Literature DB >> 32587220

Dry eye disease in India.

Samrat Chatterjee1, Deepshikha Agrawal1, Arpit Sharma1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32587220      PMCID: PMC7574052          DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2299_19

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0301-4738            Impact factor:   1.848


× No keyword cloud information.
Dear Editor: Recently a study from north India reported 32% prevalence of dry eye disease (DED), and based on symptoms 81% were severe DED.[1] Another study from south India reported 1.46% DED incidence.[2] The authors predicted that within the end of next decade, large number of urban and rural populations would have DED. We recently published our findings of meibomian gland dysfunction.[3] Here we present the unpublished findings of the study related to DED as a secondary analysis. The results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The crude and age-adjusted prevalence rate of DE was 17.7% and 19.0% (95%CI: 15.7–22.1%), respectively. The crude and age-adjusted prevalence rate in males was 15.2% and 18.4% (95%CI: 14.1–22.8%), and in females was 20.5% and 23.3% (95%CI: 18.2–28.4%), respectively.
Table 1

Result of different Dry Eye Disease tests in 570 subjects

DED testsNumber of patients (percentage)Mean±SD (range)
Ocular Surface Disease Index score ≥13140 (24.6)9±12.9 (0-83)
Tear film height <0.3 mm64 (11.2)0.4±0.1 (0.1-0.7) mm
Tear film break-up time <10 seconds(s)386 (67.7)8.3±3.7 (1-15) s
Lissamine Green stain score ≥236 (6.3)0.3±0.7 (0-4)
Schirmer’s I test ≤5 mm at 5 mins74 (13.0)20.2±11.1 (0-35) mm
Table 2

Dry eye disease diagnosis (n=570)

DED diagnosis criteriaNumber (percentages)

TFOS DEWS II
DED:  OSDI ≥13 + one of either TBUT <10 seconds or LGS ≥2101 (17.7)
Evaporative DED:  OSDI + TBUT77 (13.5)
Aqueous tear deficient DED:  OSDI + TBUT/LGS + Tear film height <0.3 mm23 (4.0)

Japanese Dry Eye criteria

Probable DED: Any 2 of:  OSDI ≥13 or TBUT <10 seconds or LGS ≥2126 (22.1)
Definite DED: All 3 of  OSDI ≥13 or TBUT <10 seconds or LGS ≥213 (2.3)

Other combinations

OSDI ≥13 + Schirmer’s I ≤5 mm at 5 mins28 (4.9)
OSDI ≥13 + Schirmer’s I <10 mm at 5 mins40 (7.0)
Meibomian gland dysfunction272 (47.7)
Symptomatic meibomian gland dysfunction (OSDI ≥13)71 (12.4)
Schirmer’s I >5 mm at 5 mins + TBUT <10 seconds but no Meibomian gland dysfunction148 (26.0)
Schirmer’s I ≤5 mm at 5 mins with Meibomian gland dysfunction45 (7.9)

DED: Dry eye disease; OSDI: Ocular surface disease index ®; TFOS DEWSII: Tear film & Ocular Surface Society Dry Eye Workshop II; TBUT: fluorescein tear film break-up time; LGS: lissamine green score; TFH: Tear film height

Result of different Dry Eye Disease tests in 570 subjects Dry eye disease diagnosis (n=570) DED: Dry eye disease; OSDI: Ocular surface disease index ®; TFOS DEWSII: Tear film & Ocular Surface Society Dry Eye Workshop II; TBUT: fluorescein tear film break-up time; LGS: lissamine green score; TFH: Tear film height Our results of lower prevalence offer a different perspective. Some other Indian studies have also reported lesser prevalence rates—18.4%[4] and 15.4%,[5] which are more aligned to ours, and less alarming. All the above studies[12345] are hospital-based, and generalization of results should be done cautiously. Studies[45] reporting low DE prevalence like ours, are from less urban areas than those[12] reporting higher prevalence. The degree of urbanization influences lifestyle, and exposure to environmental risk factors which may explain the differences. Ocular symptoms were less reported in our study. It is possible that the OSDI questionnaire that we used, and which has been designed specifically for a western population, was less suitable in our setting. Our diagnosis criteria was more stringent than others,[1] which may be a reason for the lower prevalence rate. It is also possible that DE is less uniformly distributed across India, with pockets of higher prevalence. Therefore, any extrapolation[2] to whole of India must be done with circumspection. A multi-centric study across India may provide a more representative magnitude of DED.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.
  5 in total

1.  Incidence, demographics, types and risk factors of dry eye disease in India: Electronic medical records driven big data analytics report I.

Authors:  Pragnya Rao Donthineni; Priyanka Kammari; Swapna S Shanbhag; Vivek Singh; Anthony Vipin Das; Sayan Basu
Journal:  Ocul Surf       Date:  2019-02-22       Impact factor: 5.033

2.  Dry eye: prevalence and attributable risk factors in a hospital-based population.

Authors:  Anshu Sahai; Pankaj Malik
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 1.848

3.  A Clinical Study of Subtype-based Prevalence of Dry Eye.

Authors:  Aditya Rege; Varsha Kulkarni; Neelam Puthran; Tejaswini Khandgave
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2013-10-05

4.  Meibomian Gland Dysfunction in a Hospital-Based Population in Central India.

Authors:  Samrat Chatterjee; Deepshikha Agrawal; Arpit Sharma
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 2.651

5.  Prevalence and risk factors of dry eye disease in North India: Ocular surface disease index-based cross-sectional hospital study.

Authors:  Jeewan Singh Titiyal; Ruchita Clara Falera; Manpreet Kaur; Vijay Sharma; Namrata Sharma
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 1.848

  5 in total
  1 in total

1.  Short tear film breakup time-type of dry eye in India.

Authors:  Samrat Chatterjee; Deepshikha Agrawal
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 1.848

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.