4.0 Article

Persistence of Increased Eotaxin-1 (CCL11) Level in Tears of Patients Wearing Contact Lenses: A Long-Term Follow-Up Study

Journal

KLINISCHE MONATSBLATTER FUR AUGENHEILKUNDE
Volume 228, Issue 4, Pages 326-329

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1273208

Keywords

eotaxin; contact lens; tears; conjunctiva

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Eotaxin-1 (CCL11) is a potent eosinophil chemotactic and activating peptide that may be implicated in the pathogenesis of chronic allergic eye disease and has been associated with the wearing of contact lenses (CL) in patients with contact lens papillary conjunctivitis (CLPC). The purpose of this study was to study eotaxin-1 expression in the tears of long-term CL wearers. Patients and Methods: Tears were collected with glass capillaries from 15 patients (2 male, 13 female) with various degree of CLPC at 2-year intervals. CLPC severity was graded from 0 to 4 with reference to standard slit-lamp photographs of the superior tarsal conjunctiva. The eotaxin-1 level in the tears was measured by an ELISA, using mouse anti-human eotaxin monoclonal antibodies. Results: The mean age was 32.5 +/- 13.3 years (range: 17-69 years). The mean interval between the tear collections was 30 +/- 4.8 months. The mean concentration of eotaxin was 2150 +/- 477 pg/mL and 2486 +/- 810 pg/mL for the first and second series, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant (paired Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis, p = 0.803). The mean score of papilla grade was 1.26 +/- 0.18 for the first sample and 1.40 +/- 0.19 two years later. There was no significant difference of grading between the two time periods (paired Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis, p = 0.751). Conclusions: the eotaxin-1 level remains up-regulated over a long time period in patients wearing CL, most of them with chronic CLPC. Eotaxin may play a role in the pathogenesis of contact lens intolerance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available