| Literature DB >> 32832253 |
Xiaolei Lin1,2,3,4, Yue Wu1,2,3, Yiqin Chen1,2,3, Yuyu Zhao1,2,3, Linfeng Xiang1,2,3, Qi Dai1,2,3, Yana Fu1,2,3, Yinying Zhao1,2,3, Yun-E Zhao1,2,3.
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the characteristics of meibomian gland (MG) atrophy and its potential risk factors in the age-related cataract population.Entities:
Keywords: dyslipidemia; gender; meibomian gland atrophy; risk factor; triglyceride
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32832253 PMCID: PMC7414668 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.9.7.48
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.283
Figure.The meibomian gland atrophy ratio analyzed by ImageJ software. The “polygonselections” function of the ImageJ software was used to line out the edge of the atrophy area of the upper eyelid (A) and lower eyelid (B). The area of the whole tarsus was measured by the same method. The meibomian gland atrophy ratio was defined as the ratio of meibomian gland atrophy area compared to the total area of the tarsus.
Tear Film Function and Meibomian Gland Morphologic Evaluation between Different Subgroups
| MGAR | Meiboscore | NIBUT-Avg | TMH | LLT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, yrs | |||||
| 40–50 | 28.98% ± 11.41% | 2.81 ± 0.91 | 8.15 ± 4.43 | 0.19 ± 0.07 | 57.44 ± 20.41 |
| 50–60 | 31.53% ± 9.70% | 2.88 ± 0.80 | 8.14 ± 4.75 | 0.19 ± 0.08 | 65.48 ± 20.62 |
| 60–70 | 31.60% ± 9.79% | 2.83 ± 0.78 | 7.04 ± 4.74 | 0.21 ± 0.10 | 70.41 ± 20.84 |
| 70–80 | 32.73% ± 10.81% | 2.96 ± 0.83 | 7.66 ± 5.46 | 0.21 ± 0.10 | 78.42 ± 20.08 |
| 80–90 | 33.52% ± 10.03% | 2.96 ± 0.80 | 7.14 ± 5.56 | 0.23 ± 0.11 | 83.00 ± 19.81 |
| ≥90 | 34.11% ± 10.13% | 2.95 ± 0.86 | 4.73 ± 3.95 | 0.21 ± 0.09 | 84.71 ± 20.73 |
| Sex | |||||
| Man | 33.69% ± 11.12% | 2.99 ± 0.85 | 7.46 ± 5.25 | 0.22 ± 0.10 | 76.00 ± 21.70 |
| Woman | 31.86% ± 10.00% | 2.88 ± 0.80 | 7.42 ± 5.20 | 0.21 ± 0.10 | 75.59 ± 21.04 |
| BMI | |||||
| <18.5 | 33.54% ± 10.89% | 2.98 ± 0.88 | 7.81 ± 5.79 | 0.21 ± 0.11 | 73.84 ± 23.52 |
| 18.5–24.9 | 32.28% ± 10.19% | 2.92 ± 0.80 | 7.74 ± 5.29 | 0.21 ± 0.09 | 74.68 ± 21.29 |
| ≥25 | 33.41% ± 10.09% | 2.97 ± 0.83 | 6.67 ± 4.80 | 0.22 ± 0.11 | 78.67 ± 19.51 |
| Hypertension | |||||
| No | 32.25% ± 10.18% | 2.90 ± 0.80 | 7.62 ± 5.18 | 0.20 ± 0.09 | 71.92 ± 20.93 |
| Yes | 32.46% ± 10.49% | 2.93 ± 0.83 | 7.26 ± 5.24 | 0.22 ± 0.10 | 79.24 ± 20.88 |
| Diabetes | |||||
| No | 32.06% ± 10.46% | 2.89 ± 0.82 | 7.53 ± 5.30 | 0.21 ± 0.10 | 74.86 ± 21.14 |
| Yes | 33.77% ± 9.55% | 3.01 ± 0.80 | 6.96 ± 4.77 | 0.23 ± 0.11 | 79.91 ± 21.13 |
| Dyslipidemia | |||||
| No | 32.99% ± 9.90% | 2.97 ± 0.82 | 7.52 ± 5.36 | 0.21 ± 0.10 | 75.44 ± 21.51 |
| Yes | 31.76% ± 10.51% | 2.86 ± 0.81 | 7.41 ± 5.11 | 0.22 ± 0.10 | 76.19 ± 20.73 |
Univariate Logistic Regression of Systemic Factors Associated with Meibomian Gland Atrophy
| Meiboscore | MGAR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exposure | β Coefficient (95%CI) |
| β Coefficient (95%CI) |
|
| Age | 0.007 (0.002, 0.013) | 0.006 | 0.143 (0.072, 0.215) | <0.001 |
| Sex | ||||
| Man | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Woman | −0.111 (−0.221, −0.002) | 0.046 | −1.721 (−3.239, −0.202) | 0.026 |
| Hypertension | ||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | 0.029 (−0.078, 0.136) | 0.600 | 0.333 (−1.159, 1.825) | 0.662 |
| Diabetes | ||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | 0.132 (−0.010, 0.275) | 0.069 | 2.140 (0.075, 4.204) | 0.042 |
| BMI | ||||
| <18.5 | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| 18.5–24.9 | −0.037 (−0.240, 0.166) | 0.721 | −1.110 (−3.963, 1.743) | 0.446 |
| ≥25 | −0.037 (−0.264, 0.189) | 0.747 | −1.075 (−4.176, 2.027) | 0.497 |
| Triglyceride | −0.066 (−0.121, −0.010) | 0.020 | −0.866 (−1.690, −0.041) | 0.040 |
| Total cholesterol | −0.017 (−0.071, 0.037) | 0.546 | −0.134 (−0.879, 0.610) | 0.724 |
| HDL | 0.012 (−0.113, 0.137) | 0.851 | 0.237 (−1.445, 1.918) | 0.783 |
| LDL | −0.017 (−0.077, 0.042) | 0.569 | −0.134 (−0.955, 0.688) | 0.750 |
| Dyslipidemia | ||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | −0.157 (−0.264, −0.049) | 0.004 | −2.518 (−4.009, −1.028) | <0.001 |
The table showed β coefficient (95%CI) and P value.
Generalized estimate equation were used. In the analysis, the following variables were set as controls: man, no hypertension, no diabetes, BMI < 18.5, no dyslipidemia, therefore their values were “0.”
Multivariate Analysis of the Associations Between Blood Lipid and Meibomian Gland Atrophy With Adjusted Models
| Meiboscore | MGAR | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model I | Model II | Model I | Model II | |||||
| Exposure | β (95%CI) |
| β (95%CI) |
| β (95%CI) |
| β (95%CI) |
|
| Triglyceride | −0.065 (−0.119, −0.011) | 0.018 | −0.065 (−0.119, −0.011) | 0.019 | −0.799 (−1.597, −0.002) | 0.050 | −0.766 (−1.570, 0.037) | 0.062 |
| Total cholesterol | 0.007 (−0.048, 0.062) | 0.799 | 0.006 (−0.049, 0.061) | 0.823 | 0.271 (−0.474, 1.017) | 0.476 | 0.244 (−0.501, 0.990) | 0.521 |
| HDL | 0.038 (−0.090, 0.166) | 0.558 | 0.035 (−0.093, 0.164) | 0.589 | 0.530 (−1.195, 2.254) | 0.547 | 0.422 (−1.321, 2.165) | 0.635 |
| LDL | 0.001 (−0.059, 0.062) | 0.964 | 0.001 (−0.059, 0.062) | 0.970 | 0.192 (−0.627, 1.012) | 0.645 | 0.177 (−0.646, 1.000) | 0.673 |
| Dyslipidemia | ||||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
| Yes | −0.139 (−0.247, −0.031) | 0.012 | −0.133 (−0.241, −0.025) | 0.016 | −0.022 (−0.037, −0.007) | 0.003 | −0.021 (−0.036, −0.006) | 0.006 |
The table showed β (95%CI) and P value. β, regression coefficient.
Model I adjusted for age, BMI. And Model II adjusted for age, BMI, hypertension, and fasting plasma glucose.
Reference, control value. In the analysis, no dyslipidemia was set as a control and therefore its values was “0.”
Multivariate Analysis of the Associations Between Blood Lipid and Meibomian Gland Atrophy in Different Sexes
| Men | Women | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β (95%CI) |
| β (95%CI) |
| |
| Meiboscore | ||||
| Model I | ||||
| Triglyceride | −0.052 (−0.137, 0.032) | 0.223 | −0.072 (−0.139, −0.005) | 0.034 |
| Total cholesterol | −0.044 (−0.132, 0.044) | 0.327 | 0.051 (−0.019, 0.121) | 0.152 |
| HDL | −0.036 (−0.206, 0.133) | 0.674 | 0.106 (−0.074, 0.286) | 0.249 |
| LDL | −0.073 (−0.164, 0.017) | 0.112 | 0.059 (−0.019, 0.138) | 0.138 |
| Dyslipidemia | ||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | −0.095 (−0.266, 0.077) | 0.279 | −0.160 (−0.299, −0.021) | 0.024 |
| Model II | ||||
| Triglyceride | −0.053 (−0.137, 0.031) | 0.214 | −0.077 (−0.145, −0.008) | 0.029 |
| Total cholesterol | −0.050 (−0.137, 0.038) | 0.263 | 0.050 (−0.021, 0.120) | 0.168 |
| HDL | −0.042 (−0.214, 0.130) | 0.632 | 0.115 (−0.066, 0.297) | 0.214 |
| LDL | −0.076 (−0.166, 0.014) | 0.100 | 0.058 (−0.021, 0.137) | 0.148 |
| Dyslipidemia | ||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | −0.104 (−0.276, 0.068) | 0.237 | −0.163 (−0.304, −0.022) | 0.023 |
| MGAR | ||||
| Model I | ||||
| Triglyceride | −0.602 (−1.900, 0.696) | 0.363 | −0.911 (−1.848, 0.026) | 0.057 |
| Total cholesterol | −0.321 (−1.517, 0.874) | 0.598 | 0.774 (−0.192, 1.741) | 0.116 |
| HDL | 0.160 (−2.075, 2.395) | 0.888 | 0.899 (−1.661, 3.458) | 0.491 |
| LDL | −0.809 (−2.063, 0.445) | 0.206 | 0.947 (−0.124, 2.018) | 0.083 |
| Dyslipidemia | ||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | −0.018 (−0.041, 0.006) | 0.145 | −0.024 (−0.043, −0.004) | 0.017 |
| Model II | ||||
| Triglyceride | −0.580 (−1.852, 0.692) | 0.371 | −0.956 (−1.926, 0.014) | 0.053 |
| Total cholesterol | −0.467 (−1.640, 0.706) | 0.435 | 0.737 (−0.250, 1.724) | 0.143 |
| HDL | −0.049 (−2.354, 2.256) | 0.967 | 1.036 (−1.540, 3.611) | 0.431 |
| LDL | −0.864 (−2.101, 0.373) | 0.171 | 0.901 (−0.186, 1.988) | 0.104 |
| Dyslipidemia | ||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Yes | −0.019 (−0.042, 0.005) | 0.122 | −0.024 (−0.044, −0.004) | 0.017 |
The table showed β (95%CI) and P value. β, regression coefficient.
Model I adjusted for age, BMI. And Model II adjusted for age, BMI, hypertension, and fasting plasma glucose.
Reference, control value. In the analysis, no dyslipidemia was set as a control and therefore its values was “0.”