[Virological diagnosis of anterior herpetic ocular disease on tear sample: A simple and non-invasive technique]. / Diagnostic virologique des atteintes oculaires herpétiques antérieures sur prélèvement lacrymal : une technique simple et non invasive.

INTRODUCTION: Virological diagnosis of anterior ocular herpetic disease (AOHD) is essential for the management of these often-chronic pathologies that may require long-term therapy. PCR has become the gold standard, but the type of sampling (tears, corneal scraping, aqueous tap) has not been standardized. In this study, we studied the technique of tear sampling for the diagnosis of AOHD. MATERIALS AND METHOD: We retrospectively analyzed the medical files of patients with a positive tear sample (Schirmer strip) for herpes simplex 1 virus (HSV-1) in the Department of Ophthalmology of Paris-Saclay Bicêtre Hospital between January 2018 and December 2020. We studied the clinical and virological characteristics (viral loads) of these cases of proven AOHD. RESULTS: Thirty-six samples (33 patients) were included: 12 epithelial keratitis, 9 stromal HSK with ulceration, 5 uveitis, 4 stromal HSK without ulceration, 3 blepharitis, 1 endothelial HSK, 1 neurotrophic keratitis, and 1 conjunctivitis. The mean viral load was 3.9×105 copies/mL. Viral load was higher in cases of corneal ulceration (5.2×105±9.4×105 versus 1.2×102±1.7×102 copies/mL, P<1×10-4). There was no significant difference between primary episodes and relapses. CONCLUSION: Tear sampling using Schirmer strips is a simple, non-invasive method that can be useful for the virological diagnosis of various clinical forms of AOHD.

[Multimodal evaluation of the ocular surface using a the new Lacrydiag device]. / Place du NIBUT automatisé dans l'évaluation multimodale de la surface oculaire dans le syndrome sec avec le Lacrydiag.

INTRODUCTION: Dry eye disease is a very frequent condition with a significant impact on patients' quality of life. The most common clinical sign is fluorescein break up time (BUT). Recently, non-invasive measurement of BUT (NIBUT) by Placido disc analysis has been proposed to replace FBUT. We performed an automated NIBUT analysis using Lacrydiag and compared the values obtained with other typical dry eye criteria. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective study was carried out in the Bicêtre ophthalmology department from July 1 through October 30. Dry eye patients over 18 years of age with Oxford scores>1 and OSDI scores>22 were included. They underwent slit lamp examination to determine fluorescein BUT, Oxford and Arita MGD scores. On the same day, they were tested with the Lacrydiag to assess NIBUT, tear lake height and meibography. OSDI and Schirmer's testing were performed on the date of examination. In this study, only patients' right eyes were included. The correlation between NIBUT and OSDI, Schirmer's testing and tear lake height was analyzed by Pearson's test. The correlation between NIBUT and fluorescein BUT was analysed by both Pearson and Bland-Altman statistical tests. RESULTS: Thirty right eyes (21 women, 9 men) were included. The mean age was 62.3 years (SD 16.0), mean OSDI 49.4 (SD=20.1), mean Oxford score 3.33 (SD 2.1), mean NIBUT 6.91sec (SD 3.4), and mean FBUT 3.6sec (SD 1.8). The NIBUT and FBUT were significantly correlated (R=0.139; P=0.042), with an even more significant concordance (r=0.55; P=0.001) on Bland-Altman graphic analysis, but the mean NIBUT was 2.7 seconds higher than the FBUT (P=0.001 on Bland-Altman analysis). In addition, NIBUT was correlated with the Oxford score (R=0.156; P=0.031), but not with Schirmer I score (R=0.120; P=0.061), OSDI score (R=0.018; P=0.48), tear lake height (R=0.04; P=0.148), or Arita meibomian gland dysfunction score (R=0; P=0.933). CONCLUSION: NIBUT is a possible alternative to FBUT for the measurement of tear film stability, with the advantage of lack of dependence on the amount of fluorescein instilled. In addition, modern imaging methods allow for automated, and thus reproducible, measurement. However, its role in the diagnostic tool kit remains to be precisely defined, especially given its weak correlation with other markers of dry eye and its significant difference from FBUT. The definitive diagnosis of dry eye thus remains based on the combined analysis of signs and symptoms.