4.6 Article

Comparison of stem cell sources in the severity of dry eye after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 96, Issue 1, Pages 34-37

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300514

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture [23592590]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23592590] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims To compare the incidence and severity of dry eye (DE) after allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) according to the stem cell source. The authors specifically focused on patients who received bone marrow transplantation (BMT), peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) and cord blood transplantation (CBT). Methods Ninety-nine HSCT recipients who were prospectively followed-up for at least 100 days at Keio University Hospital were recruited. Ophthalmological examinations included evaluation of ocular surface findings and tear dynamics. The data on systemic graft-versus-host disease were collected by chart review. Results Of the 99 patients (BMT, 67; PBSCT, 18; CBT, 14), 42 developed DE or showed worsened pre-existing DE after HSCT; 31 (46.3%) BMT group; 8 (44.0%) PBSCT group; and 3 (21.4%) CBT group (p=0.78). The median onset time of DE tended to be later in the PBSCT group (474 days, range 95-1559) than in the BMT (287 days, range 67-1216) or CBT (168 days, range 33-481) group, but the difference was not significant (p=0.23). However, the proportion of patients with severe DE was significantly higher in the PBSCT group (N=7, 87.5%) than in the BMT (N=12, 38.7%) or CBT (N=1, 33.3%) group (p=0.04) and CBT showed the lowest among all three stem cell sources. Conclusion The data in this study suggested that the severity and onset time of DE were affected by the stem cell source. Close attention must be paid to the development of late-onset severe DE in PBSCT recipients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available