Classification of dry eye disease subtypes.

PURPOSE: The current subclassifications of dry eye disease (DED) are aqueous deficient (ADDE) and evaporative (EDE) forms, but there lacks consistency in the clinical characteristics used to define each of these. This study used clinical data to inform cut-off values for the subclassification of ADDE and EDE, to allow more consistent study of the epidemiology of both DED subtypes. METHODS: The study enrolled 261 residents from the UK, extracted from a cohort with demographics representing the population (mean 42.4 ± 18.7 years, 56 % females). The TFOS DEWS II diagnostic criteria were used to identify those with DED. Meibomian gland loss/drop-out (from meibography), lipid layer thickness (LLT - from interferometry graded on the Guillon-Keeler scale), and tear meniscus height (TMH - Keratograph 5M) along with tear evaporation (Delfin Vapometer) were used to characterise the subclassification. The Dry Eye Risk Factor Survey was used to assess risk factors associated with each DED subtype. RESULTS: Compared to individuals who were not diagnosed with DED, EDE was characterized by signs of meibomian gland loss of > 28 %, LLT grade < 3 and tear evaporation > 46 g/m2/h. In contrast, ADDE was best characterized by a reduced TMH < 0.2 mm. Based on these criteria, the prevalence of ADDE was 6.2 %, EDE was 64.2 %, and 11.1 % exhibited features of both ADDE and EDE, with 18.5 % unclassified despite having a DED diagnosis. Contact lens wear and computer use were risk factors for ADDE (p < 0.05), whereas age was a positive risk factor for EDE (p < 0.01). Meibomian gland loss (occurring in 27.9 %) was the most commonly observed sign in EDE. CONCLUSIONS: Data driven-classification of DED confirms that the evaporative form is most prevalent and identified that in a generalisable UK population, ADDE alone occurs only in approximately 1 in 16 cases of DED.

The epidemiology of dry eye disease in the UK: The Aston dry eye study.

PURPOSE: Cross-sectional studies on dry eye disease (DED) have relied on different diagnoses hindering conclusions about the disease epidemiology. This study offers an insight into DED epidemiology in the UK using prior and recent diagnostic recommendations. METHODS: Study participants comprised 282 volunteers from Birmingham, UK (median 40 years, range 18-88 years, 56% females). DED was defined by the Tear Film Ocular Surface Dry Eye Workshop II (TFOS DEWS II) criteria, based on a positive symptom score with the Dry Eye Questionnaire (DEQ-5) and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), and one of the following homeostasis markers: non-invasive tear break-up time of < 10 s (Oculus Keratograph 5M); the highest osmolarity value of ≥ 308 mOsm/L among eyes or an interocular osmolarity difference of > 8 mOsm/L (TearLab Osmolarity System); or > 5 corneal spots, >9 conjunctival spots or lower/upper lid-wiper-epitheliopathy staining of ≥ 2 mm length and ≥ 25% width (Oculus Keratograph 5 M). In addition, the Women's Health Study (WHS) criteria, based on symptoms or a prior dry eye diagnosis, was assessed. DED risk factors were gathered using a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: DED prevalence by the TFOS DEWS II criteria was 32.1% (95% confidence interval 25.5-37.7% and 29.5% (95% confidence interval 24.4-35.1% by the WHS criteria. Female sex, systemic and/or ocular health conditions, short sleep duration and prolonged outdoor leisure time spent were significant DED risk factors (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of the adult UK population have DED, aligning with the prevalence reported in multiple counties globally. Female sex, systemic/ocular health conditions, short sleep duration and prolonged outdoor leisure time are positive predictors of DED.

Influence of accommodation and refractive status on the peripheral refractive profile.

AIM: The aim of the study was to determine, objectively and non-invasively, whether changes in accommodative demand modify differentially the peripheral refraction in emmetropic and myopic human eyes. METHODS: Forty subjects (19 male, 21 female) aged 20-30 years (mean 22.7 (SD 2.8) years), 21 emmetropes (mean spherical equivalent refractive error (MSE) -0.13 (SD 0.29) D) and 19 myopes (MSE -2.95 (SD 1.76) D) participated in the study. Ametropia was corrected with soft contact lenses (etafilcon A, 58% water content). Subjects viewed monocularly a stationary, high contrast (85%) Maltese cross at 0.0, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 D of accommodative demand and at 0, 10, 20 and 30 degrees field angle (nasal and temporal) through a +3.0 D Badal optical system. Static recordings of the accommodation response were obtained for each accommodative level, at each field angle, with an objective, open-view, infrared optometer. RESULTS: Peripheral mean spherical equivalent (M) data showed that the emmetropic cohort exhibited relative myopic shifts into the periphery, while the myopic group showed hypermetropic shifts. Increasing accommodative demand did not alter the peripheral refractive profile in either the temporal (p = 0.25) or nasal (p = 0.07) periphery with no differential accommodative effect between refractive groups in either the temporal (p = 0.77) or nasal (p = 0.73) field. Significant shifts in the J(0) astigmatic component were seen in the temporal (p<0.0005) and nasal (p<0.0005) fields with increasing eccentricity. Interaction effects between eccentricity and accommodative demand illustrated that increasing accommodative demand significantly altered the peripheral refractive profile in the temporal J(0) astigmatic component (p<0.0005). The nasal periphery, however, failed to show such an effect (p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Alterations in peripheral refraction augmented by changes in ocular accommodation are relatively unaffected by refractive error for young, healthy human eyes.

A new optical low coherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients.

BACKGROUND: A new commercially available optical low coherence reflectometry device (Lenstar, Haag-Streit or Allegro Biograph, Wavelight) provides high-resolution non-contact measurements of ocular biometry. The study evaluates the validity and repeatability of these measurements compared with current clinical instrumentation. METHOD: Measurements were taken with the LenStar and IOLMaster on 112 patients aged 41-96 years listed for cataract surgery. A subgroup of 21 patients also had A-scan applanation ultrasonography (OcuScan) performed. Intersession repeatability of the LenStar measurements was assessed on 32 patients. RESULTS: LenStar measurements of white-to-white were similar to the IOLMaster (average difference 0.06 (SD 0.03) D; p = 0.305); corneal curvature measurements were similar to the IOLMaster (average difference -0.04 (0.20) D; p = 0.240); anterior chamber depth measurements were significantly longer than the IOLMaster (by 0.10 (0.40) mm) and ultrasound (by 0.32 (0.62) mm; p<0.001); crystalline lens thickness measurements were similar to ultrasound (difference 0.16 (0.83) mm, p = 0.382); axial length measurements were significantly longer than the IOLMaster (by 0.01 (0.02) mm) but shorter than ultrasound (by 0.14 (0.15) mm; p<0.001). The LensStar was unable to take measurements due to dense media opacities in a similar number of patients to the IOLMaster (9-10%). The LenStar biometric measurements were found to be highly repeatable (variability < or = 2% of average value). CONCLUSIONS: Although there were some statistical differences between ocular biometry measurements between the LenStar and current clinical instruments, they were not clinically significant. LenStar measurements were highly repeatable and the instrument easy to use.

Assessing visual fields for driving in patients with paracentral scotomata.

BACKGROUND: The binocular Esterman visual field test (EVFT) is the current visual field test for driving in the UK. Merging of monocular field tests (Integrated Visual Field, IVF) has been proposed as an alternative for glaucoma patients. AIMS: To examine the level of agreement between the EVFT and IVF for patients with binocular paracentral scotomata, caused by either ophthalmological or neurological conditions, and to compare outcomes with useful field of view (UFOV) performance, a test of visual attention thought to be important in driving. METHODS: 60 patients with binocular paracentral scotomata but normal visual acuity (VA) were recruited prospectively. Subjects completed and were classified as "pass" or "fail" for the EVFT, IVF and UFOV. RESULTS: Good agreement occurred between the EVFT and IVF in classifying subjects as "pass" or "fail" (kappa = 0.84). Classifications disagreed for four subjects with paracentral scotomata of neurological origin (three "passed" IVF yet "failed" EVFT). Mean UFOV scores did not differ between those who "passed" and those who "failed" both visual field tests (p = 0.11). Agreement between the visual field tests and UFOV was limited (EVFT kappa = 0.22, IVF kappa 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Although the IVF and EVFT agree well in classifying visual fields with regard to legal fitness to drive in the UK, the IVF "passes" some individuals currently classed as unfit to drive due to paracentral scotomata of non-glaucomatous origin. The suitability of the UFOV for assessing crash risk in those with visual field loss is questionable.