Smoking, Corneal Biomechanics, and Glaucoma: Results From Two Large Population-Based Cohorts

Le résumé fourni par la source

Purpose: Smoking may influence measured IOP through an effect on corneal biomechanics, but it is unclear whether this factor translates into an increased risk for glaucoma. This study aimed to examine the association of cigarette smoking with corneal biomechanical properties and glaucoma-related traits, and to probe potential causal effects using Mendelian randomization (MR). Methods: Cross-sectional analyses within the UK Biobank (UKB) and Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) cohorts. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were used to assess associations of smoking (status, intensity, and duration) with corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor, IOP, inner retinal thicknesses, and glaucoma. Two-sample MR analyses were performed. Results: Overall, 68,738 UKB (mean age, 56.7 years; 54.7% women) and 22 845 CLSA (mean age, 62.7 years; 49.1% women) participants were included. Compared with nonsmokers, smokers had a higher CH (UKB, +0.48 mm Hg; CLSA, +0.57 mm Hg; P < 0.001) and corneal resistance factor (UKB, +0.47 mm Hg; CLSA, +0.60 mm Hg; P < 0.001) with evidence of a dose-response effect in both studies. Differential associations with Goldmann-correlated IOP (UKB, +0.25 mm Hg; CLSA, +0.36 mm Hg; P < 0.001) and corneal-compensated IOP (UKB, -0.28 mm Hg; CLSA, -0.32 mm Hg; P ≤ 0.001) were observed. Smoking was not associated with inner retinal thicknesses or glaucoma status in either study. MR provided evidence for a causal effect of smoking on corneal biomechanics, especially higher CH. Conclusions: Cigarette smoking seems to increase corneal biomechanical resistance to deformation, but there was little evidence to support a relationship with glaucoma. This outcome may result in an artefactual association with measured IOP and could account for discordant results with glaucoma in previous epidemiological studies.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.