<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xml:lang="en">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Czech and Slovak Ophthalmology</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">307</article-id>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.31348/2024/3</article-id>
      <article-categories>
        <subj-group>
          <subject>Original article</subject>
        </subj-group>
      </article-categories>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Diagnostic Challenges of Ocular Rosacea</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>Motešická</surname>
            <given-names>Simona</given-names>
          </name>
          <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7823-9587</contrib-id>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
        <day>31</day>
        <month>1</month>
        <year>2024</year>
      </pub-date>
      <issue>2</issue>
      <elocation-id>2</elocation-id>
      <abstract>
        <p>Objective: This study aims to address the issues surrounding the diagnosis of ocular rosacea and to evaluate the development of the patients’ condition after treatment, as well as to distinguish between healthy and diseased patients using a glycomic analysis of tears. Methodology: A prospective study was conducted to assess a total of 68 eyes in 34 patients over a six-week period. These patients were diagnosed with ocular rosacea based on subjective symptoms and clinical examination. The study monitored the development of objective and subjective values. The difference between patients with the pathology and healthy controls was established by means of analysis of glycans in tears. Results: Skin lesions were diagnosed in 94% of patients with ocular rosacea, with the most commonly observed phenotype being erythematotelangiectatic (68.8%). The mean duration of symptoms was 29.3 months (range 0.5–126 months) with a median of 12 months. Throughout the study, an improvement in all monitored parameters was observed, including Meibomian gland dysfunction, bulbar conjunctival hyperemia, telangiectasia of the eyelid margin, anterior blepharitis, uneven and reddened eyelid margins, and corneal neovascularization. The study also observed improvements in subjective manifestations of the disease, such as foreign body sensation, burning, dryness, lachrymation, itching eyes, photophobia, and morning discomfort. The analysis of glycans in tears partially separated tear samples based on their origin, which allowed for the differentiation of patients with rosacea from healthy controls. In the first sample, the pathology was determined in a total of 63 eyes (98.4%) of 32 patients, with further samples showing a change in the glycomic profile of patients’ tears during treatment. Conclusion: The study demonstrated objective and subjective improvements in all the patients. Tear sampling and analysis could provide a means of timely diagnosis of ocular rosacea.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>acne rosacea</kwd>
        <kwd>ocular rosacea</kwd>
        <kwd>dry eye syndrome</kwd>
        <kwd>blepharitis</kwd>
        <kwd>Meibomian gland dysfunction</kwd>
        <kwd>rosacea diagnosis</kwd>
        <kwd>glycomic analysis of tears</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <title>References</title>
      <ref id="R1994">
        <mixed-citation>Tavassoli S, Wong N, Chan E. Ocular manifestations of rosacea: A clinical review. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2021;49(2):104-117.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R1995">
        <mixed-citation>Saá FL, Cremona F, Chiaradia P. Association Between Skin Findings and Ocular Signs in Rosacea.Turk J Ophthalmol. 2021;51(6):338-343.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R1996">
        <mixed-citation>Jabbehdari S, Memar OM, Caughlin B, Djalilian AR. Update on the pathogenesis and management of ocular rosacea: an interdisciplinary review. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;31(1):22-33.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R1997">
        <mixed-citation>Alvarenga LS, Mannis MJ. Ocular rosacea. Ocul Surf. 2005;3(1):41- 58.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R1998">
        <mixed-citation>Sinikumpu SP, Vähänikkilä H, Jokelainen J, Tasanen K, Huilaja L. Ocular Symptoms and Rosacea: A Population-Based Study. Dermatology. 2022;238(5):846-850.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R1999">
        <mixed-citation>Ihrisky SA. Rozacea-současný pohled. Cesk Dermatol. 2018;92(5):161-204.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R2000">
        <mixed-citation>Wladis EJ, Adam AP. Treatment of ocular rosacea. Surv Ophthalmol . 2018;63(3):340-346.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R2001">
        <mixed-citation>Vieira AC, Mannis MJ. Ocular rosacea: common and commonly missed.J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69(6 Suppl 1):S36-41.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R2002">
        <mixed-citation>Awais M, Anwar MI, Iftikhar R, Iqbal Z, Shehzad N, Akbar B. Rosacea– the ophthalmic perspective. Cutan Ocul Toxicol . 2015;34(2):161- 166.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R2003">
        <mixed-citation>Rulcová J. Rozacea. In: Nevoralová Z, Rulcová J, Benáková N, editors. Obličejové dermatózy: Mladá Fronta, Edice Aeskulap; 2018.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R2004">
        <mixed-citation>Sobolewska B, Schaller M, Zierhut M. Rosacea and Dry Eye Disease. Ocul Immunol Inflamm . 2022;30(3):570-579.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R2005">
        <mixed-citation>Vieira AC, Höfling-Lima AL, Mannis MJ. Ocular rosacea--a review. Arq Bras Oftalmol . 2012;75(5):363-9.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R2006">
        <mixed-citation>Tan J, Almeida LMC, Bewley A. Updating the diagnosis, classification and assessment of rosacea: recommendations from the global ROSacea COnsensus (ROSCO) panel. Br J Dermatol. 2017;176(2);431-438.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R2007">
        <mixed-citation>Prabhasawat P, Ekpo P, Uiprasertkul M, et al. Long-term result of autologous cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation for severe ocular surface disease.Cell Tissue Bank. 2016;17.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R2008">
        <mixed-citation>Kılıç Müftüoğlu İ, Aydın Akova Y. Clinical Findings, Follow-up and Treatment Results in Patients with Ocular Rosacea. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2016;46(1):1-6.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R2009">
        <mixed-citation>Nichols KK, Mousavi M. Chapter 2 - Clinical Assessments of Dry Eye Disease: Tear Film and Ocular Surface Health. In: Galor A, editor. Dry Eye Disease: Elsevier; 2023. p. 15-23.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R2010">
        <mixed-citation>Al-Amry MA, Al-Ghadeer HA. Ocular acne rosacea in tertiary eye center in Saudi Arabia.Int Ophthalmol. 2018;38(1):59-65.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R2011">
        <mixed-citation>Lazaridou E, Fotiadou C, Ziakas NG, Giannopoulou C, Apalla Z, Ioannides D. Clinical and laboratory study of ocular rosacea in northern Greece. J Eur Acad Dermatol. 2011;25(12):1428-1431.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R2012">
        <mixed-citation>Vieira AC, An HJ, Ozcan S, Kim J-H, Lebrilla CB, Mannis MJ. Glycomic Analysis of Tear and Saliva in Ocular Rosacea Patients: The Search for a Biomarker. Ocul Surf. 2012;10(3):184-192.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="R2013">
        <mixed-citation>Messina A, Palmigiano A, Tosto C et al. Tear N-glycomics in vernal and atopic keratoconjuctivitis. Allergy 2021;76:2500-2509.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>
