The standardized PRT test (Zone-Quick; Menicon) is of recent availability for clinical practice, but its real place in the diagnostic procedures remains to be clearly defined.
3,20 The main advantage of this tear production test is the lack of pain during the procedure, while this is the main inconvenience of the Schirmer I test, even when durations of tests shorter than 5 minutes are used.
21,22 The nature of the PRT test, a cotton thread soaked with phenol red, explains the excellent tolerability.
10,23 However, several questions have been raised on the reproducibility, normal values, and clinical relevance of this test. The mean results may slightly differ with sex and ethnic in normal volunteers,
13,18,24 but they do not appear to be influenced by age or the level of humidity in the examination room.
13 The experimental PRT test was found more reproducible than the Schirmer I test in normal subjects,
25 with a difference of <3 mm between two measures made in an interval of 24 hours in 68% of patients.
18,26 Even if some interexaminer variations may exist,
27 no significant difference was found between multiple measurements during the same session.
12 The PRT test is currently available in several countries (including Japan and the United States), but not at the moment in Europe, because of a 2009 revision of European standard (EN 11,137; sterilization by irradiation) that imposed a fair amount of new tests before reengaging marketing.
Our study confirms these first published results. The mean PRT values in our control group (19.12 ± 2.32 mm for PRT1 and 22.85 ± 1.71 mm for PRT2) were similar to those described earlier.
13,18,24 As reported by Patel et al.,
14 between dry eye and control patients, we found lower results in SS patients compared to SAPS patients (
P = 0.09 for PRT1 and
P = 0.003 for PRT2), and in SAPS compared to control subjects (
P = 0.001 for PRT1 and
P < 10
-5 for PRT2).
Despite such differences between the three groups of patients, the PRT per se did not appear as the ultimate test to screen dry eye from normal patients, because specificity and sensitivity indexes appeared at most equal to those of Schirmer I tests in our study population, even when the best cutoff value was chosen according to the ROC procedure. Indeed, when PRT was performed on a nonstimulated eye (i.e., PRT1, which was performed before the Schirmer I test in our study), no cutoff value was efficient to provide good sensitivity or specificity indexes, as shown by the lack of obvious hinge point in the ROC curve (
Fig. 2), and when PRT was performed on a stimulated eye (i.e., PRT2, which was performed after the Schirmer I test), the best combination between sensitivity and specificity indexes (obtained with a threshold of 15 mm) was similar to those obtained with the Schirmer I test alone, using a threshold of 10 mm (68% and 90% vs. 77.8% and 82.5%).
However, we observed that PRT1 value was lower than PRT2 in 75% of control patients and in 69% of SAPS patients, but only in 39% of SS patients. This suggested that the triggering effect of the Schirmer I test on tear production persisted during several minutes in control patients, explaining the higher PRT2 value compared to PRT1. In contrast, dry eye patients were more frequently characterized by a PRT2 value equal or lower than PRT1, as a possible consequence of some drying up of the lachrymal secretion. We therefore studied an additional variable called ΔPRT, defined as PRT2 – PRT1. A positive value indicated persistent tearing after the Schirmer I test and was more expected in non–dry eye patients, as shown by the significant difference between PRT1 and PRT2 in these normal subjects (
Table 2).
To make the difference between SS and control patient, this new variable provided sensitivity and specificity indexes that were similar to those of Schirmer I or PRT2 (61% and 75%, respectively;
Table 3). Interestingly, some SS or SAPS patients with an unexpected Shirmer I test above 10 mm had a low PRT2 value (below 15 mm) and/or a negative ΔPRT value. This suggested that PRT2 and ΔPRT could be used as rescue markers for the final diagnosis of tear secretion insufficiency.
We assessed several combinations of Schirmer I, PRT2, and ΔPRT, with the aim of helping the physician to predict if the patient would be finally classified as either SS or SAPS. We found that the combination of a positive Schirmer I test (≤10 mm) and a negative value of ΔPRT improved the specificity (92.5%) for screening SS patients from control subjects, as was the combination between a positive Schirmer I test (≤10 mm) and a positive PRT2 (≤15 mm). Interestingly, if only one of the Schimer I or PRT2 tests was positive, a negative value of ΔPRT raised the combination to an excellent specificity (92.5%) without no dramatic decrease of sensitivity (54.1%;
Table 4).
The advantage of combining tests was also shown when analyzing the PPVs and NPVs by initiating the analysis with the current reference test of lachrymal production (i.e., the Schirmer I test)
6 (
Figs. 5,
6).
For example, the PPV for being finally classified as having SS rose from 55.5% when only the positive Schirmer I test was taken into account to 73.3% when Schirmer I, PRT2, and ΔPRT were all conclusive (
Fig. 5). The interest was even more striking for the NPVs of combined procedures. A patient with a normal Schirmer I test (>10 mm) had a 40% probability to finally be classified as normal, which decreased to 15.4% if PRT2 was positive (<15 mm) and even 0% even if both PRT2 and ΔPRT were below the threshold. Therefore, combining PRT2 and ΔPRT could play the role of a rescue strategy for optimizing the screening of potential sicca syndrome diagnostic strategy. For the physician in the daily clinical practice, at least one positive test among PRT2 (≤15 mm) or ΔPRT (<0) tests appears as a good indicator of the legitimacy to practice more invasive or expensive diagnostic procedures, because the probability that the patient is really affected by sicca syndrome is more important than if only the Schirmer I test had been taken into account.
To validate this idea in the real life, we analyzed the data of 71 additional patients referred to our department between April 2009 and April 2010 (i.e., different from those included in the main study) for a suspicion of sicca syndrome. The blinded analysis (by ML) of the tear production tests found 33 patients with a negative Schirmer I test (i.e., >10 mm), while the final analysis of the whole clinical files (XM and CM) had concluded that five patients could be classified as SS patients and 28 as SAPS patients.
6,17 Interestingly, the PRT2 and/or ΔPRT were positive (below the thresholds defined in our study) in 80% of SS patients but only in 25% of SAPS patients, confirming that the combined testing procedure improves the predictive value or tear production assessment for screening SS patients.
Despite several studies and clinical research programs, debates are still ongoing on the most accurate and/or reproducible diagnostic procedure to screen dry eye patients. This is likely related to the lack between signs and symptoms in these patients and with the poor repeatability of tests, including questionnaires on subjective signs.
3,5,9,28 In that respect, the Schirmer I test is commonly considered as poorly reproducible during the same, or between visits, while PRT has been advocated to be more reliable.
9,16,18,25 Our study suggests that their combination could improve the global effectiveness of tear production assessment in severe dry eye patients.
Interestingly, a recent study comparing 231 patients with primary SS with 89 dry eye patients showed that a rose Bengal staining in the temporal conjunctiva may also be a good marker to identify the dry eye disease in the eye care office.
29 Based on specificity and sensitivity indexes at 56.2%and 96.1%, respectively, this study suggested that a careful analysis of the eyes by the ophthalmologist is a valuable tool for the work-up of suspected SS patients. However, rose Bengal eye drops are not available in many countries, and most physicians have reduced their use in daily clinical practice because their instillation is very painful. Indeed, the use of rose Bengal needs to be preceded by topical anesthetics, which in turn are often toxic to the corneal epithelium, especially in dry eyes. The measurement of tear osmolarity also has been shown to be a very accurate test for the assessment of dry eye disease severity.
30 This new technology is rather expensive at present and risks to remain so as long as the volume of machines and devices of measure distributed in the world are limited. Because PRT is a painless and inexpensive test, with no side effects on the ocular surface,
10,31 we believe that it could represent a valuable alternative.
In conclusion, the combination of Schirmer I and PRT tests significantly improves the diagnostic procedure of ocular dryness, with optimized PPV and NPV values compared to the Schirmer I test alone. This combined procedure could be included in the general work-up of patients presenting with dry eye subjective symptoms, particularly in those suspected of SS, allowing for the better selection of patients that should benefit from more invasive and expensive tests, such as blood analysis for anti-SSA and anti-SSB antibodies or salivary gland biopsy.
Many thanks to Céline Beley for careful proofreading of the manuscript, and to Frédérique L'Huillier for help in data management.