Self-reported dry eyes and diabetic history.
Self-reported dry eyes and diabetic history.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.optm.2006.08.002
复制
发表时间：
2006-11-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
De Land, Paul
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hom, Milton;De Land, Paul
目的：在以前的研究中，干眼症和糖尿病有关联。然而，糖尿病家族史和自我报告的干眼症之间的联系还需要探索。方法：对392例干眼症患者进行糖尿病史问卷调查，将患者因干眼症引起的不适分为无干眼症、微量干眼症、轻度干眼症、中度干眼症和重度干眼症(0~4分)。结果：34.4%(135/392)的患者有干眼症，29.8%(117/392)的患者可视为临床相关的轻度、中度或重度干眼症。7.4%(29/392)的人报告他们患有糖尿病，35.7%(140/392)的人报告有糖尿病家族史。共有52.9%的糖尿病或临界性糖尿病患者有自我报告的临床相关干眼。在这些有糖尿病家族史的患者中，35.7%的患者和25.6%的无家族史的患者有自我报告的临床相关干眼。糖尿病患者组的中位干燥度评分为2(轻度)，而非糖尿病患者组的中位数干燥度评分为0(无)。对于那些有糖尿病家族史的人和那些没有糖尿病病史的人来说，中位数干涩评分为0(无)。但有糖尿病家族史者与无糖尿病家族史者的燥证评分分布差异有统计学意义(P=0.031)，有家族史者的燥证评分较高。糖尿病组和非糖尿病组的燥证评分分布差异也有统计学意义(P=0.0076)。结论：本研究中自报糖尿病患者的燥证程度明显高于非糖尿病患者。在这个队列中，有糖尿病家族史的患者也有更大的干眼症倾向。这些结果与早期关于糖尿病和干眼病之间存在联系的报道是一致的，并确认糖尿病是家族病史的另一个方面，可能与干眼症的风险有关。
PURPOSE: Dry eyes and diabetes have been linked in previous studies. However, the connection between a family history of diabetes and self-reported dry eyes needs to be explored. Patients with self-reported dry eyes were screened for self-reported diabetes or a family history of diabetes.METHODS: A total of 392 patients were given a simple questionnaire about diabetic history and asked to categorize their level of discomfort owing to ocular dryness as none, trace, mild, moderate, or severe (scored as 0 to 4).RESULTS: A total of 34.4% (135 of 392) of the sample had some self-reported symptom of dryness, 29.8% (117 of 392) could be considered clinically relevant (mild, moderate or severe), 7.4% (29 of 392) reported that they had diabetes, and 35.7% (140 of 392) reported a positive family history for diabetes. A total of 52.9% of those with either diabetes or borderline diabetes had self-reported clinically relevant dry eyes. A total of 35.7% of those patients with a family history of diabetes and 25.6% with no family history had self-reported clinically relevant dry eyes. The patients-with-diabetes group had a median dryness score of 2 (mild) and nondiabetics had a score of 0 (none). For both those with a diabetic family history and for those with no history of diabetes, the median dryness score was 0 (none). However, the dryness score distributions for those patients with a family history of diabetes and those patients with no family history of diabetes were significantly different (P = 0.031); those with a family history tended to have higher dryness scores. The distributions of dryness scores of the diabetic and nondiabetic groups were also significantly different (P = 0.0076).CONCLUSIONS: Patients in this study who self-reported diabetes were found to have higher levels of dryness than those without diabetes. Patients with a family history of diabetes also had a greater tendency to report dry eyes in this cohort. These results are consistent with earlier reports of a link between diabetes and dry eye disease and identify diabetes as another aspect of family history that may be relevant to risk for dry eyes.