4.5 Article

Clinical clues to identify patients with ocular rosacea - a Germany-wide epidemiologic analysis

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
Volume 61, Issue 7, Pages 880-885

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijd.16235

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Projekt DEAL

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ocular rosacea, a special manifestation of rosacea, is common in patients with unspecific symptoms. It often coexists with skin symptoms and can impact patients' overall well-being and treatment satisfaction. Early diagnosis and appropriate treatment are important for improving patient care.
Background and objectives Ocular rosacea is a special manifestation of rosacea with unknown etiology. Eye involvement in rosacea patients is surprisingly common; however, it is often underdiagnosed, resulting in inappropriate treatment. We aimed to provide an updated epidemiologic perspective on ocular rosacea in Germany to improve patient care. Patients and methods Data of 777 rosacea patients were assessed using a detailed online questionnaire regarding ocular and skin symptoms, previous dermatological and ophthalmological consults, presence of type 1 hypersensitivities, and Demodex testing. All data were statistically analyzed. Results Most patients reported ocular symptoms (399/777, 51.4%), including red eyes (179/399, 44.9%), itching (187/399, 46.9%), sty or chalazion (309/399, 77.4%), and dryness (108/399, 27.1%). Ocular rosacea was confirmed in 149/309 cases who consulted an ophthalmologist (45.3%). A total of 159/399 (39.8%) had no pre-existing allergies. Eye involvement was significantly associated with the presence of skin symptoms (P < 0.05), impacting patients' general well-being and overall treatment satisfaction. About half of Demodex-positive patients (21/45, 46.7%) showed ocular symptoms. Conclusions Eye involvement in rosacea patients was common, often presenting with unspecific symptoms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available