixels) | −0.15** | −0.53** | 0.03 | −0.62 |
| MG density (ImageJ pixels) | −0.06** | −0.27* | −0.04 | 0.35** |
| MG length (ImageJ pixels) | −0.13** | −0.53* * | −0.11 | 0.62** |
| Number of distorted glands | −0.22* | −0.47* * | −0.10 | |
| Meibum quality (score 0–24) | 0.06 | −0.068 | −0.24 | |
| Meibum expressibility(score 0–3) | 0.21* | −0.47** |
MG = meibomian gland.
*P < 0.05.
**P < 0.001.
Kappa values and ICC for intra- and interobserver variability in evaluating MG morphology.
| Meibograde | Computerized dropout | MG thickness | MG density | MG length | Number of distorted MGs | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intraobserver | 0.84 (0.80–0.88) | 0.89 (0.84–0.92) | 0.84 (0.74–0.90) | 0.82 (0.73–0.88) | 0.94 (0.91–0.96) | 0.87 (0.79–0.92) |
| Interobserver | 0.81 (0.76–0.86) | 0.81 (0.75–0.86) | 0.65 (0.14–0.83) | 0.62 (0.45–0.74) | 0.90 (0.56–0.96) | 0.53 (0.08–0.75) |
MG = meibomian gland.
Kappa values of <0.01, 0.01–0.20, 0.21–0.40, 0.41–0.60, 0.61–0.80, and 0.81–1.00 correspond to poor, slight, fair, moderate, substantial, and almost perfect agreement, respectively[16].
ICC of <0.5, 0.5–0.75, 0.75–0.90, and 0.90–1.00 correspond to poor, moderate, good, and excellent reliability, respectively[18].
Dry eye severity grading scheme.
| Dry Eye Severity Level | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discomfort, severity and frequency | Mild and/or episodic | Moderate episodic or chronic | Severe frequent or constant | Severe and/or disabling and constant |
| Conjunctival staining | None to mild | Variable | Moderate to marked | Marked |
| Corneal staining (severity/location) | None to mild | Variable | Marked central | Severe punctate erosions |
| TFBUT (sec) | Variable | ≤10 | ≤5 | Immediate |
| Schirmer I score (mm/5 min) | Variable | ≤10 | ≤5 | ≤2 |
*Must have signs AND symptoms. TFBUT = tear-film breakup time.
Figure 2The number of distorted glands in the upper eyelids. (A) A total of 7 distorted glands were found in eyelid with meibograde 0. (B) The eyelid with meibograde of 2 had four distorted glands.
Figure 3Computerized morphological measurements performed in the upper eyelid. (A) Three different measurements of MG length (red lines), thickness (yellow bars), and density (gap between two adjacent MGs indicated with green bars). (B) Calculation of the angle for counting the number of distorted glands in the upper eyelid.