Immunohistochemical findings in prosthesis-associated giant papillary conjunctivitis
ABSTRACT To identify functional subsets of inflammatory cells and expression of cytokines in the conjunctiva of patients with ocular prosthesis-associated giant papillary conjunctivitis (P-GPC).
Specific immunohistochemical staining using monoclonal antibodies was performed on biopsy specimens obtained from superior tarsal conjunctiva of 18 patients with P-GPC. The prosthetic eyes were taken as the study group, whereas their fellow eyes were used as matched controls.
In normal conjunctiva, mast cells (MCs) were located only in the substantia propria (SP), whereas in P-GPC eyes MCs were also notable in the epithelium in five specimens. Tryptase-chymase-positive MCs (MC(TC)) were predominant both in P-GPC (79%) and in fellow (72%) eyes. MC(TC), CD4(+) lymphocyte, CD8(+) lymphocyte and eosinophil numbers were higher in P-GPC specimens compared with the fellow eyes (P = 0.005, 0.074, 0.012 and 0.025, respectively). Eosinophils were detected in 58.8% of P-GPC specimens and 16.7% of control specimens (P = 0.053). The number of inflammatory cells expressing eotaxin and interleukin (IL)-4 was higher in P-GPC group (P = 0.050 and 0.048, respectively). Nine out of 17 giant papillary conjunctivitis specimens (52.9%) showed eotaxin and IL-4 immunoreactivity, which was considerably higher than the fellow eyes (16.7%) (P = 0.064).
These findings suggest that P-GPC is an allergic disease of the eye associated with increased numbers of MC, eosinophils and lymphocytes in the conjunctiva and a remarkable expression of IL-4 and eotaxin both by the conjunctival epithelium and by the inflammatory cells in the SP.
- SourceAvailable from: Keith Pine[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Mucoid discharge associated with prosthetic eye wear can be a distressing condition that affects the quality of life of people who have lost an eye. Discharge is the second highest concern of experienced prosthetic eye wearers after health of the companion eye and is prevalent in anophthalmic populations. Specific causes of mucoid discharge such as infections and environmental allergens are well understood, but non-specific causes are unknown and an evidence based protocol for managing non-specific discharge is lacking. Current management is based on prosthesis removal and cleaning, and professional re-polishing of the prosthesis. Tear protein deposits accumulate on prosthetic eyes. These deposits mediate the response of the socket to prosthetic eye wear and their influence (good and bad) is determined by differing cleaning regimes and standards of surface finish. This paper proposes a three-phase model that describes the response of the socket to prosthetic eye wear. The phases are: An initial period of wear of a new (or newly-polished) prosthesis when homeostasis is being established (or re-established) within the socket; a second period (equilibrium phase) where beneficial surface deposits have built up on the prosthesis and wear is safe and comfortable, and a third period (breakdown phase) where there is an increasing likelihood of harm from continued wear. The proposed model provides a rationale for a personal cleaning regime to manage non-specific mucoid discharge. Professional care of prosthetic eyes is also important for the management of discharge and evidence for effective surface finishing is reported in this study. Taken together, the proposed regimes for personal and professional care comprise a protocol for managing discharge associated with prosthetic eye wear. The protocol describes prosthetic eye cleaning methods and frequency, and suggests minimum standards for professional polishing. If confirmed, the protocol has the potential to resolve the current varied and contradictory opinions about the management of discharge, and to clarify advice given to patients about how to personally care for their prosthetic eyes.Medical Hypotheses 05/2013; 81(2). DOI:10.1016/j.mehy.2013.04.024 · 1.15 Impact Factor
Article: Giant papillary conjunctivitis.[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Giant papillary conjunctivitis is a syndrome found frequently as a complication of contact lenses. Many variables can affect the onset and severity of the presenting signs and symptoms. Rigid gas permeable contact lenses appear to result in less severe signs and symptoms, with a longer time before the development of giant papillary conjunctivitis. Nonionic, low-water-content soft contact lenses tend to produce less severe signs and symptoms than ionic, low-water-content soft contact lenses. Enzymatic treatment appears to lessen the severity of signs and symptoms. The association of an allergy appears to play a role in the onset of the severity of the signs and symptoms but does not appear to affect the final ability of the individual to wear contact lenses. Using multiple treatment options, such as changing the polymer to a glyceryl methyl methacrylate or a rigid lens, or utilizing a soft lens on a frequent-replacement basis, can result in a success rate of over 90%. In individuals who still have a return of symptoms, the use of topical mast cell stabilizers or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug as an adjunctive therapy offers the added possibility of keeping these patients in contact lenses.Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society 02/1994; 92:687-744.
Article: Ocular mast cells and mediators[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Mast cells have long been recognized for their role in immediate hypersensitivity reactions, by virtue of the presence of high affinity receptors for IgE (FcepsilonRI) on their surface. More recently, mast cells have been postulated to be involved in a variety of chronic inflammatory disorders as numerous mediators released by activated mast cells are characterized. This article summarizes current information on mast cell mediators, heterogeneity, and differentiation, and it reviews studies of mast cells in the normal eye and various ocular disorders.Immunology and Allergy Clinics of North America 03/2008; 28(1):25-42, v. DOI:10.1016/j.iac.2007.12.006 · 2.22 Impact Factor