Cross-sectional study assesses inflammation indicators for MMP-9 detection in dry eye disease, indicating potential diagnostic utility.
PURPOSE: Clinical test utility for detecting inflammation in dry eye disease (DED) remains largely uninvestigated. This cross-sectional study explored relationships between clinical tests and molecular biomarkers of ocular surface inflammation to determine their diagnostic utility. METHODS: Inflammation indicators including bulbar conjunctival hyperaemia (subjective and objective grading), InflammaDry® MMP-9 test, Ocular Surface Inflammation Evaluation® score (Tearcheck®) and ocular surface staining were assessed in individuals with and without DED. Conjunctival impression cytology samples underwent droplet digital PCR to quantify MMP-9, IL-8 and IL-1β gene expression. Receiver operating characteristic curves established clinical test utility for detecting elevated biomarker levels and optimal cut-off values. RESULTS: Of 47 participants (55 ± 18 years; 21% male), 79% met the TFOS DEWS II diagnostic criteria for DED, with 84% classified as lipid-deficient. Biological MMP-9 presence was associated with NIBUT <5.8 s, hyperaemia score (JENVIS >1.0 or Efron grading >1.5), positive InflammaDry results, positive symptom scores (DEQ-5 >9 or OSDI >33.3), and thinner tear film lipid layer grade (LLG ≤ 2; all p < 0.05). No significant clinical associations with IL-8 or IL-1β levels were found. Two or more positive assessments from hyperaemia (JENVIS), NIBUT and LLG offered within-sample diagnostic accuracy of 78.6% sensitivity and 78.8% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: A test battery comprising bulbar conjunctival redness (JENVIS >1.0), tear film instability (NIBUT <5.8 s) and lipid insufficiency (LLG ≤2) optimally identified individuals with detectable MMP-9 expression. Two or more clinical signs identified high-risk individuals and, while further validation is warranted, it suggests inflammatory marker detection is limited to those with higher DED symptom and clinical sign scores.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jennings et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: