Real-world assessment of diquafosol in dry eye patients with risk factors such as contact lens, meibomian gland dysfunction, and conjunctivochalasis: subgroup analysis from a prospective observational study

Figures & data

Table 1 Subgroup population in each risk factor

Risk factor	The number of patients with or without risk factor
	With	Without
CL	64	901
MGD	32	933
Conjunctivochalasis	50	915

Abbreviations: CL, contact lens; MGD, meibomian gland dysfunction.

Figure 1 Corneal and conjunctival fluorescein staining scores (A), total symptom scores (B), tear film break-up time (BUT) (C), and patient-reported outcomes (D) in patients with and without the contact lens (CL) use.

Note: *P<0.01 compared with respective pretreatment.

Figure 2 Corneal and conjunctival fluorescein staining scores (A), total symptom scores (B), tear film break-up time (BUT) (C), and patient-reported outcomes (D) in patients with and without concomitant meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD).

Note: *P<0.01 compared with respective pretreatment.

Figure 3 Corneal and conjunctival fluorescein staining scores (A), total symptom scores (B), tear film break-up time (BUT) (C), and patient-reported outcomes (D) in patients with and without concomitant conjunctivochalasis.

Note: *P<0.01 compared with respective pretreatment.

Table 2 Incidence of adverse reactions in each subgroup

Subgroup	Total number of patients	Incidence: number of patients (%)
CL
With	64	3 (4.7)
Without	901	44 (4.9)
MGD
With	32	2 (6.3)
Without	933	45 (4.8)
Conjunctivochalasis
With	50	4 (8.0)
Without	915	43 (4.7)

Abbreviations: CL, contact lens; MGD, meibomian gland dysfunction.