4.4 Article

Use of Corneal Confocal Microscopy to Evaluate Small Nerve Fibers in Patients With Human Immunodeficiency Virus

期刊

JAMA OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 135, 期 7, 页码 795-799

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.1703

关键词

-

资金

  1. Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [115007]
  2. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations companies
  3. National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and the University College London Institute of Ophthalmology
  4. Imperial College London Joint Research Office

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IMPORTANCE Objective quantification of small fiber neuropathy in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated sensory neuropathy (HIV-SN) is difficult but needed for diagnosis and monitoring. In vivo corneal confocal microscopy (IVCCM) can quantify small fiber damage. OBJECTIVE To establish whether IVCCM can identify an abnormality in corneal nerve fibers and Langerhans cells in patients with and without HIV-SN. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective, cross-sectional cohort study was conducted between July 24, 2015, and September 17, 2015. Twenty patients who were HIV positive were recruited from adult outpatient clinics at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in England. These patients underwent IVCCM at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in London, England, and the IVCCM images were analyzed at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar in Ar-Rayyan, Qatar. Patients were given a structured clinical examination and completed validated symptom questionnaires and the Clinical HIV-Associated Neuropathy Tool. Results from patients with HIV were compared with the results of the age-and sex-matched healthy control participants (n = 20). All participants were classified into 3 groups: controls, patients with HIV but without SN, and patients with HIV-SN. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Comparison of corneal nerve fiber density, corneal nerve branch density, corneal nerve fiber length, corneal nerve fiber tortuosity, and corneal Langerhans cell density between healthy controls and patients with HIV with and without SN. RESULTS All 40 participants were male, and most (>= 70%) self-identified as white. Of the 20 patients with HIV, 14 (70%) had HIV-SN. This group was older (mean [SD] age, 57.7 [7.75] years) than the group without HIV-SN (mean [SD] age, 42.3 [7.26] years) and the controls (mean [SD] age, 53.8 [10.5] years). Corneal nerve fiber density was reduced in patients with HIV compared with the controls (26.7/mm(2) vs 38.6/mm(2); median difference, -10.37; 95.09% CI, -14.27 to -6.25; P <.001) and in patients with HIV-SN compared with those without (25.8/mm(2) vs 30.7/mm(2); median difference, -4.53; 95.92% CI, -8.85 to -0.26; P =.03). Corneal nerve branch density and corneal nerve fiber length were reduced in patients with HIV, but no differences were identified between those with neuropathy and without neuropathy (corneal nerve branch density: 95.83/mm(2) for the controls vs 72.37/mm(2) for patients with HIV; median difference, -24.53; 95.32% CI, -50.62 to -3.13; P =.01; and corneal nerve fiber length: 28.4 mm/mm(2) for the controls vs 21.9 mm/mm(2) for patients with HIV; median difference, -5.24 ;95.09% CI, -8.83 to -1.38; P =.001). Tortuosity coefficient was increased in patients with HIV compared with controls (16.44 vs 13.95; median difference, 2.34; 95.09% CI, 0.31 to 4.65; P =.03) and in those with HIV-SN compared with those without (17.84 vs 14.18; median difference, 4.32; 95.92% CI, 0.68-9.23; P =.01). No differences were identified in corneal Langerhans cell density (19.84 cells/mm(2) for the controls vs 41.43 cells/mm(2) for patients with HIV; median difference, 9.38; 95% CI, -12.51 to 26.34; P =.53). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In vivo corneal confocal microscopy could be used in the assessment of HIV-SN, but larger studies are required to confirm this finding.

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

4.4
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