Development and validation of a new photographic scale to grade lid wiper epitheliopathy

Investigating the Effect of Reducing the Signs and Symptoms of Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy in Patients With Dry Eye Disease With Perfluorohexyloctane

Background

Perfluorohexyloctane (PFHO) acts to prevent the evaporation of the tear film. It has the potential to limit friction related issues between the eye lid margin and the ocular surface. Prior to the present work, this had not yet been evaluated.

Objective

To examine the potential of using perfluorohexyloctane for reducing the signs and symptoms of lid wiper epitheliopathy (LWE).

Methods

Data were collected at 4 visits spanning 2 months. Patients who had symptomatic dry eye and a LWE score of ≥1.0 on the Korb LWE scale were recruited. Participants were randomized to PFHO 4 times a day or no treatment. Lid wiper epitheliopathy was graded at each visit with the Korb and photographic LWE (PLWE) scales. Symptoms were assessed using the Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness questionnaire and visual analog scales (0-100).

Results

A total of 52 participants were enrolled (mean ± SD age, 49.7 ± 15.7 years; 79% female). Right eyes in the treatment group were significantly more likely to show an improvement of ≥0.5-units in PLWE scores at 2 months than the no treatment group (P = 0.04), but no left eye differences were noted. Korb and PLWE scores were significantly better in the treatment group compared with the no treatment group starting at 2 weeks and remained so for the duration of the study (all P < 0.001). Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness scores and dry eye symptoms were significantly better in the treatment than in the no treatment group at the 2-month visit (all P ≤ 0.01).

Conclusions

Perfluorohexyloctane significantly reduced LWE and improved dry eye symptoms compared with no treatment, suggesting that PFHO may enhance ocular lubrication and reduce friction-related damage. Masked, randomized, trials are still needed to compare PFHO to other treatments in participants with LWE to support generalizability of results. ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT06671041.

A Comparison of Physical Characteristics in Different Brands and Staining Techniques in a Brand of Lissamine Green Strips

Backgrounds/Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare differences in the physical characteristics of lissamine green (LG) strips and the outcomes of using different staining techniques. Methods: Two separate complementary investigations were conducted. Physical study: Differences between four LG strips were evaluated in terms of material, dye concentration, and dye absorption. In vivo study: Bulbar conjunctival staining was compared for four application methods of I-DEW LG strips presented in a randomized order for twenty-two participants: (1) single application 5 s after wetting (also repeated using GreenGlo for comparison), (2) single application using two strips held together, 5 s after wetting, (3) two applications using a single LG strip 5 s after wetting, 1 minute apart, (4) the same as method 3, with a single fluorescein strip in between LG applications. White light imaging was performed immediately following application and after 30, 60, 90, and 300 s. Three masked practitioners independently evaluated the randomized staining images for spot count and staining intensity. Results: Physical study: Strip paper fibres demonstrated visible similarities, with no difference in saline absorption (p > 0.05). LG concentration increased as saline retention duration increased (F = 964.1, p < 0.001), and GreenGlo tips were significantly darker (F = 2775.2, p < 0.001). In vivo study: I-DEW application resulted in less conjunctival staining than GreenGlo (p < 0.001). Amongst I-DEW application techniques, staining levels were similar (p > 0.05); however, staining intensity was significantly higher following two applications of I-DEW, 1 min apart, compared to a single application (p = 0.042). Both spot count and staining intensity decreased with time (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Two applications of I-DEW using a single strip, 1 min apart, after wetting with a single drop of saline provided maximal staining. There was also a significant difference in staining intensity observed between LG products.

Lid wiper epitheliopathy: Topical review of current identification strategies and future perspectives

Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy (LWE) is a recognized ocular condition affecting visual quality and ocular comfort, characterized by the damage of the marginal conjunctiva of the upper eyelid. This review critically examines the current strategies for LWE identification and explores the multifactorial etiology of LWE and its association with various ocular surface diseases. A literature review conducted on PubMed identified 67 relevant studies, which were analyzed to enhance understanding of LWE's diagnostic criteria and its clinical implications, offering future perspectives on improving diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes. The association between LWE and contact lens-related discomfort is examined, with studies reporting conflicting findings regarding its prevalence and severity among soft contact lens wearers. Moreover, LWE has been linked to tear film abnormalities, altered tear composition, and eyelid margin abnormalities in non-contact lens wearers, further complicating diagnosis and management. Current LWE grading systems, including subjective methods and semi-objective approaches, are reviewed, highlighting challenges such as subjectivity, complexity, and variability. Recent advances in LWE grading, including semi-automated methods and photographic scales, show promise but face implementation challenges in clinical settings. The review concludes by proposing areas for further research, including investigating factors contributing to LWE onset and development, developing more sensitive diagnostic tools, and exploring the impact of LWE on ocular surface health and visual function. Standardization, validation, and innovation in grading systems are emphasized to enhance diagnostic accuracy and improve clinical outcomes for patients with LWE. Ongoing research in LWE grading is essential for addressing diagnostic challenges and optimizing assessment methodologies in clinical practice.

Development of a dry eye index as a new biomarker of dry eye disease

PURPOSE

To evaluate signs and symptoms in patients diagnosed with dry eye disease (DED), divided into dry eye (DE) groups, in order to find a new biomarker that allows an accurate diagnosis, management and classification of DED.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, observational study included 71 DED subjects. Subjective symptoms, visual quality and DE signs were assessed using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), the Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire, best corrected distance visual acuity (VA), functional visual acuity (FVA), contrast sensitivity (CS), high- and low-order corneal aberrations (HOA and LOA, respectively), tear break-up time (TBUT), Meibomian Gland Dysfunction (MGD), Schirmer test, corneal staining, lid wiper epitheliopathy (LWE) and meibography. Participants were classified into three groups based on dryness severity using a cluster analysis, i.e., mild (N = 17, 55.8 ± 15.4 years), moderate (N = 41, 63.5 ± 10.6 years) and severe (N = 13, 65.0 ± 12.0). A new Dry Eye Severity Index (DESI) based on ocular surface signs has been developed and its association with symptoms, visual quality and signs was assessed. Comparisons between groups were made using Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-squared tests. Spearman correlation analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

The DESI was based on three tests for DE signs: TBUT, Schirmer test and MGD. The DESI showed significant differences between different pairs of groups: Mild Dryness versus Moderate Dryness (p < 0.001), Mild Dryness versus Severe Dryness (p < 0.001) and Moderate Dryness versus Severe Dryness (p < 0.001). The DESI was significantly correlated with age (rho = -0.30; p = 0.01), OSDI score (rho = -0.32; p = 0.007), QoV score (rho = -0.35; p = 0.003), VA (rho = -0.34; p = 0.003), FVA (rho = -0.38; p = 0.001) and CS (rho = 0.42; p < 0.001) Also, significant differences between the severity groups were found for OSDI and QoV scores, VA, FVA, CS and MGD (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The DESI has good performance as a biomarker for the diagnosis, classification and management of DED.

Optimizing the methodology for the assessment of bulbar conjunctival lissamine green staining

SIGNIFICANCE

When using lissamine green for bulbar conjunctival evaluation, the most staining was observed with two applications of the same strip in the same eye, wetted with a drop of saline. The first application was 5 seconds after wetting the strip, and the second was 1 minute later, followed by immediate viewing. This suggests that bulbar staining should be viewed before the lid wiper region.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to optimize the assessment of lissamine green staining of the bulbar conjunctiva by investigating the application technique and subsequent observation period.

METHODS

Twenty-two participants with dry eye (as defined by the Tear Film and Ocular Surface Society Dry Eye Workshop II) were recruited to trial five application methods in randomized order: (1) application immediately after wetting a single strip, (2) application 5 seconds after wetting a single strip, (3) application 10 seconds after wetting a single strip, (4) consecutive single application of sodium fluorescein followed by lissamine green 5 seconds after wetting, and (5) two applications using the same lissamine green strip 5 seconds after wetting, 1 minute apart. Slit-lamp photography of the conjunctiva was performed immediately following application and at 30, 60, 90, and 300 seconds after application. Three experienced (masked) practitioners independently quantified the visible punctate spots and graded the staining intensity within the images in a random order.

RESULTS

Values for punctate spot count ( F = 6.29, p<0.0001) and lissamine green staining intensity ( F = 6.29, p<0.0001) varied significantly between the different application methods. Using two applications of the same lissamine green strip, 1 minute apart, in the same eye resulted in the greatest values for both punctate spot count and lissamine green staining intensity. Lissamine green staining decreased with time for both spot count ( F = 18.87, p<0.0001) and lissamine green staining intensity ( F = 11.33, p<0.0001), with the most staining found immediately after application followed by a gradual decline. There was no evidence of any interaction effect between time and application method for either measure (p>0.05 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal approach for assessing bulbar conjunctival lissamine green staining involves two applications of a whole infused drop resting on the same strip for 5 seconds, applied 1 minute apart. The ocular surface should be viewed immediately after application to maximize the conjunctival staining observed.

End-of-day assessment of asymptomatic versus highly symptomatic soft contact lens wearers

PURPOSE

To investigate differences in key clinical parameters between asymptomatic and highly symptomatic soft contact lens (CL) wearers after 14 h of wear.

METHODS

In this pilot investigation, Phase 1 identified asymptomatic (CLDEQ-8 score ≤ 7) and highly symptomatic (CLDEQ-8 score ≥ 20) subjects after fitting with nelfilcon A CLs. Phase 2 investigated the following over a single nelfilcon A CL-wearing day (14 ± 2 h): blinking characteristics, tear meniscus height (TMH), non-invasive tear break-up time (NIBUT), tear film osmolarity and eyelid margin staining. Parameters for the two groups were compared using linear mixed models and post-hoc testing. The relationship between comfort scores and the clinical parameters was also investigated.

RESULTS

Overall, 161 and 42 subjects were enrolled into Phase 1 and 2, respectively. Twenty-five asymptomatic and 17 symptomatic subjects completed Phase 2. Lower eyelid TMH was decreased after 14 h in symptomatic compared with asymptomatic subjects (least square mean [LSM] difference -0.04 mm, 95% CI: -0.07, -0.01). Osmolarity was lower in symptomatic than in asymptomatic subjects at fitting (LSM difference -9.89, 95% CI: -18.91, -0.86). Upper eyelid margin staining was greater after 14 h in symptomatic than in asymptomatic subjects (LSM difference 0.53, 95% CI: 0.01, 1.05) and greater after 14 h than baseline in the symptomatic group (LSM difference 0.61, 95% CI: 0.16, 1.07). There was a significant relationship between comfort and upper eyelid margin staining (r = -0.40, 95% CI: -0.63, -0.11) and blink rate (r = -0.31, 95% CI: -0.57, -0.003).

CONCLUSION

The potential parameters most effective in differentiating asymptomatic from symptomatic wearers were upper eyelid margin staining and lower TMH. The parameter with the strongest relationship to comfort was upper eyelid margin staining, where higher comfort scores were associated with lower levels of staining.

A Hue-Value method for semi-automated assessment of Lid Wiper Epitheliopathy

BACKGROUND

Lid wiper epitheliopathy (LWE) is a marker of an abnormal lid/cornea interaction. This study proposes an automated Hue-Value grading algorithm of LWE staining following manual selection of the region of interest.

METHODS

Images of LWE staining were processed using Hue and Value from HSV (Hue-Saturation-Value) color space with a custom MATLAB program. Thirty-one images were successfully analyzed. Examiners analyzed images in random order twice, separated by more than a week. Bland Altman and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were performed.

RESULTS

There was no difference (p > 0.05) between upper (UL) and lower (LL) eyelids for LWE height (UL: 0.12 ± 0.12 mm, LL: 0.12 ± 0.07 mm), width (UL: 10.70 ± 3.84 mm, LL: 10.26 ± 3.49 mm), or area (UL: 2.85 ± 2.67 mm2, LL: 2.63 ± 1.71 mm2). There was no between examiner difference for all eyelid LWE height or area (p > 0.05), but a difference in LWE width (0.16 mm; p = 0.031). ICC for LWE height, width and area were 0.996 (95% CI: 0.993 to 0.998), 0.997 (95% CI: 0.992 to 0.998) and 0.999 (95% CI: 0.998 to 0.999). There was no between examiner difference for height or area (p > 0.05) for UL, but a difference in LWE width (0.28 mm; p = 0.026). ICC for height, width and area were 0.999 (95% CI: 0.996 to 1.00), 0.995 (95% CI: 0.982 to 0.999) and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.999 to 1.00). There was no difference in LWE height, width or area for LL (all p > 0.05). ICC were 0.991 (95% CI: 0.973 to 0.997) for height, 0.998 (95% CI: 0.995 to 0.999) for width and 0.997 (95% CI: 0.990 to 0.999) for area.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel method results in highly repeatable interexaminer measures of LWE staining after general lid region delineation. Small differences in LWE width were observed between examiners.