Abstract
Purpose :
Wildfires are increasingly frequent and severe and release pollutants which can adversely impact the ocular surface. The Australian fires of 2019-2020 released extreme amounts of smoke, affecting half the Australian population. This pilot study compared ocular surface symptoms, signs and management strategies used in an optometry practice during the wildfires and during a control period.
Methods :
Records of patients examined at the optometry clinic at UNSW in Sydney, Australia between October 2019 and February 2020 (fire period when extreme smoke severely reduced air quality) and from same months in 2018-2019 (control) were audited. Records containing ocular surface examinations of patients who had provided prior research consent were included. Ocular surface symptoms, signs and management were extracted from records and compared between the fire period and control period using Chi Square and Mann-Whitney U test. Associations with ambient air quality (PM2.5 level, NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment) were examined using Spearman’s correlation (p<0.05).
Results :
104 records in the fire period and 74 in the control period were audited. Patient age and sex did not differ between fire and control periods (35 ± 15 years; 44% male). The most common reason for presentation was for general check-up in both the fire (28%) and control period (26%). The symptom of ‘dry eyes’ was recorded more frequently during the fire (22%) than the control (11%) period (p=0.04), but there were no significant differences in the occurrence of other ocular surface symptoms or clinical signs (Table). There were no differences in the recommended management such as lubricants, lid hygiene or warm compress (Table). Out of the 123 days in each fire and control period, ambient air PM2.5 levels exceeded national air quality standards on 23 days in fire period and zero days in control period, but no associations were evident between PM2.5 level on the date of eye examination and recorded ocular surface symptoms, signs management.
Conclusions :
There was more frequent reporting of symptoms of dry eyes during wildfire period than during control (non-fire) period. This was not associated with a clear pattern of exposure and did not lead to increased diagnosis of chronic dry eye disease. Confirmation of these findings using optometry practices from other regions impacted by wildfires is warranted.
This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.