Proteomic Analysis Of Tears In Dry Eye Disease: A Prospective, Double-Blind Multicenter Study
Published 2023 - 41st Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: FP22.02 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/gk7v-7y41
Authors: Minha Kim* 1 , Gun Tae Jung 2 , Tae Im Kim 1 , Kwang Pyo Kim 2 , Hyung Keun Lee 1
1Ophthalmology,Institute of Vision Research, Yonsei University College of Medicine,Seoul,Korea, Republic Of, 2Biomedical Science and Technology,Kyung Hee Medical Science Research Institute, Kyung Hee University,Seoul,Korea, Republic Of
Purpose
To identify specific dry eye disease (DED) tear biomarker(s) using tear proteomic analysis, clinical parameters, and their correlations before and after DED treatment.
Setting
A prospective, double-blinded, national multicenter clinical study was performed using data from 5 tertiary hospitals and 80 patients with DED. The patients were treated with 0.1% cyclosporine (CsA), 0.05% CsA, or 3% diquafosol (DQS) eye drops, and tear proteome changes and clinical outcomes (tear break-up time [TBUT] and corneal erosion [Cor-Er], conjunctival erosion [Conj-Er], and subjective symptom assessment in dry eye [SANDE] scores) were observed at 4, 8, and 12 weeks.
Methods
For the four clinical parameters (Cor-Er, Conj-Er, TBUT, and SANDE), we performed correlation analysis with three different drugs (0.1% CsA, 0.05% CsA, and 3% DQS) and differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) from proteomic analysis.
Results
A total of 1,554 proteins were identified, of which 353 were DEPs. AFM, ALCAM, CFB, H1-4, PON1, RAP1B, and RBP4 were identified in all treatment groups and were downregulated after treatment. All four clinical parameters significantly improved at 12 weeks than at baseline (p < 0.0001). Compared with the baseline, no significant differences were observed among the three treatment conditions, except for Cor-Er (p = 0.007), in the values of the four clinical parameters after 12 weeks. Compared with the DQS group, Cor-Er significantly improved after treatment with 0.1% and 0.05% CsA. The seven proteins identified in the treatment groups were not consistently correlated with the clinical parameters (p > 0.05).
Conclusions
Despite differences in drug concentration and action mechanisms, the improvement levels of TBUT, Cor-Er, and SANDE scores were clinically adequate. However, useful tear protein biomarkers, clinically acceptable biomarker combinations correlating with clinical parameters, and clinically acceptable levels of specificity and sensitivity were not identified.