
This study aims to compare meibomian gland (MG) dropout and MG dysfunction (MGD) between patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) with moderate–severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) and patients with no diabetes (NDM). This prospective, transversal, age, and gender-matched case–control study included 98 DM and 106 NDM eyes. Dry eye disease (DED) and MGD evaluations were performed, including meibography (Keratograph 5M®). The objective MG dropout percentage was obtained by analyzing meibography images with ImageJ software (v. 1.52o, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA) and was subsequently graded with Arita’s meiboscore. The DM duration was 18 ± 9 years. The mean meiboscore (3.8 ± 0.8 vs. 3.4 ± 1.0, p = 0.001), meiboscore severity (p = 0.016), and MG dropout (45.1 ± 0.1% vs. 39.0 ± 0.4%, p < 0.001) were greater in DM than in NDM. All patients showed MG dropout (meiboscore > 1). Lower eyelids showed greater MG dropout in both groups. A correlation with age (r = 0.178, p = 0.014) and no correlations with DM duration or gender (p > 0.005) were observed. Patients with diabetes showed greater corneal staining (1.7 ± 1.3 vs. 0.9 ± 1.1; p < 0.001), reduced corneal sensitivity (5.4 ± 1.1 vs. 5.9 ± 0.4; p < 0.001), lower MG expressibility (3. 9 ± 1.6 vs. 4.4 ± 2.1; p = 0.017), and worse meibum quality (1.9 ± 0.8 vs. 1.7 ± 0.5; p = 0.019). Tear breakup time, osmolarity, MMP-9, Schirmer, and the Ocular Surface Disease Index showed no significant differences. In conclusion, patients with DM with NPDR have greater MG dropout and meiboscore, as well as more severe MGD and DED parameters than persons with NDM.
meibomian gland dropout, diabetic retinopathy, Technology, diabetes, QH301-705.5, T, meibomian gland dysfunction, Biology (General), dry eye disease, Article, meibography
meibomian gland dropout, diabetic retinopathy, Technology, diabetes, QH301-705.5, T, meibomian gland dysfunction, Biology (General), dry eye disease, Article, meibography
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 3 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
