4.6 Article

Evaluation of point-of-care test for elevated tear matrix metalloproteinase 9 in post-LASIK dry eyes

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 100, 期 9, 页码 1188-1191

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307607

关键词

Tears

资金

  1. Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong [2041710]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To evaluate the performance of a point-of-care test for detection of matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9) levels in post-laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) dry eyes. Methods A comparative study between patients with mild to moderate post-LASIK dry eyes and age-matched normal subjects was conducted. Ocular surface disease index (OSDI), tear break-up time (TBUT), and tear film MMP-9 and total protein levels were compared between the two groups. A point-of-care test device (RPS InflammaDry, Sarasota, Florida, USA) was utilised to confirm elevated MMP-9 levels in tear film. Results Fourteen post-LASIK dry eyes and 34 normal eyes were included. There was no significant difference in age and gender between both groups (p>0.175). The OSDI was significantly higher (25.57.7 vs 7.4 +/- 2.5; p<0.001) and TBUT levels were significantly lower (5.4 +/- 0.9 vs 13.5 +/- 2.3; p<0.001) in patients with dry eye compared with normal subjects. The tear film MMP-9 levels were 52.7 +/- 32.5ng/mL in dry eyes and 4.1 +/- 2.1ng/mL in normal eyes (p<0.001). MMP-9 levels were >40ng/mL in 7/14 (50.0%) post-LASIK dry eyes. The InflammaDry was positive in 8/14 (57.1%) post-LASIK eyes. All positive cases had tear film MMP-9 levels 38.03ng/mL. Agreement between InflammaDry and MMP-9 was excellent with Cohen value of 0.857 in post-LASIK dry eyes. Conclusions Only half of post-LASIK dry eyes were found to have significant inflammation associated with elevated MMP-9. The OSDI is useful to non-specifically identify patients with symptomatic dry eye while the InflammaDry determined which patients with dry eye were associated with significant inflammation that may guide therapeutic management decisions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据