4.5 Article

Ocular surface indicators and biomarkers in chronic ocular graft-versus-host disease: a prospective cohort study

期刊

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 56, 期 8, 页码 1850-1858

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41409-021-01254-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found a tendency towards ocular dryness in individuals with hematologic disorders preparing for HSCT based on differences in baseline ocular surface indicators; individuals who developed oGVHD showed changes in corneal staining score, Schirmer's test, and TBUT.
This longitudinal cohort study compared ocular surface indicators in forty allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) subjects with twenty healthy controls at baseline and identified changes in ocular graft-versus-host disease (oGVHD). Outcome measures included: Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), tear osmolarity, Schirmer's test, Oxford corneal staining score, tear break-up time (TBUT), and tear and serum biomarkers (IFN-gamma, IL-10, MMP-9, IL-12, IL-13, IL-17 alpha, IL-1 beta, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, CXCL10, MCP-1, MIP-1 alpha, RANTES, TNF-alpha). At baseline the HSCT group had higher median Oxford corneal staining score (1.7 vs. 0.0; P < 0.0001), higher tear TNF-alpha (20.0 vs. 11.2 pg/mL; P < 0.0001), lower tear RANTES (70.4 vs. 190.2 pg/mL; P < 0.0001), higher serum IL-8 (10.2 vs. 4.5 pg/mL; P = 0.0008), and higher serum TNF-alpha (8.7 vs. 4.2 pg/mL; P < 0.0001). The incidence of oGVHD was 62% and associated changes included increased Oxford corneal staining score (4.6 vs. 1.8, P = 0.0001), decreased Schirmer's test (3.0 vs. 10.0; P < 0.0001), and decreased TBUT (4.7 vs. 9.0 s; P = 0.0004). Baseline differences in ocular surface indicators suggest a tendency toward ocular dryness in individuals with hematologic disorders preparing for HSCT. Individuals who developed oGVHD showed changes in corneal staining score, Schirmer's test, and TBUT.

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

4.5
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