Prevalence and risk factors of dry eye in 79,866 participants of the population-based Lifelines cohort study in the Netherlands, 2020, Vehof et al

[Andy]

Purpose
To investigate the prevalence of dry eye among all adult age categories and to discover independent risk factors by investigating a wide range of etiological categories.

Methods
A cross-sectional association study including 79,866 voluntary participants aged 20–94 years of the population-based Lifelines Cohort Study in the Netherlands.

Results
Overall, 9.1% of participants had dry eye disease as measured by the Women's Health Study dry eye questionnaire. Prevalence of dry eye symptoms were particularly prevalent in 20–30 years old. Dry eye was associated with comorbidities in almost all body systems, including musculoskeletal, gastro-intestinal, ophthalmic, autoimmune, psychiatric, pain, functional, dermatological and atopic disorders. Numerous independent risk factors were discovered or confirmed, with strong associations for female sex, contact lens use, irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, eye surgery including cataract and laser refractive surgery, keratoconus, osteoarthritis, connective tissue diseases, atherosclerosis, Graves' disease, autistic disorder, depression, ‘burnout’, Crohn's disease, sarcoid, lichen planus, rosacea, liver cirrhosis, sleep apnea, sinusitis, thyroid function, and air pollution (NO2). High blood pressure and high BMI were strongly associated with less dry eye, as was current smoking, while ex-smokers had more dry eye. No clear link between dry eye and lipid or blood glucose levels was found.

Conclusions
This study on dry eye confirmed but also refuted many risk factors from smaller epidemiological studies, and discovered numerous new risk factors in multiple etiological categories. The finding that dry eye symptoms are particularly common in young adults is concerning, and warrants further study.

Paywall, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1542012420300690
Not available via Sci hub at time of posting.

 

[Mithriel]

This is one of those studies which only looks at numbers so tells us nothing. Dry eyes are a symptom just like fatigue or cough, it is such a wide category it tells us nothing.

Dry eyes were seen as just a problem that women had after the menopause so no one cared very much. In a similar way to ME, the patients would complain about things like pain but there was nothing to see on medical examination so they were dismissed as exaggerating and neurotic.

Things changed when younger people began having serious problems with dry eye after lasik surgery which is very lucrative. Money was put into research to stop the operation going out of fashion.

In a very different way from the situation with ME, the researchers and medics listened to patient groups and there have been vast strides in the field. Dry eye is not referred to as occular surface disease and taken seriously. Of, course it is not ideal, the usual charlatans, but strides have been made in the biology of the eye though treatments are not so simple as the processes are incredibly complex - one reason I feel FND is childish in its thinking.

This paper looks awfully superficial compared to the things i have been reading.