Dry Eye Disease Symptoms Among Glaucoma Patients at a Portuguese Hospital.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Glaucoma-related dry eye disease (DED) is often underestimated, but it is an important comorbidity affecting 40% to 59% of glaucoma patients. It may be an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition or a novel disease starting after the initiation of topical medication. The cumulative effect of medication, preservatives and excipients leads to an alteration in tear film composition and ocular surface stability. The main purpose of this investigation was to study a group of Portuguese glaucoma patients regarding the presence of DED symptoms and correlate the severity of the symptoms with the usage of different types of glaucoma topical medications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional observational study of patients diagnosed with primary and secondary open-angle glaucoma. The questionnaire Standardized Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) translated to Portuguese (SPEED-Vp) was taken by patients followed in the Glaucoma Department of Unidade Local de Saúde Entre Douro e Vouga, Santa Maria da Feira, Portugal. Data was collected regarding their age, gender, type of topical medication in use as well as frequency and duration of usage. A statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients answered the SPEED-Vp questionnaire. The mean age was 72 ± 7 years old. Fifty-two percent (n=39) were male, and 48% (n=36) were female patients. About 49.33% (n=37) had been on intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering eyedrops for more than five years. About 61.43% (n=43) of patients used IOP-lowering eyedrops with preservatives. Most of the patients used prostaglandin analogs (75.71%, n=53) and beta-blockers (72.86%, n=51). SPEED score average was 2.75. About 25.33% (n=19) had no DED symptoms, 58.67% (n=44) had mild symptoms, 8% (n=6) had moderate symptoms and 8% (n=6) had severe symptoms. No statistically significant correlation was found between SPEED score and age, gender, number of eyedrop containers, number of active principles, application frequency, presence of preservatives, number of eyedrop containers with preservatives, duration of eyedrops usage or any of the medication groups. CONCLUSION: Although a high percentage of patients were on eyedrops with preservatives, this low rate of symptoms might be because patients tended to devalue these symptoms; were already on treatment with artificial tears; or have an underestimation of the sensation of dry eye due to decreased neuronal corneal nerve responses and density. These results were surprisingly positive. This might also be the result of the healthcare provider's sensibilization to this issue (early diagnosis, early prescription of artificial tears and change from preservative to preservative-free medication).