Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.52(10) > 1008894

TOOLS
Jeong, Lim, Oh, Chi, Paik, Shyn, and Kim: Prevalence and Risk Factors of Dry Eye Syndrome in the Incheon Area
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2011;52(10):1135-1141.

Published online: 7 September 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2011.52.10.1135

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Dry Eye Syndrome in the Incheon Area

Hoon Seok Jeong, MD1, Jung Soo Lim, MD, PhD2, Dae Kyu Oh, MD, PhD2, Mi Jung Chi, MD, PhD1, Hye Jung Paik, MD, PhD1, Kyung Hwan Shyn, MD, PhD3, Kyun Hyung Kim, MD1

1Departments of Ophthalmology, Gachon University Gil Hospital, Incheon, Korea

2Preventive Medicine, Gachon University Gil Hospital, Incheon, Korea

3Department of Ophthalmology, Hongik Hospital, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Kyun Hyung Kim, MD Eye/ENT Center, Gil Hospital #1198 Guwol-dong, Namdong-gu, Incheon 405-760, Korea Tel: 82-32-460-3364, Fax: 82-32-460-3358, E-mail: tigerme@naver.com

Received 2 December 2010       Accepted 12 April 2011

Copyright © 2011 Korean Ophthalmological Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the prevalence, clinical manifestations, and risk factors of dry eye syndrome (DES) among people over 50 years old in the Incheon area.

Methods

A cross-sectional prevalence study was performed on 462 people over 50 years old in Dong-gu, Incheon. DES was defined as the constant or frequent presence of symptoms of both dryness and irritation. Symptoms and past medical history were assessed by a survey. Eye examination included slit lamp examination, Schirmer test, and tear breakup time (T-BUT). Age, sex, living habits, systemic and eye diseases were also analyzed to determine the risk factors of DES.

Results

The prevalence of DES was 26.2%. The major symptoms were as follows in descending order: dryness (77.9%), tearing (75.2%), and sandiness (72.7%). An average of 12.1 ± 6.0 mm in the Schirmer test and 6.7 ± 2.4 seconds in the T-BUT were significantly different in the DES group from the normal group (p < 0.001). Variables such as age, sex, living habits, and eye diseases were not related to the diagnosis of DES, whereas diabetes was the only risk factor of DES with statistical significance (p = 0.03).

Conclusions

In the present study, the prevalence of DES among people over 50 years old in the Incheon area was 26.2%. Schirmer test and T-BUT were considered to be helpful tools for the diagnosis of DES, and diabetes was a significant risk factor of DES.

Keywords: Diabetes mellitus, Dry eye syndrome, Prevalence, Risk factor

References

1. The definition and classification of dry eye disease: report of the definition and classification subcommittee of the International Dry Eye Workshop (2007). Ocul Surf. 2007; 5:75–92.
2. Pflugfelder SC, Solomon A, Stern ME. The diagnosis and management of dry eye: a twenty-five-year review. Cornea. 2000; 19:644–9.
3. Sall K, Stevenson OD, Mundorf TK, Reis BL. Two multicenter, randomized studies of the efficacy and safety of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion in moderate to severe dry eye disease. CsA Phase 3 study Group. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107:631–9.
4. Stevenson D, Tauber J, Reis BL. Efficacy and safety of cyclosporin A ophthalmic emulsion in the treatment of moderate-to-severe dry eye disease: a dose-ranging, randomized trial. The cyclosporin A phase 2 study group. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107:967–74.
5. Stern ME, Gao J, Siemasko KF, et al. The role of the lacrimal functional unit in the pathophysiology of dry eye. Exp Eye Res. 2004; 78:409–16.
crossref
6. Schein OD, Munoz B, Tielsch JM, et al. Prevalence of dry eye among the elderly. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997; 124:723–8.
crossref
7. Lin PY, Tsai SY, Cheng CY, et al. Prevalence of dry eye among an elderly Chinese population in Taiwan: The Shihpai Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2003; 110:1096–101.
8. Brewitt H, Sistani F. Dry eye disease: the scale of the problem. Surv Ophthalmol. 2001; 45:S199–202.
9. The epidemiology of dry eye disease: report of the Epidemiology Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye WorkShop (2007). Ocul Surf. 2007; 5:93–107.
10. Wolkoff P, Nojgaard JK, Troiano P, Piccoli B. Eye complaints in the office environment: precorneal tear film integrity influenced by eye blinking efficiency. Occup Environ Med. 2005; 62:4–12.
crossref
11. Moss SE, Klein R, Klein BE. Prevalence of and risk factors for dry eye syndrome. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000; 118:1264–8.
crossref
12. Rexrode KM, Lee IM, Cook NR, et al. Baseline characteristic of participants in the Women's Health Study. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2000; 9:19–27.
13. Schaumberg DA, Sullivan DA, Dana MR. The epidemiology of dry eye syndrome. Cornea. 2000; 19:S120.
14. Nichols KK, Nichols JJ, Lynn Mitchell G. The relation between tear film tests in patients with dry eye disease. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2003; 23:553–60.
crossref
15. Chia EM, Mitchell P, Rochtchina E, et al. Prevalence and associations of dry eye syndrome in an older population: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2003; 31:229–32.
crossref
16. Lee AJ, Lee J, Saw SM, et al. Prevalence and risk factors associated with dry eye symptoms: a population based study in Indonesia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002; 86:1347–51.
crossref
17. Hikichi T, Yoshida A, Fukui Y, et al. Prevalence of dry eye in Japanese eye centers. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1995; 233:555–8.
crossref
18. Lee JH, Kee CW. The significance of tear film breakup time in the diagnosis of dry eye syndrome. Korean J Ophthalmol. 1988; 2:69–71.
crossref
19. Clinch TE, Benedetto DA, Felberg NT, Laibson PR. Schirmer's test; a closer look. Arch Ophthalmol. 1983; 101:1383–6.
20. Lee JH, Ki CW, Roh KG. The significance of the tear film breakup time in the diagnosis of the dry eye syndrome. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1985; 26:1131–5.
21. Lemp MA. Report of the National Eye Institute/Industry Workshop on clinical trials in dry eyes. CLAO J. 1995; 21:221–32.
22. Mengher LS, Bron AJ, Tonge SR, Gilbert DJ. Effect of fluorescein instillation on the precorneal tear film stability. Curr Eye Res. 1985; 4:9–12.
crossref
23. Cho BJ, Lee JH, Shim OJ. The relation between clinical manifestations of dry eye patients and their BUTs. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1992; 33:297–302.
24. Methodologies to diagnose and monitor dry eye disease: report of the Diagnostic Methodology Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye WorkShop (2007). Ocul Surf. 2007; 5:108–52.
25. Lucca JA, Nunez JN, Farris RL. A comparison of diagnostic tests for keratoconjunctivitis sicca: lactoplate, Schirmer, and tear osmolarity. CLAO J. 1990; 16:109–12.
26. Behrens A, Doyle JJ, Stern L, et al. Dysfunctional tear syndrome: a Delphi approach to treatment recommendations. Cornea. 2006; 25:900–7.
27. Schaumberg DA, Buring JE, Sullivan DA, Dana MR. Hormone replacement therapy and dry eye syndrome. JAMA. 2001; 286:2114–9.
crossref
28. Schaumberg DA, Dana R, Buring JE, Sullivan DA. Prevalence of dry eys disease among US men; estimates from the Physician's Health Studies. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009; 127:763–8.
29. Sullivan DA, Sullivan BD, Evans JE, et al. Androgen deficiency, meibomian gland dysfunction, and evaporative dry eye. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2002; 966:211–22.
crossref
30. Kaiserman I, Kaiserman N, Nakar S, Vinker S. Dry eye in diabetic patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005; 139:498–503.
crossref
31. Hom M, De Land P. Self-reported dry eyes and diabetic history. Optometry. 2006; 77:554–8.
crossref
32. Manaviat MR, Rashidi M, Afkhami-Ardekani M, Shoja MR. Prevalence of dry eye syndrome and diabetic retinopathy in type 2 diabetic patients. BMC Ophthalmol. 2008; 8:10.
crossref
33. Yu L, Chen X, Qin G, et al. Tear film function in type 2 diabetic patients with retinopathy. Ophthalmologica. 2008; 222:284–91.
crossref

Figure 1.
Major complaining symptoms of total participants (n = 462).
jkos-52-1135f1.tif
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of 462 participants with information on dry eye syndrome
Male Female
Total No. (%) 202 (43.7) 260 (56.3)
Age (mean ± SD, yr) 70.3 ± 7.3 70.4 ± 7.2
No. of DES 45 76
Prevalence of DES (%)* 22.3 29.2

No = number, DES = dry eye syndrome; SD = standard deviation.

* Chi-square test (p-value = 0.004).

Table 2.
Composition of participants and prevalence of dry eye syndrome according to age
Age group No. of group M F No. of DES M F Prevalence
50–55 76 37 39 20 8 12 26.3
56–60 70 34 36 17 7 10 24.3
61–65 71 32 39 19 8 11 26.8
66–70 68 31 37 17 5 12 25.0
71–75 70 30 40 18 7 11 25.7
76–80 59 23 36 15 6 9 25.4
81–85 35 11 24 10 3 7 28.6
>85 13 4 9 5 1 4 38.5
Total 462 202 260 121 45 76 26.2

No = number; DES = dry eye syndrome.

Table 3.
Major complaining symptoms of dry eye syndrome group
Variable N %
Dryness 94 77.9
Excessive tearing with wind blowing 91 75.2
Sandiness 88 72.7
Irritation with pain 60 49.6
Burning sensation 50 41.3
Redness 38 31.5
Table 4.
Comparison of TBUT, corneal erosion score and Schirmer test between normal group and dry eye syndrome group
Normal group (n = 341) DES group (n = 121) p-value*
TBUT (sec) 9.4 ± 2.4 6.7 ± 2.4 < 0.001
Score of corneal erosion 2.6 ± 0.8 2.2 ± 0.9 0.29
Schirmer test (mm) 15.3 ± 6.0 12.1 ± 6.0 < 0.001

TBUT = tear breakup time, DES = dry eye syndrome.

* p-values by t-test.

Table 5.
Multivariate analysis for associations between clinical factors and dry eye syndrome
Variable No. (%) Odds ratio 95% CI p-value*
Age − 1.6 1.1–2.1 0.10
Sex − 1.8 1.5–2.2 0.08
Living habits
 Smoking 82 (17.7) 1.4 0.8–2.3 0.26
 Alcohols 138 (29.9) 1.3 0.6–1.9 0.29
Underlying diseases
 Diabetes 139 (30.1) 2.6 1.8–3.4 0.03
 Osteoporosis 108 (23.4) 1.8 0.9–2.6 0.07
 Arthritis 173 (37.4) 1.5 1.1–2.0 0.08
 Hypertension 210 (45.5) 1.2 0.5–1.8 0.39
 Hyperlipidemia 33 (7.1) 1.1 0.4–1.7 0.59
 Cardiovascular disease 52 (11.3) 1.1 0.3–2.1 0.71
 Stroke 14 (3.0) 0.9 0.5–2.4 0.85
 Miscellaneous − − − >0.05
Ocular diseases
 Pterygium 76 (16.0) 1.4 0.9–2.6 0.08
 Pinguecula 112 (23.5) 1.3 0.8–2.4 0.11
 Glaucoma 4 (0.8) 0.8 0.2–2.9 0.73
 Cataract (including pseudophakia) 333 (72.1) 1.1 0.3–2.3 0.35
 History of ocular surgery 126 (27.2) 1.5 0.5–3.2 0.08

CI = confidence interval.

* p-values by linear logistic regression analysis.

TOOLS
Similar articles