You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 8, Issue 1
  • Eye care providers’ emerging roles in early detection of diabetes and management of diabetic changes to the ocular surface: a review

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Clinical Care/Education/Nutrition
Eye care providers’ emerging roles in early detection of diabetes and management of diabetic changes to the ocular surface: a review
  1. Kathryn Richdale1,
  2. Cecilia Chao1,2,
  3. Marc Hamilton3,4
  1. 1College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
  2. 2School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales—Kensington Campus, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3Health and Human Performance, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
  4. 4Biology and Biochemistry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kathryn Richdale; richdale{at}uh.edu

Abstract

US adults visit eye care providers more often than primary healthcare providers, placing these doctors in a prime position to help identify and manage patients with prediabetes and diabetes. Currently, diabetes is identified in eye clinics in an advanced stage, only after visible signs of diabetic retinopathy. Recent ophthalmic research has identified multiple subclinical and clinical changes that occur in the anterior segment of the eye with metabolic disease. The corneal epithelium exhibits increased defects and poor healing, including an increased risk of neurotrophic keratitis. Increased thickness and stiffness of the cornea artificially alters intraocular pressure. There is damage to the endothelial cells and changes to the bacterial species on the ocular surface, both of which can increase risk of complications with surgery. Decreased corneal sensitivity due to a loss of nerve density predispose patients with metabolic disease to further neurotrophic complications. Patients with diabetes have increased Meibomian gland dysfunction, blepharitis and reduced tear production, resulting in increased rates of dry eye disease and discomfort. Early detection of metabolic disease may allow eye care providers to be more proactive in recommending referral and intervention in order to reduce the risk of blindness and other diabetes-related morbidity. Continued research is needed to better understand the time course of changes to the anterior segment and what can be done to better detect and diagnose patients with prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes and provide improved care for these patients.

  • cornea
  • type 2 diabetes
  • clinical care
  • prediabetes
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-001094

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    Obesity, prediabetes and diabetes are growing exponentially—worldwide, and especially in the USA.1 The effect of diabetes on the retina has been well classified, but there is growing research on the profound effects of metabolic disease on the front of the eye. In the USA, adults visit eye care providers more often than primary healthcare providers, placing eye doctors in a prime position to lead the care and research in this area.2 Unfortunately, diabetes is often first diagnosed in eye clinics in an advanced stage, only after visible signs of diabetic retinopathy appear. Standardized, non-invasive, early detection tests in an eye care setting could help to reduce the risk for disease onset and/or progression. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the current state of knowledge on the clinical outcomes of obesity, prediabetes and diabetes on the ocular surface, and explore new research which may someday be applied to help identify and better refer patients with undiagnosed prediabetes and diabetes.

    Clinical and subclinical changes to the ocular surface

    New research has identified multiple clinical and subclinical changes that occur in the anterior segment of the eye with dysregulation of insulin and glucose. These alteration can lead to poor or fluctuating vision, increased risk of inflammation and subclinical complications with contact lens wear or ocular surgery and pain and discomfort. The following section reviews changes to the cornea, conjunctiva, eyelids and tear system and are summarized in table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Ocular surface changes associated with obesity, prediabetes and diabetes

    Cornea

    The human cornea is a five-layer structure, comprising an endothelial layer, Descemet’s membrane, stroma, basement membrane and epithelium. The cornea is about 540–560 µm thick centrally, and increases by about 100 µm in the periphery. Central thickness increases by about 10–30 µm in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, including well-controlled patients with diabetes with hemoglobin A1c (A1c) <7.3 Duration of diabetes is correlated with increasing corneal thickness.4–7 It has been hypothesized that the increase in thickness may be due to increased glucose levels in the tissue and the formation and accumulation of advanced glycation end products (AGEs).5 7–9 Two small population-based studies found no correlation between obesity and corneal thickness10 11; however, one study reported significant associations between corneal thickness and body weight, body mass index (BMI), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and 2 hours plasma glucose (PG).12 An increase in corneal thickness associated with obesity and prediabetic blood glucose levels are in line with the model of obesity and diabetes being a continuum of metabolic disease.12

    The corneal endothelium is a single layer of uniform hexagonal squamous cells. The corneal endothelium regulates water and solute transport, including glucose, between the aqueous humor and cornea in order to maintain corneal transparency and thickness. Hyperglycemia can cause direct oxidative damage and reduce the activity of Na+/K+-ATPase activity.8 Corneal endothelial cell density is reduced by about 100–400 cells/mm2 in patients with both types 1 and 2 diabetes compared with age-matched controls.4 5 8 13 14 The decrease in density leads to changes in cell shape (pleomorphism) and size (polymegathism).4 8 13 14 Duration of diabetes disease is well correlated with endothelial cell density loss, polymegathism and pleomorphism.5 13

    The cornea naturally auto-fluoresces at a wavelength of about 515–630 nm when excited with 415–490 nm light due to endogenous fluorophores.15 16 Corneal auto-fluorescence increases in type 1 and 2 diabetes, likely due to the increase in AGEs.16 Corneal auto-fluorescence has been correlated with duration of disease, severity of diabetic retinopathy and A1c levels and has been suggested to be a good non-invasive indicator of the metabolic state of the cornea.16 17

    The corneal stroma accounts for the majority of the corneal thickness (~90%) and thus its physical and biomechanical properties. Hyperglycemia and associated accumulation of AGEs lead to crosslinking of the stroma which increases the corneal stiffness.9 Patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes have been shown to have increased corneal hysteresis, or viscosity, of the cornea as measured by resistance to deformation by air puff.6 7 18 Corneal hysteresis is also associated with the duration of disease and A1c levels.7 18 Increased corneal thickness and stiffness in patients with diabetes can lead to an overestimation of intraocular pressure (IOP),7 19 which may lead to a misdiagnosis of glaucoma.

    The cornea is the most densely innervated tissue in the body, with about 7000 nociceptors/mm2 at its center.20 Corneal nerves derive from the nasociliary branch of the ophthalmic division of the trigeminal nerve (cranial nerve V), enter through the anterior stroma as small unmyelinated nerve fibers and then branch upward to penetrate basement membrane layer, form the subbasal nerve plexus and terminate in the epithelium.20 Corneal nerves regulate wound healing and modify the lacrimal response, and are critical to ocular surface integrity.21 Corneal subbasal nerves can be imaged non-invasively with in vivo confocal microscopy. Corneal subbasal nerve fiber length, density and branching are reduced with type 1 and 2 diabetes (figure 1).22–25 The decrease in corneal nerve fiber length and density has been well correlated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy24 25 and autonomic neuropathy.26 Due to the nerve and other ocular surface damage, up to 70% of patients with diabetes have some form of keratitis ranging from superficial punctate keratitis to recurrent corneal erosions and neurotrophic ulcer27–29 (figure 2). Corneal nerve fiber length was predictive of a diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy in patients with diabetes, with a cut-off point of 12 mm/mm2.30 Importantly, corneal nerve health was shown to improve with improved glucose control for patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.31 32

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    In vivo corneal confocal images (400×400 µm2) demonstrating patients with (A) no metabolic disease, (B) prediabetes and (C) type 2 diabetes (panel A) at the central cornea. Corneal subbasal sensory nerves are highlighted in purple in panel B with calculated densities of 3964 µm, 1691 µm and 1012 µm per 400×400 µm2 in patients with no metabolic disease (A), prediabetes (B) and diabetes (C), respectively (Richdale and Harrison, unpublished data). Yellow arrows indicate corneal epithelial dendritic cells and show a higher density in patients with prediabetes and diabetes (6 cells/frame) compared with those with no metabolic disease (2 cells/frame). All subjects were 54–59 years of age with no history of contact lens wear. Photo credit: Labs of Kathryn Richdale, OD, PhD and Wendy Harrison, OD, PhD, College of Optometry, University of Houston, Texas, USA.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Images demonstrating patients with Meibomian gland dropout using the keratograph in patients with (A) no metabolic disease, (B) prediabetes and (C) type 2 diabetes (Richdale and Harrison, unpublished data). All subjects are 51–59 years of age with mild-to-moderate dry eye symptoms and did not wear contact lenses. Photo credit: Labs of Kathryn Richdale, OD, PhD and Wendy Harrison, OD, PhD, College of Optometry, University of Houston, Texas, USA.

    Corneal sensitivity to mechanical pressure, temperature and chemicals stimuli is a measure of corneal nerve function.33 More than 50% of the patients with diabetes show reduced sensitivity as a result of damage to corneal sensory nerve.34 All three types of sensitivity are reduced in patients with long-term type 1 and type 2 diabetes.23 35 Decreases in mechanical sensitivity measured by non-contact esthesiometer were noted shortly after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, but were somewhat delayed for those with type 1 diabetes, which also mimics patterns seen in peripheral neuropathy.35

    Corneal epithelial dendritic cells are antigen-presenting cells located in and around the corneal subbasal epithelial layer and initiate the immune response to infectious or inflammatory agents.23 36 Dendritic cells are critical for proper corneal epithelial wound healing.37 These cells can be identified by their morphology in vivo with confocal microscopy (figure 1). There is an increase in central dendritic cell density in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes compared with healthy controls.22 38 Dendritic cell density has also been found to be inversely related to corneal nerve fiber density,22 38 indicating that there may be a neuro-immune interaction in the development of the neurotrophic keratitis.

    The corneal epithelium is about 50 µm thick with layers of squamous, intermediate (wing) and basal cells, which are attached to the underlying basement membrane by hemidesmosomes. In vivo confocal microscopy has been used to measure the density of intermediate and basal epithelial cells in diabetes. The epithelial cell density is reduced in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, with each year of diabetes corresponding to a decrease of about 10–25 cells/mm2.39 40 The corneal basement membrane also becomes thicker and less regular, and junctions between cells are weakened in diabetes.28 41 There are direct and indirect effects of changes in glucose and insulin on the structure and metabolism of the corneal epithelium.42 In brief, hyperglycemia alters the expression of growth factors and mediators secreted by corneal epithelial cells, leading to a cyclic disruption in cell growth, migration and integrity.42 Early research suggested that the corneal epithelium does not require insulin for uptake of glucose43; however, recent research using human telomerized corneal epithelial cells in culture suggests that insulin plays a key role in mediating epithelial cell metabolism and homeostasis.44

    Although the early effects of obesity or prediabetes on corneal health have not been well explored, given the continuum of diseases seen in other aspects of the body, it is likely that the structure and function of the entire cornea is altered before the diagnosis of diabetes. Further research is needed to fully understand the potential effects of early disease states on corneal health. One major gap pertains to the possible ability of interventions that reverse glucose dysregulation, in either people with prediabetes or obesity, to improve corneal nerve health and adverse immune response, which could lead to improved corneal wound healing and reduce the risk of further damage. Some lifestyle strategies, such as increased physical activity and diet, can rapidly reduce glucose levels and postprandial insulin before and independent of weight changes. Thus, it will also be important to understand the time course of disease development for corneal health. The progression from impaired glucose tolerance or fasting hyperglycemia on through diagnosed diabetes may indicate that some of the ocular pathology occurs sooner in the spectrum of disease than the classical clinical symptoms or retinal signs at the diagnosis of diabetes. And because of this, it follows that there is a need to know if there is also a rapid attenuation or reversal in the anatomy and physiology in the eye, as there might be for adaptations in the peripheral vasculature.

    Tear film, conjunctiva, eyelid and Meibomian glands

    The ocular surface produces lipid, aqueous and mucin, to make up the tear film, which is then spread by the eyelids and serves to protect and maintain the health of the ocular surface. The aqueous layer is primarily produced by the lacrimal and accessory glands. Mucins are secreted by the conjunctival goblet cells and corneal epithelial cells. Lipids are secreted from the Meibomian glands, which are located in the eyelids.

    The International Dry Eye Workshop (DEWS) II report classified diabetes as a risk factor for aqueous-deficient dry eye disease, although it may also have an evaporative component.45 46 Patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes have been shown to have a faster tear break up time, decreased tear production and volume, higher tear osmolarity and greater rates of Meibomian gland dysfunction (figure 2).24 47–50 The ocular surface is further compromised in patients with more severe and longer duration of diabetes disease, including those with higher A1c values, or retinopathy or peripheral neuropathy.24 51 Patients with obesity (average BMI 38.2±5.8), most of whom would also have been classified as having prediabetes (FPG 108.2±14.1), also showed increased conjunctival metaplasia and goblet cell loss compared with healthy controls.52 Via a retrospective medical record review, patients with diabetes were more likely to have a diagnosis of blepharitis (type unspecified) compared with controls.53 The etiology and pathogenesis of reduced tear function in patients with diabetes is likely due to both microvascular and neuropathic changes in lacrimal and Meibomian glands, in addition to reduction in reflex tearing due to decreased corneal sensitivity and nerve dysfunction.45 54

    Patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes may also have more conjunctival hyperemia, due to a dilation of the large conjunctival vessels.55 56 At the same time, the smaller capillary vessels have been found to decrease in diameter in patients with diabetes.55 The increase in conjunctival microvasculopathy was identified even prior to the onset of clinical retinopathy.56 Further testing is needed to understand the relationship between conjunctival and retinal microvasculopathy but, due to the non-invasive nature of the testing, conjunctival microvascular testing could be a useful screening tool for early diabetic retinal disease.56

    A detailed review of tear components modified by diabetes and other diseases has been published elsewhere and is beyond the scope of this paper.57 But, in brief, many tear inflammatory mediators and neuropeptide (eg, substance P) are altered in diabetes but there are no significant changes in the main tear proteins, including lactoferrin, albumin, lipocalin, lysozyme and secretary IgA.58 59 Tear glucose levels also are higher in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes under both fasting and fed conditions compared with healthy controls.60–62 Tear glucose levels are about 10 times lower but well correlated with blood glucose levels, after allowing approximately 20–25 min for equilibration.60 61 63 Average tear glucose concentration of patients without diabetes range from about 0.05 to 0.5 mM (0.89–8.9 mg/dL), and 0.5 to 5 mM (9.0–89.3 mg/dL) for patients with diabetes.60 63 Unfortunately, there is no known report of tear glucose levels for patients with prediabetes. Insulin is critical to maintaining the health of the cornea, lacrimal glands and Meibomian glands.42 54 64 However, there is only one study which reported insulin levels in human tears. Rocha et al found that insulin levels in stimulated tears of patients without diabetes were approximately 0.20 ng/mL (69 pmol/L) under fasting conditions and increased to 0.60 ng/mL (103 pmol/L) after a meal.65 Insulin levels in tears of patients with diabetes, prediabetes or obesity have not been reported. In general, insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 (IGPBP3) binds to insulin-like growth factor-1 in order to activate the cell apoptosis and antiproliferation.39 66 Since the expression of IGPBP3 was found to be greatly increased in patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with controls and was negatively correlated with corneal nerve fiber length, it has been proposed that IGPBP3 plays an important role in corneal epithelial and nerve health in type 2 diabetes.39 66 There was a similar, although not statistically significant trend for patients with type 1 diabetes.66

    The predominant microbial species identified on the healthy ocular surface are Corynebacterium, Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Acinetobacter and Pseudomonas.67 High glucose levels in the tears and increased ocular surface inflammation with diabetes support increased microbial growth.68 Using traditional culture techniques, greater frequency of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae and enterococci have been identified on the ocular surface of patients with diabetes compared with healthy controls.69–71 Higher positive culture rates and greater bacterial diversity were associated with increasing severity and duration of diabetes disease, respectively.70 72 Using 16 s rRNA analysis, patients with type 2 diabetes were found to have greater bacterial diversity and increased abundance of Acinetobacter, Pseudomonas, Burkholderia, Sphingomonas and Ralstonia compared with healthy controls.68 73 Patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes have been shown to have an increased risk of acute bacterial conjunctivitis.53 74 Further research in larger and more diverse populations is needed to fully understand the effects of these diseases on the ocular surface microbiome and risk for ocular inflammation.

    Eye care for patients with diabetes and at-risk populations

    The American Optometric Association and the American Academy of Ophthalmology recommend that patients with diabetes receive a comprehensive eye exam at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes or 5 years after diagnoses of type 1 diabetes, and then annually thereafter.75 76 Patients with diabetic retinopathy should be seen more frequently.75 76 There are no specific guidelines for patients with prediabetes or obesity. Therefore, one of the pressing needs for more research is to define the time course of the ocular pathological changes prior to diabetes diagnosis. As discussed in the previous section, identifying potential metabolic disease changes earlier may allow for treatment and possible reversal of pathological processes which could have a significant impact on ocular and overall systemic health and quality of life.

    According to US optometry and ophthalmology guidelines, care of the patient with diabetes is focused on diagnosing and managing retinal complications.75 76 Currently, the recommendations for anterior segment complications associated with diabetes are to monitor and manage as usual and customary as there are no disease-specific treatments.76 Epithelial defects and dry eye disease can be managed with ophthalmic lubricants, punctal plugs, prescription topical or oral medications, autologous serum, amniotic membranes or lid closure.46 Bandage or scleral contact lenses may be used with caution due to increased risk of infections. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be avoided in these patients due to the possibility of corneal perforation.20 Some experimental treatments have begun to be evaluated in early human case reports and trials. Despite a lack of understanding of the normal levels of insulin in non-diabetic and diabetic tears, it has been shown that the use of topical insulin improved time to wound healing, compared with standard treatment of antibiotic and steroid, following corneal debridement during vitreoretinal surgery in patients with diabetes.77 78 Thymosin beta4 (β4) has multiple regenerative properties and has been used to heal pressure and venous stasis ulcers and improve dry eye signs and symptoms.79 80 Thymosin β4 has also been suggested to promote wound healing in a case series of patients with diabetes.81 82

    There is only one Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for neurotrophic keratitis, the most severe type of keratitis caused by corneal nerve damage, Oxervate (cenegermin). Oxervate is a recombinant human nerve growth factor, was found to improve neurotrophic keratitis in 70% of patients compared with placebo (28%).83 However, it is a costly treatment and may not be accessible to all patients. Current research is also exploring the potential use of aldose reductase inhibitors, opioid growth factors, hepatocyte growth factors and other topical therapies for neurotrophic keratitis.20 84 Unfortunately, the standard of care for patients with anterior segment complications of diabetes is still mainly palliative, based on symptoms, and uses therapies researched mostly on patients without diabetes.

    The effects of contact lens wear and diabetes have been carefully reviewed by O’Donnell and Efron and Bussan and Robertson.85 86 Patients with diabetes who wear soft contact lenses had about 130 cells/mm2 fewer endothelial cells than patients with diabetes who do not wear lenses,4 which is a 4%–5% greater loss of endothelial cells for patients with diabetes compared with healthy adults. Patients with diabetes who do not wear contact lenses had about 370 endothelial cells/mm2 less than healthy non-contact lens wearers.4 This suggests that patients with diabetes who wear soft contact lenses long-term may suffer further endothelial compromise than either factor alone.4 87 Rigid gas permeable contact lenses offer improved oxygen transmission and reduced risk of infections thus should potentially offer patients with diabetes improved outcomes. However, there is limited research beyond clinical observations of the potential complications of rigid contact lens wear in patients with diabetes.85 86 The current US ophthalmic guidelines do not preclude contact lens wear for patients with diabetes. Nevertheless, eye doctors are encouraged to educate patients with diabetes on the increased risk of complications and more frequent follow-up is recommended due to poorer wound healing, reduced corneal nerve function, decreased endothelial cell density and changes in the ocular microbiome,4 75 which may lead to contact lens indicated corneal infiltrative events.

    Patients with diabetes may be at increased risk of complications during and after ocular surgery. Patients with diabetes suffer about 4%–6% greater endothelial cell loss after cataract surgery, with greater cell loss being reported in patients with longer duration of disease.14 88 89 Fortunately, the additional cell density loss did not seem to affect visual acuity.88 89 Patients with diabetes have higher rates of incomplete wound healing after laser-assisted keratomileusis (LASIK).90 Due to unstable refractive error associated with hyperglycemia, patients with uncontrolled diabetes have worse refractive outcomes.91–93 Halkiadakis et al reported no significant difference in clinical outcomes for patients with diabetes with good glycemic control undergoing LASIK.94 The American Academy of Ophthalmology considers uncontrolled diabetes an absolute contraindication, but well-controlled diabetes a relative contraindication for refractive surgery.91 Further research is needed to fully understand the effects of metabolic disease on postsurgical pain and wound healing.

    The Eye Bank Association of America does not require indicating diabetes as a possible contributing factor to donor death, and historical data suggest that donor corneas from patients with reported diabetes is not a risk factor for penetrating keratoplasty failure.95 However, a recent study found that donor corneas from patients with obesity and diabetes were more likely to lead to graft failure in Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty surgery.96 97 Thus, continued research is needed to fully understand the risks for patients who are recipients of corneas from donors with metabolic disease.

    Summary of limitations in research and clinical care

    Research in diabetes in the eye has historically been focused on the retina. More recently, researchers have begun to explore the effects of type 1 and 2 diabetes on the anterior segment of the eye and revealed significant structural and functional alterations, including dry eye disease, even early in the disease process. Population-based studies would be required to confirm the effect of diabetes on dry eye. Corneal subbasal nerves are readily imaged with in vivo confocal microscopy and able to reveal early neuropathy and regeneration with treatment. Corneal auto-fluorescence and tear protein and neuropeptide levels may be other non-invasive methods to screen and monitor disease severity and evaluate efficacy of treatments. Unfortunately, ocular surface diabetes research continues to lag behind systemic research as there is still a limited understanding of the course of the disease from obesity and prediabetes up through later stages of the disease when retinal damage is visible. With earlier detection and education of ocular pathological events, patients may be more motivated to take action to improve overall health and prevent loss of vision, which is considered by patients as more devastating than loss of a limb, memory, hearing or speech.98

    Current anterior segment care is palliative and does nothing to stop or reverse the damage induced by diabetes. There are no guidelines for eye care for patients with obesity or prediabetes. While only severe diseases such as neurotrophic or bacterial keratitis have the potential to cause permanent visual loss, other changes to the cornea, conjunctiva, lids and tear function can lead to chronic discomfort, pain and fluctuations in vision which can have a significant impact on patients’ quality of life. More research is needed to understand if any current or novel treatments could halt or reverse the effects of metabolic disease on the eye.

    Given the staggering numbers of undiagnosed patients with prediabetes and diabetes in the USA, better early screening test are needed. The ideal screening tests would be low cost, non-invasive and have high sensitivity and specificity. While the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends A1c testing for all patients over the age of 45 years and for overweight adults of any age, many of the most at-risk patients are not seeking preventative primary care and thus remain undiagnosed. Although we may be years away from eye tests that are incorporated into ADA recommendations for eye doctors to use routinely, recent ophthalmic research has begun to identify promising tests to elucidate multiple subclinical and clinical changes associated with diabetes in the anterior segment of the eye, including readily detectable changes in corneal thickness, stiffness and nerve density. Incorporating these tests into routine eye care could allow eye doctors to better understand the course of the disease process. Other changes such as corneal auto-fluorescence, conjunctival microvasculature and tear components are not currently feasible to conduct during routine eye care but could 1 day become biomarkers with the development of better clinical tools to accurately detect and monitor changes. This has been the case in other areas such as the InflammaDry (Quidel, San Diego, California, USA) for testing matrix metallopeptidase-9 levels in patients with dry eye. Continued research is needed to determine which clinical parameters and cut-off points could help practitioners improve the specificity and sensitivity of screening tools like the ADA risk questionnaire to identify patients at greatest risk. Therefore, this review is intended to provide clinicians and researchers with information about early anterior segment changes that may, someday, further help the detection of diabetes for patients in eye clinics. Most of the studies to date have included only patients with established diabetes already under treatment. Thus, it is not clear which of the anterior segment biomarkers might best be associated with early diabetes disease and could be further developed to improve screening and detection of patients with prediabetes or early undiagnosed diabetes. Continued research and analysis of anterior segment changes in patients with prediabetes and diabetes could ultimately help eye care providers identify and make more appropriate referrals long before the onset of diabetic retinopathy. Longitudinal studies of patients from the stage of obesity, or prediabetes, or the initial diagnosis of diabetes, would allow researchers to understand the mechanism underlying the impact of hyperglycemia and insulinemia on the ocular surface tissues.

    In summary, given the epidemic rates of obesity, prediabetes and diabetes in the USA, there is a strong need for continued research to understand the anterior segment complication of metabolic disease and improve both diagnosis and treatment options for patients.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors would like to thank the students from Richdale’s and Harrison’s lab, University of Houston, College of Optometry shared the photos for this review paper.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. WHO
      . World Health organization global report on diabetes. Geneva, Switzerland, 2016: 1–88.
    2. ↵
      1. United Health Care
      . Impact of eye exams in identifying chronic conditions, 2014. Available: https://www.uhc.com/content/dam/uhcdotcom/en/Private Label Administrators/vision-white-paper-2014 Impact of Eye Exams.pdf [Accessed Aug 2019].
    3. ↵
      1. Sanchis-Gimeno JA,
      2. Alonso L,
      3. Rahhal M, et al
      . Corneal thickness differences between type 2 diabetes and non-diabetes subjects during preoperative laser surgery examination. J Diabetes Complications 2017;31:209–12.doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2016.08.024pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27623389
      OpenUrlPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Leem HS,
      2. Lee KJ,
      3. Shin KC
      . Central corneal thickness and corneal endothelial cell changes caused by contact lens use in diabetic patients. Yonsei Med J 2011;52:322–5.doi:10.3349/ymj.2011.52.2.322pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21319353
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Calvo-Maroto AM,
      2. Cerviño A,
      3. Perez-Cambrodí RJ, et al
      . Quantitative corneal anatomy: evaluation of the effect of diabetes duration on the endothelial cell density and corneal thickness. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2015;35:293–8.doi:10.1111/opo.12191pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25545996
      OpenUrlPubMed
    6. ↵
      1. Goldich Y,
      2. Barkana Y,
      3. Gerber Y, et al
      . Effect of diabetes mellitus on biomechanical parameters of the cornea. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:715–9.doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.12.013pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19304094
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Scheler A,
      2. Spoerl E,
      3. Boehm AG
      . Effect of diabetes mellitus on corneal biomechanics and measurement of intraocular pressure. Acta Ophthalmol 2012;90:e447–51.doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02437.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22691299
      OpenUrlPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. McNamara NA,
      2. Brand RJ,
      3. Polse KA, et al
      . Corneal function during normal and high serum glucose levels in diabetes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1998;39:3–17.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9430539
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    9. ↵
      1. Bao F,
      2. Deng M,
      3. Zheng X, et al
      . Effects of diabetes mellitus on biomechanical properties of the rabbit cornea. Exp Eye Res 2017;161:82–8.doi:10.1016/j.exer.2017.05.015pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28603017
      OpenUrlPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Gunes A,
      2. Uzun F,
      3. Karaca EE, et al
      . Evaluation of anterior segment parameters in obesity. Korean J Ophthalmol 2015;29:220–5.doi:10.3341/kjo.2015.29.4.220pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26240505
      OpenUrlPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Panon N,
      2. Luangsawang K,
      3. Rugaber C, et al
      . Correlation between body mass index and ocular parameters. Clin Ophthalmol 2019;13:763–9.doi:10.2147/OPTH.S196622pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31118554
      OpenUrlPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Nishitsuka K,
      2. Kawasaki R,
      3. Kanno M, et al
      . Determinants and risk factors for central corneal thickness in Japanese persons: the Funagata study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2011;18:244–9.doi:10.3109/09286586.2011.594206pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21961514
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Islam QU,
      2. Mehboob MA,
      3. Amin ZA
      . Comparison of corneal morphological characteristics between diabetic and non diabetic population. Pak J Med Sci 2017;33:1307–11.doi:10.12669/pjms.336.13628pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29492049
      OpenUrlPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Dhasmana R,
      2. Singh IP,
      3. Nagpal RC
      . Corneal changes in diabetic patients after manual small incision cataract surgery. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8:VC03–6.doi:10.7860/JCDR/2014/7955.4288pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24959498
      OpenUrlPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Van Schaik HJ,
      2. Coppens J,
      3. Van den Berg TJ, et al
      . Autofluorescence distribution along the corneal axis in diabetic and healthy humans. Exp Eye Res 1999;69:505–10.doi:10.1006/exer.1999.0733pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10548470
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Calvo-Maroto AM,
      2. Perez-Cambrodi RJ,
      3. Garcia-Lazaro S, et al
      . Ocular autofluorescence in diabetes mellitus. A review. J Diabetes 2016;8:619–28.doi:10.1111/1753-0407.12423pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27147470
      OpenUrlPubMed
    17. ↵
      1. Ishiko S,
      2. Yoshida A,
      3. Mori F, et al
      . Corneal and lens autofluorescence in young insulin-dependent diabetic patients. Ophthalmologica 1998;212:301–5.doi:10.1159/000027312pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9693285
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Hager A,
      2. Wegscheider K,
      3. Wiegand W
      . Changes of extracellular matrix of the cornea in diabetes mellitus. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2009;247:1369–74.doi:10.1007/s00417-009-1088-4pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19437029
      OpenUrlPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Schweitzer C,
      2. Korobelnik J-F,
      3. Boniol M, et al
      . Associations of biomechanical properties of the cornea with environmental and metabolic factors in an elderly population: the ALIENOR study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016;57:2003–11.doi:10.1167/iovs.16-19226pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27100157
      OpenUrlPubMed
    20. ↵
      1. Shaheen BS,
      2. Bakir M,
      3. Jain S
      . Corneal nerves in health and disease. Surv Ophthalmol 2014;59:263–85.doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2013.09.002pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24461367
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Stern ME,
      2. Gao J,
      3. Siemasko KF, et al
      . The role of the lacrimal functional unit in the pathophysiology of dry eye. Exp Eye Res 2004;78:409–16.doi:10.1016/j.exer.2003.09.003pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15106920
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      1. Qu J-H,
      2. Li L,
      3. Tian L, et al
      . Epithelial changes with corneal punctate epitheliopathy in type 2 diabetes mellitus and their correlation with time to healing. BMC Ophthalmol 2018;18:1.doi:10.1186/s12886-017-0645-6pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29301512
      OpenUrlPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. Zhivov A,
      2. Winter K,
      3. Hovakimyan M, et al
      . Imaging and quantification of subbasal nerve plexus in healthy volunteers and diabetic patients with or without retinopathy. PLoS One 2013;8:e52157.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052157pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23341892
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. DeMill DL,
      2. Hussain M,
      3. Pop-Busui R, et al
      . Ocular surface disease in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Br J Ophthalmol 2016;100:924–8.doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307369pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26500330
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      1. Jiang M-S,
      2. Yuan Y,
      3. Gu Z-X, et al
      . Corneal confocal microscopy for assessment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a meta-analysis. Br J Ophthalmol 2016;100:9–14.doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-306038pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25677672
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      1. Misra SL,
      2. Craig JP,
      3. Patel DV, et al
      . In vivo confocal microscopy of corneal nerves: an ocular biomarker for peripheral and cardiac autonomic neuropathy in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015;56:5060–5.doi:10.1167/iovs.15-16711pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26241393
      OpenUrlPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Inoue K,
      2. Okugawa K,
      3. Amano S, et al
      . Blinking and superficial punctate keratopathy in patients with diabetes mellitus. Eye 2005;19:418–21.doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6701497pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15286669
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    28. ↵
      1. Rehany U,
      2. Ishii Y,
      3. Lahav M, et al
      . Ultrastructural changes in corneas of diabetic patients: an electron-microscopy study. Cornea 2000;19:534–8.doi:10.1097/00003226-200007000-00026pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10928773
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      1. Hyndiuk RA,
      2. Kazarian EL,
      3. Schultz RO, et al
      . Neurotrophic corneal ulcers in diabetes mellitus. Arch Ophthalmol 1977;95:2193–6.doi:10.1001/archopht.1977.04450120099012pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/588113
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    30. ↵
      1. Perkins BA,
      2. Lovblom LE,
      3. Bril V, et al
      . Corneal confocal microscopy for identification of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy: a pooled multinational Consortium study. Diabetologia 2018;61:1856–61.doi:10.1007/s00125-018-4653-8pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29869146
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Azmi S,
      2. Ferdousi M,
      3. Petropoulos IN, et al
      . Corneal confocal microscopy shows an improvement in small-fiber neuropathy in subjects with type 1 diabetes on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion compared with multiple daily injection. Diabetes Care 2015;38:e3–4.doi:10.2337/dc14-1698pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25538321
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    32. ↵
      1. Jia X,
      2. Wang X,
      3. Wang X, et al
      . In vivo corneal confocal microscopy detects improvement of corneal nerve parameters following glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Res 2018;2018:1–8.doi:10.1155/2018/8516276pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30035129
      OpenUrlPubMed
    33. ↵
      1. Belmonte C,
      2. Acosta MC,
      3. Schmelz M, et al
      . Measurement of corneal sensitivity to mechanical and chemical stimulation with a CO2 esthesiometer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999;40:513–9.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9950612
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵
      1. Premkumar LS,
      2. Pabbidi RM
      . Diabetic peripheral neuropathy: role of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species. Cell Biochem Biophys 2013;67:373–83.doi:10.1007/s12013-013-9609-5pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23722999
      OpenUrlPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Neira-Zalentein W,
      2. Holopainen JM,
      3. Tervo TMT, et al
      . Corneal sensitivity in diabetic patients subjected to retinal laser photocoagulation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:6043–9.doi:10.1167/iovs.10-7054pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21447686
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    36. ↵
      1. Mastropasqua L,
      2. Nubile M,
      3. Lanzini M, et al
      . Epithelial dendritic cell distribution in normal and inflamed human cornea: in vivo confocal microscopy study. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;142:736–44.doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2006.06.057pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17056357
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      1. Gao N,
      2. Yin J,
      3. Yoon GS, et al
      . Dendritic cell-epithelium interplay is a determinant factor for corneal epithelial wound repair. Am J Pathol 2011;179:2243–53.doi:10.1016/j.ajpath.2011.07.050pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21924232
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    38. ↵
      1. Tavakoli M,
      2. Boulton AJM,
      3. Efron N, et al
      . Increased Langerhan cell density and corneal nerve damage in diabetic patients: role of immune mechanisms in human diabetic neuropathy. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2011;34:7–11.doi:10.1016/j.clae.2010.08.007pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20851037
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    39. ↵
      1. Stuard WL,
      2. Titone R,
      3. Robertson DM
      . Tear levels of insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 correlate with subbasal nerve plexus changes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2017;58:6105–12.doi:10.1167/iovs.17-22425pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29214310
      OpenUrlPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Dehghani C,
      2. Pritchard N,
      3. Edwards K, et al
      . Abnormal Anterior Corneal Morphology in Diabetes Observed Using In Vivo Laser-scanning Confocal Microscopy. Ocul Surf 2016;14:507–14.doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2016.07.004pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27555566
      OpenUrlPubMed
    41. ↵
      1. Ljubimov AV,
      2. Huang ZS,
      3. Huang GH, et al
      . Human corneal epithelial basement membrane and integrin alterations in diabetes and diabetic retinopathy. J Histochem Cytochem 1998;46:1033–41.doi:10.1177/002215549804600907pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9705969
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    42. ↵
      1. Zhu L,
      2. Titone R,
      3. Robertson DM
      . The impact of hyperglycemia on the corneal epithelium: molecular mechanisms and insight. Ocul Surf 2019;17:644–54.doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2019.06.007pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31238114
      OpenUrlPubMed
    43. ↵
      1. Friend J,
      2. Snip RC,
      3. Kiorpes TC, et al
      . Insulin sensitivity and sorbitol production of the normal rabbit corneal epithelium in vitro. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1980;19:913–9.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6997223
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    44. ↵
      1. Titone R,
      2. Zhu M,
      3. Robertson DM
      . Insulin mediates de novo nuclear accumulation of the IGF-1/insulin hybrid receptor in corneal epithelial cells. Sci Rep 2018;8:4378.doi:10.1038/s41598-018-21031-7pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29531349
      OpenUrlPubMed
    45. ↵
      1. Bron AJ,
      2. de Paiva CS,
      3. Chauhan SK, et al
      . TFOS DEWS II pathophysiology report. Ocul Surf 2017;15:438–510.doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.011pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28736340
      OpenUrlPubMed
    46. ↵
      1. Craig JP,
      2. Nelson JD,
      3. Azar DT, et al
      . TFOS DEWS II report executive summary. Ocul Surf 2017;15:802–12.doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.08.003pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28797892
      OpenUrlPubMed
    47. ↵
      1. Dogru M,
      2. Katakami C,
      3. Inoue M
      . Tear function and ocular surface changes in noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Ophthalmology 2001;108:586–92.doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00599-6pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11237914
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    48. ↵
      1. Goebbels M
      . Tear secretion and tear film function in insulin dependent diabetics. Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84:19–21.doi:10.1136/bjo.84.1.19pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10611093
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    49. ↵
      1. Sağdık HM,
      2. Ugurbas SH,
      3. Can M, et al
      . Tear film osmolarity in patients with diabetes mellitus. Ophthalmic Res 2013;50:1–5.doi:10.1159/000345770pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23445780
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    50. ↵
      1. Johanna GPS,
      2. Antonio LA,
      3. Andres GS
      . Correlation between type 2 diabetes, dry eye and meibomian gland dysfunction. J Optom. In Press 2019.
    51. ↵
      1. Yoon K-C,
      2. Im S-K,
      3. Seo M-S
      . Changes of tear film and ocular surface in diabetes mellitus. Korean J Ophthalmol 2004;18:168–74.doi:10.3341/kjo.2004.18.2.168pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15635831
      OpenUrlPubMed
    52. ↵
      1. Dağdeviren M,
      2. Altay M,
      3. Yildiz Z, et al
      . The relationship between obesity, insulin resistance, and conjunctival impression cytology. Turk Patoloji Derg 2019;35:119–27.doi:10.5146/tjpath.2018.01451pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30715725
      OpenUrlPubMed
    53. ↵
      1. Ansari AS,
      2. de Lusignan S,
      3. Hinton W, et al
      . The association between diabetes, level of glycaemic control and eye infection: cohort database study. Prim Care Diabetes 2017;11:421–9.doi:10.1016/j.pcd.2017.05.009pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28648963
      OpenUrlPubMed
    54. ↵
      1. Zhang X,
      2. Zhao L,
      3. Deng S, et al
      . Dry eye syndrome in patients with diabetes mellitus: prevalence, etiology, and clinical characteristics. J Ophthalmol 2016;2016:1–7.doi:10.1155/2016/8201053pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27213053
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    55. ↵
      1. Owen CG,
      2. Newsom RSB,
      3. Rudnicka AR, et al
      . Vascular response of the bulbar conjunctiva to diabetes and elevated blood pressure. Ophthalmology 2005;112:1801–8.doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.04.030pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16111757
      OpenUrlPubMed
    56. ↵
      1. Khansari MM,
      2. Wanek J,
      3. Tan M, et al
      . Assessment of conjunctival microvascular hemodynamics in stages of diabetic microvasculopathy. Sci Rep 2017;7:45916.doi:10.1038/srep45916pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28387229
      OpenUrlPubMed
    57. ↵
      1. von Thun Und Hohenstein-Blaul N,
      2. Funke S,
      3. Grus FH
      . Tears as a source of biomarkers for ocular and systemic diseases. Exp Eye Res 2013;117:126–37.doi:10.1016/j.exer.2013.07.015pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23880526
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    58. ↵
      1. Grus FH,
      2. Sabuncuo P,
      3. Dick HB, et al
      . Changes in the tear proteins of diabetic patients. BMC Ophthalmol 2002;2:4.doi:10.1186/1471-2415-2-4pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12489986
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    59. ↵
      1. Markoulli M,
      2. You J,
      3. Kim J, et al
      . Corneal nerve morphology and tear film substance P in diabetes. Optom Vis Sci 2017;94:726–31.doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001096pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28650386
      OpenUrlPubMed
    60. ↵
      1. Baca JT,
      2. Finegold DN,
      3. Asher SA
      . Tear glucose analysis for the noninvasive detection and monitoring of diabetes mellitus. Ocul Surf 2007;5:280–93.doi:10.1016/S1542-0124(12)70094-0pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17938838
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    61. ↵
      1. Lane JD,
      2. Krumholz DM,
      3. Sack RA, et al
      . Tear glucose dynamics in diabetes mellitus. Curr Eye Res 2006;31:895–901.doi:10.1080/02713680600976552pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17114114
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    62. ↵
      1. Sen DK,
      2. Sarin GS
      . Tear glucose levels in normal people and in diabetic patients. Br J Ophthalmol 1980;64:693–5.doi:10.1136/bjo.64.9.693pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7426593
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    63. ↵
      1. Bruen D,
      2. Delaney C,
      3. Florea L, et al
      . Glucose sensing for diabetes monitoring: recent developments. Sensors 2017;17. doi:doi:10.3390/s17081866pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28805693
    64. ↵
      1. Ding J,
      2. Liu Y,
      3. Sullivan DA
      . Effects of insulin and high glucose on human meibomian gland epithelial cells. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2015;56:7814–20.doi:10.1167/iovs.15-18049pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26658502
      OpenUrlPubMed
    65. ↵
      1. Rocha EM,
      2. Cunha DA,
      3. Carneiro EM, et al
      . Identification of insulin in the tear film and insulin receptor and IGF-1 receptor on the human ocular surface. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:963–7.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11923235
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    66. ↵
      1. Wu Y-C,
      2. Buckner BR,
      3. Zhu M, et al
      . Elevated IGFBP3 levels in diabetic tears: a negative regulator of IGF-1 signaling in the corneal epithelium. Ocul Surf 2012;10:100–7.doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2012.01.004pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22482470
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    67. ↵
      1. Ozkan J,
      2. Willcox M,
      3. Wemheuer B, et al
      . Biogeography of the human ocular microbiota. Ocul Surf 2019;17:111–8.doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2018.11.005pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30445178
      OpenUrlPubMed
    68. ↵
      1. Li S,
      2. Yi G,
      3. Peng H, et al
      . How ocular surface microbiota debuts in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2019;9:202.doi:10.3389/fcimb.2019.00202pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31263683
      OpenUrlPubMed
    69. ↵
      1. Adam M,
      2. Balcı M,
      3. Bayhan HA, et al
      . Conjunctival flora in diabetic and nondiabetic individuals. Turk J Ophthalmol 2015;45:193–6.doi:10.4274/tjo.33230pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27800231
      OpenUrlPubMed
    70. ↵
      1. Martins EN,
      2. Alvarenga LS,
      3. Höfling-Lima AL, et al
      . Aerobic bacterial conjunctival flora in diabetic patients. Cornea 2004;23:136–42.doi:10.1097/00003226-200403000-00006pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15075882
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    71. ↵
      1. Bilen H,
      2. Ates O,
      3. Astam N, et al
      . Conjunctival flora in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Adv Ther 2007;24:1028–35.doi:10.1007/BF02877708pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18029329
      OpenUrlPubMed
    72. ↵
      1. Fernández-Rubio ME,
      2. Rebolledo-Lara L,
      3. Martinez-García M, et al
      . The conjunctival bacterial pattern of diabetics undergoing cataract surgery. Eye 2010;24:825–34.doi:10.1038/eye.2009.218pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19713978
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    73. ↵
      1. Ham B,
      2. Hwang HB,
      3. Jung SH, et al
      . Distribution and diversity of ocular microbial communities in diabetic patients compared with healthy subjects. Curr Eye Res 2018;43:314–24.doi:10.1080/02713683.2017.1406528pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29172724
      OpenUrlPubMed
    74. ↵
      1. Kruse A,
      2. Thomsen RW,
      3. Hundborg HH, et al
      . Diabetes and risk of acute infectious conjunctivitis--a population-based case-control study. Diabet Med 2006;23:393–7.doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01812.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16620267
      OpenUrlPubMed
    75. ↵
      1. American Academy of Ophthalmology Retina/Vitreous Panel
      . Preferred practice pattern guidelines. diabetic retinopathy. San Fransisco, CA: American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2016.
    76. ↵
      1. American Optometric Association
      . Eye care of the patient with diabetes mellitus. 2nd edn. St Louis, MO: American Optometric Association, 2019.
    77. ↵
      1. Bastion MLC,
      2. Ling KP
      . Topical insulin for healing of diabetic epithelial defects?: a retrospective review of corneal debridement during vitreoretinal surgery in Malaysian patients. Med J Malaysia 2013;68:208–16.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23749008
      OpenUrlPubMed
    78. ↵
      1. Fai S,
      2. Ahem A,
      3. Mustapha M, et al
      . Randomized controlled trial of topical insulin for healing corneal epithelial defects induced during vitreoretinal surgery in diabetics. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol 2017;6:418–24.doi:10.22608/APO.201780pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28828764
      OpenUrlPubMed
    79. ↵
      1. Crockford D,
      2. Turjman N,
      3. Allan C, et al
      . Thymosin beta4: structure, function, and biological properties supporting current and future clinical applications. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2010;1194:179–89.doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05492.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20536467
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    80. ↵
      1. Sosne G,
      2. Rimmer D,
      3. Kleinman HK, et al
      . Thymosin beta 4: a potential novel therapy for neurotrophic keratopathy, dry eye, and ocular surface diseases. Vitam Horm 2016;102:277–306.doi:10.1016/bs.vh.2016.04.012pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27450739
      OpenUrlPubMed
    81. ↵
      1. Sacks DB,
      2. Arnold M,
      3. Bakris GL, et al
      . Position statement executive summary: guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1419–23.doi:10.2337/dc11-9997pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21617111
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    82. ↵
      1. Dunn SP,
      2. Heidemann DG,
      3. Chow CYC, et al
      . Treatment of chronic nonhealing neurotrophic corneal epithelial defects with thymosin beta 4. Arch Ophthalmol 2010;128:636–8.doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.53pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20457990
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    83. ↵
      1. Bonini S,
      2. Lambiase A,
      3. Rama P, et al
      . Phase II randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled trial of recombinant human nerve growth factor for neurotrophic keratitis. Ophthalmology 2018;125:1332–43.doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.02.022pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29653858
      OpenUrlPubMed
    84. ↵
      1. Abdelkader H,
      2. Patel DV,
      3. McGhee CN, et al
      . New therapeutic approaches in the treatment of diabetic keratopathy: a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011;39:259–70.doi:10.1111/j.1442-9071.2010.02435.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20973888
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    85. ↵
      1. O'Donnell C,
      2. Efron N
      . Diabetes and contact lens wear. Clin Exp Optom 2012;95:328–37.doi:10.1111/j.1444-0938.2012.00738.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22537249
      OpenUrlPubMed
    86. ↵
      1. Bussan KA,
      2. Robertson DM
      . Contact lens wear and the diabetic corneal epithelium: a happy or disastrous marriage? J Diabetes Complications 2019;33:75–83.doi:10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2018.09.015pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30391097
      OpenUrlPubMed
    87. ↵
      1. Sheng H,
      2. Bullimore MA
      . Factors affecting corneal endothelial morphology. Cornea 2007;26:520–5.doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e318033a6dapmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17525643
      OpenUrlPubMed
    88. ↵
      1. Hugod M,
      2. Storr-Paulsen A,
      3. Norregaard JC, et al
      . Corneal endothelial cell changes associated with cataract surgery in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cornea 2011;30:749–53.doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e31820142d9pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21317781
      OpenUrlPubMed
    89. ↵
      1. He X,
      2. Diakonis VF,
      3. Alavi Y, et al
      . Endothelial cell loss in diabetic and nondiabetic eyes after cataract surgery. Cornea 2017;36:948–51.doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000001245pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28614156
      OpenUrlPubMed
    90. ↵
      1. Fraunfelder FW,
      2. Rich LF
      . Laser-Assisted in situ keratomileusis complications in diabetes mellitus. Cornea 2002;21:246–8.doi:10.1097/00003226-200204000-00002pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11917170
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    91. ↵
      1. Bower KS,
      2. Woreta F
      . Update on contraindications for laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2014;25:251–7.doi:10.1097/ICU.0000000000000055pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24837576
      OpenUrlPubMed
    92. ↵
      1. Moshirfar M
      . Lasik in patients with diabetes mellitus, 2015. Available: https://eyewiki.aao.org/LASIK_in_Patients_With_Diabetes_Mellitus [Accessed Jan 2020].
    93. ↵
      1. Chunk RS,
      2. Jacobs DS,
      3. Lee JK, et al
      . Refractive errors & refractive surgery PPP - 2017, 2017. Available: https://www.aao.org/preferred-practice-pattern/refractive-errors-refractive-surgery-ppp-2017 [Accessed Jan 2020].
    94. ↵
      1. Halkiadakis I,
      2. Belfair N,
      3. Gimbel HV
      . Laser in situ keratomileusis in patients with diabetes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:1895–8.doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.03.075pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16338557
      OpenUrlPubMed
    95. ↵
      1. Lass JH,
      2. Riddlesworth TD,
      3. Gal RL, et al
      . The effect of donor diabetes history on graft failure and endothelial cell density 10 years after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2015;122:448–56.doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.09.012pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25439611
      OpenUrlPubMed
    96. ↵
      1. Greiner MA,
      2. Rixen JJ,
      3. Wagoner MD, et al
      . Diabetes mellitus increases risk of unsuccessful graft preparation in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a multicenter study. Cornea 2014;33:1129–33.doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000000262pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25222000
      OpenUrlPubMed
    97. ↵
      1. Vianna LMM,
      2. Stoeger CG,
      3. Galloway JD, et al
      . Risk factors for eye bank preparation failure of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty tissue. Am J Ophthalmol 2015;159:829–34.doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2015.01.030pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25640409
      OpenUrlPubMed
    98. ↵
      1. Briseno A,
      2. Jorkasky J,
      3. Levine M
      . New public opinion Poll reveals a significant number of Americans rate losing Eyesight as having greatest impact on their lives compared to other conditions, 2014. Available: https://cdn720.s3.amazonaws.com/eyeresearch/pdf/Poll_press_release.pdf [Accessed Nov 2019].

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors have contributions to the conception of the review, including drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content. All authors have given final approval of the reversion published.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement No data are available.