Original Article Risk Factors Associated with Keratoconus in an Iranian Population Hossein Mohammad-Rabei1,2, MD; Shahrokh Ramin3, MD; Sahar Lotfi3, MS; Hamideh Sabbaghi3, 4, PhD; Farid Karimian1, MD; Saeid Abdi3, MS; Mohammad Hasan Shahriari5, MS; Bahareh Kheiri1, MS; Kourosh Sheibani6, MD; Mohammad Ali Javadi1, MD 1Ophthalmic Research Center, Research Institute for Ophthalmology and Vision Science, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 2Department of Ophthalmology, Torfeh Eye Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 3Department of Optometry, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 4Ophthalmic Epidemiology Research Center, Research Institute for Ophthalmology and Vision Science, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 5Department of Health Information, Technology and Management, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 6Basir Eye Health Research Center, Tehran, Iran ORCID: Hamideh Sabbaghi: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2627-7222 Hossein Mohammad-Rabei: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3653-6272 Abstract Purpose: To determine associated factors for keratoconus (KCN) in the Iranian population. Methods: In this retrospective case-control study, 100 KCN patients and 200 age- and sex-matched individuals, who were either candidates for photorefractive keratectomy or healthy referrals from the Torfeh Eye Hospital, were included as the case and control groups, respectively. KCN patients were all registered at the Iranian National Registry of Keratoconus (KCNReg®). Demographic characteristics, patients’ symptoms and their habits, as well as systemic and ocular disorders were documented. Clinical examinations included best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and refractive error measurements, biomicroscopic examination, and corneal imaging. Results: In this case group, the frequency of mild, moderate, and severe KCN was 38%, 28%, and 34%, respectively. Parental consanguinity (odds ratio [OR] = 1.758, P = 0.029), positive familial history in patients’ first degree (OR = 12.533, P < 0.001) and second degree (OR = 7.52, P < 0.001) relatives, vernal keratoconjunctivitis (OR = 7.510, P = 0.003), severe eye rubbing (OR = 10.625, P < 0.001), and systemic diseases including migraine, hypertension, and thyroid disease (OR = 6.828, P = 0.021) were found as associated factors for KCN. Lesser frequency of KCN was observed in patients with Fars ethnicity (OR = 0.583, P = 0.042), with higher levels of wealth indices (OR = 0.31, P < 0.001) and higher levels of education (OR = 0.18, P = 0.024). Conclusion: Severe eye rubbing, vernal keratoconjunctivitis, parental consanguinity and positive familial history of KCN, low socioeconomic status, and low levels of education were significantly associated with KCN in our study population. Keywords: Associated Factors; Iran; Keratoconus; Population J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2023; 18 (1): 15–23 © 2023 Mohammad-Rabei et al. THIS IS AN OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE DISTRIBUTED UNDER THE CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION LICENSE | PUBLISHED BY KNOWLEDGE E 15 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.18502/jovr.v18i1.12721&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-07-17 Risk Factors for Keratoconus; Mohammad-Rabei et al INTRODUCTION Keratoconus (KCN) is a progressive non- inflammatory corneal thinning disorder which commonly occurs bilaterally and asymmetrically. It appears in most patients between the second and fourth decades of their lives.[1–3] In previous literature, a prevalence of 50 to 2300 cases per 100,000 individuals has been reported for this disease in different geographical regions.[4–7] The annual incidence rate of KCN was reported within the range of 22.3 to 24.9 per 100,000 population in Yazd, a province of Iran with a hot and dry climate.[8] Most patients complain of reduced vision due to induced myopia and irregular astigmatism secondary to the deformation of corneal tissue into a cone-shaped structure.[1–3] The reduction of visual acuity among patients decreases activity and quality of life.[1, 9] Various environmental, socioeconomic, and familial factors including atopic diseases and eye rubbing,[10–12] exposure to sunlight and ultraviolet radiation,[1, 10] race,[10] older age,[10, 13] low socioeconomic status or low levels of education,[14] parental consanguinity,[15] and positive familial history[10] have all been reported as the probable risk factors for KCN. However, these risk factors are controversial.[3, 10, 16–19] Considering different geographical regions, less prevalence of KCN has been found in Northern Europe,[10,20,21] North America,[10,22,23] and Japan[10,24] as compared with India, China,[10, 25, 26] and Eastern Mediterranean countries.[10, 27, 28] Due to the importance of KCN as a leading cause of visual impairment and the effectiveness of implementing preventive approaches in some higher risk individuals, we aimed to determine the possible associated factors for KCN among the Iranian population. Correspondence to: Hamideh Sabbaghi, PhD. Ophthalmic Epidemiology Research Center, Research Institute for Ophthalmology and Vision Science, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, No. 23, Paidarfard St., Boostan 9 St., Pasdaran Ave., Tehran, 16666, Iran. E-mail: Sabbaghi.opt@gmail.com Received: 10-06-2021 Accepted: 21-03-2022 Access this article online Website: https://knepublishing.com/index.php/JOVR DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v18i1.12721 METHODS Patient Enrolment In this case–control study, a total of 300 subjects in the age range of 16 to 61 years were studied as case (n = 100) and control (n = 200) groups between March 2016 and October 2017. KCN patients were all registered at the Iranian National Registry of Keratoconus (KCNReg®). The study protocol adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ophthalmic Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences via the approval number IR.SBMU.ORC.1397.12. The study details were explained to all participants and written consent was obtained prior to enrolling into the study.For the case group, we used the demographic and clinical records of 100 registered KCN patients from the KCNReg®. The control group comprised 200 age- and sex-matched individuals who were either candidates for photorefractive keratectomy or healthy referrals from the Torfeh Eye Hospital. We excluded patients who were under suspicion of having a diagnosis of KCN or any other corneal pathological disorders from the control group. The Questionnaire Data collection was performed using a standard questionnaire based on the questionnaire used by Owen and Gamble,[29] which had been applied previously in other studies.[15, 28] In order for the questionnaire to be more comprehensive it was independently translated to the Persian language by two bilingual translators (an ophthalmologist and an optometrist). The two translators mutually agreed about any differences. The document was also translated back into This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite this article: Mohammad-Rabei H, Ramin Sh, Lotfi S, Sabbaghi H, Karimian F, Abdi S, Shahriari MH, Kheiri B, Sheibani K, Javadi MA. Risk Factors Associated with Keratoconus in an Iranian Population. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2023;18:15–23. 16 JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMIC AND VISION RESEARCH Volume 18, Issue 1, January-March 2023 https://knepublishing.com/index.php/JOVR Risk Factors for Keratoconus; Mohammad-Rabei et al English by another translator and compared to the original questionnaire to check the consistency of the translation. It was then presented to an expert panel which included ophthalmologists, biostatisticians, and research methodologists to assess its format and content validity. Finally, we asked 10 patients to read the questionnaire to determine whether there were any items that they could not understand. No shortcomings were detected by these individuals. In this questionnaire, demographic characteristics such as age, sex, occupation, birthplace, ethnicity, parental consanguinity, patients’ education and socioeconomic status were questioned. Patients’ symptoms (blurred vision, diplopia, and dry eye) and their habits (smoking, eye rubbing, duration of sunlight exposure, and wearing of contact lens or sunglasses) were also documented. Comorbidities of either general or systemic disorders (diabetes, atopic diseases, mitral valve prolapse, collagen diseases, renal dysfunction, and any other systemic disorders) and/or ocular diseases (vernal keratoconjunctivitis and glaucoma) among patients were also recorded in both groups. In addition, family history of KCN as well as any history of previous corneal surgery was recorded. For both the case and control groups, the questionnaires were filled either on paper, online, telephone, or via face-to-face interviews in order to increase the response rate. Visual and Ocular Examinations Clinical examinations included measurements of the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), refractive error, biomicroscopic examination, and corneal imaging using Tomey topography (TMS-4, Tomey, Nishi-Ku, Japan) and Pentacam (WaveLight Allegro Topolyzer Vario, Alcon, United States). Funduscopy was also conducted by an indirect binocular ophthalmoscope through dilated pupil using a 78D lens. Definitions KCN was diagnosed if any of the following signs were observed in any of the examination steps; presence of scissor reflex in retinoscopy, as well as Vogt’s striae, Fleischer ring, Munson’s sign, stromal thinning, corneal scar, and hydrops in biomicroscopy. KCN diagnosis was also determined based on the corneal topography in cases with a Sim k > 45.57D, corneal irregularity measurement (CIM) between 0.69 and 100 µm, surface regularity index (SRI) higher than 0.56, inferior–superior (I–S) asymmetry >1.8, and KCN severity index (KSI) >30%.[30] The severity of KCN was determined based on the Rabinowitz classification[30] by an experienced cornea and anterior segment specialist (HMR). Subjects were included in the control group if none of the KCN signs were observed in their examination. First-degree relatives were considered as the patients’ offspring, siblings, or their parents while the second-degree relatives included their uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, grandparents, grandchildren, half-siblings, and double cousins. We asked the patients to determine the duration of eye rubbing during a day, where it was classified as high in cases with a duration of 10 to 180 s, low with eye rubbing of <10 s, and never in cases with no reports of eye rubbing during a day.[10] Statistical Analysis To present data, we used mean, standard deviation, median, range, frequency, and percentage. To evaluate the differences between the groups, we used the Fisher’s Exact Test and the Chi-square Test. We also used generalized estimating equations when needed to consider the possible correlation of the results in the eyes. To assess the effect of the associated factor on the incidence of KCN, we first entered the associated factor in the model as univariate then each variable which had a P-value of <0.2 was entered into the model as multivariate. All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software version 25 (IBM Corp. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS In total 100 KCN patients and 200 controls with a mean age of 30.14 ± 7.93 years participated in the present case–control study. In the case group, the frequency of mild, moderate, and severe KCN was 38%, 28%, and 34%, respectively. Table 1 represents the comparison of baseline characteristics between the case and the control groups. As shown, no significant difference was JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMIC AND VISION RESEARCH Volume 18, Issue 1, January-March 2023 17 Risk Factors for Keratoconus; Mohammad-Rabei et al Table 1. Comparison of demographic characteristics between case and control groups. Factors Level Total Groups OR 95% CI P-value* KCN (n = 100) Control (n = 200) Lower Upper Age (yr) Mean ± SD 30.14 ± 7.93 29.54 ± 8.54 30.44 ± 7.61 0.985 1.017 0.955 0.356 Median (Range) 29 (16 to 61) 28 (16 to 61) 29 (16 to 55) Sex Male 150 (50.0%) 50 (50.0%) 100 (50.0%) 1 0.619 1.616 >0.999 Female 150 (50.0%) 50 (50.0%) 100 (50.0%) 1 Birthplace North 24 (8.0%) 7 (7.0%) 17 (8.5%) 0.961 0.378 2.443 0933 South 9 (3.0%) 4 (4.0%) 5 (2.5%) 1.867 0.483 7.207 0.365 West 66 (22.0%) 31 (31.0%) 35 (17.5%) 2.067 1.164 3.671 0.013 East 10 (3.3%) 1 (1.0%) 9 (4.5%) 0.259 0.032 2.094 0.205 Center 191 (63.7%) 57 (57.0%) 134 (67.0%) 1 Patient’s ethnicity Fars 108 (36.0%) 28 (28.0%) 80 (40.0%) 0.583 0.347 0.981 0.042 Others 192 (64.0%) 72 (72.0%) 120 (60.0%) 1 Parental consanguinity Yes 95 (31.7%) 40 (40.0%) 55 (27.5%) 1.758 1.059 2.916 0.029 No 205 (68.3%) 60 (60.0%) 145 (72.5%) 1 Patient’s education (yr) 0–6 8 (2.7%) 5 (5.0%) 3 (1.5%) 1 6–12 162 (54.0%) 65 (65.0%) 97 (48.5%) 0.402 0.093 1.741 0.223 >12 130 (43.3%) 30 (30.0%) 100 (50.0%) 0.18 0.041 0.797 0.024 Patient’s occupation Indoor 200 (66.7%) 67 (67.0%) 133 (66.5%) 1 Outdoor 100 (33.3%) 33 (33.0%) 67 (33.5%) 0.978 0.587 1.628 0.931 Wealth index Rich 102 (34.0%) 19 (19.0%) 83 (41.5%) 0.31 0.165 0.583 <0.001 Normal 92 (30.7%) 36 (36.0%) 56 (28.0%) 0.871 0.493 1.539 0.635 Poor 106 (35.3%) 45 (45.0%) 61 (30.5%) 1 Sunlight exposure during a day (hr) 0–2 112 (37.3%) 37 (37.0%) 75 (37.5%) 1 3–4 88 (29.3%) 30 (30.0%) 58 (29.0%) 1.048 0.581 1.893 0.875 5–6 34 (11.3%) 11 (11.0%) 23 (11.5%) 0.969 0.427 2.2 0.941 >6 66 (22.0%) 22 (22.0%) 44 (22.0%) 1.014 0.531 1.933 0.968 Wearing of sunglasses Yes 128 (42.7%) 40 (40.0%) 88 (44.0%) 0.841 0.516 1.37 0.487 No 172 (57.3%) 60 (60.0%) 112 (56.0%) 1 KCN, keratoconus; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation ∗Based on binary logistic regression 18 JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMIC AND VISION RESEARCH Volume 18, Issue 1, January-March 2023 Risk Factors for Keratoconus; Mohammad-Rabei et al Table 2. Comparison of clinical characteristics between case and control groups to find the probable associated factors. Factors Level Total Groups OR 95% CI P-value* KCN (n = 100) Control (n = 200) Lower Upper KCN in family First-degree 35 (11.7%) 28 (28.0%) 7 (3.5%) 12.533 5.21 30.148 <0.001 Second- degree 17 (5.7%) 12 (12.0%) 5 (2.5%) 7.52 2.54 22.21 <0.001 No 248 (82.7%) 60 (60.0%) 188 (94.0%) 1 Systemic diseases Diabetes 3 (1%) 2 (2.0%) 1 (0.5%) 4.552 0.405 51.200 0.22 MVP 6 (2.0%) 2 (2.0%) 4 (2.0%) 1.138 0.203 6.388 0.883 Renal 3 (1.0%) 2 (2.0%) 1 (0.5%) 4.552 0.405 51.200 0.220 Asthma 7 (2.3%) 1 (1.0%) 6 (3.0%) 0.379 0.045 3.222 0.374 Eczema 18 (6.0%) 8 (8.0%) 10 (5.0%) 1.821 0.684 4.849 0.231 Allergy 65 (21.7%) 21 (21.0%) 44 (22.0%) 1.086 0.593 1.988 0.789 Others 8 (2.7%) 6 (6.0%) 2 (1.0%) 6.828 1.338 34.841 0.021 No 190 (63.3%) 58 (58.0%) 132 (66.0%) 1 Ocular diseases Glaucoma 17 (5.7%) 7 (7.0%) 10 (5.0%) 1.577 0.58 4.286 0.372 VKC 13 (4.3%) 10(10.0%) 3 (1.5%) 7.510 2.015 27.997 0.003 No 270 (90.0%) 83 (83.0 %) 187 (93.5%) 1 Eye rubbing Never 110 (36.7%) 25 (25.0%) 85 (42.5%) 1 Low 157 (52.3%) 50 (50.0%) 107 (53.5%) 1.589 0.909 2.776 0.104 High 33 (11.0%) 25 (25.0%) 8 (4.0%) 10.625 4.266 26.463 <0.001 Dry eye Never 177 (59.0%) 53 (53.0%) 124 (62.0%) 1 Mild 90 (30.0%) 31 (31.0%) 59 (29.5%) 1.229 0.716 2.111 0.454 Moderate 28 (9.3%) 13 (13.0%) 15 (7.5%) 2.028 0.903 4.555 0.087 Severe 5 (1.7%) 3 (3.0%) 2 (1.0%) 3.509 0.570 21.614 0.176 Smoking Yes 35 (11.7%) 7 (7.0%) 28 (14.0%) 0.46 0.193 1.093 0.079 No 265 (88.3%) 93 (93.0%) 172 (86.0%) 1 KCN, keratoconus; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; MVP, mitral valve prolapse; VKC, vernal keratoconjunctivitis; NA, not available ∗Based on binary logistic regression; ∗∗Not available because of zero observation in one of the levels found between the two studied groups regarding age, sex, ethnicity, occupation, sunlight exposure, and wearing of sunglasses. However, it was found that patients living in the west regions of Iran were at a higher risk of KCN as compared to the controls (odds ratio [OR] = 2.067, P = 0.013). Furthermore, parental consanguinity (OR = 1.758, P = 0.029) was also found as another associated factor for KCN. JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMIC AND VISION RESEARCH Volume 18, Issue 1, January-March 2023 19 Risk Factors for Keratoconus; Mohammad-Rabei et al Table 3. Comparison of topo- and tomographic findings in case and control groups. Factors KCN (n = 100) P-value* Pairwise comparison Control (n = 200) P-value** Total Severe (1) Moderate (2) Mild (3) Kmin (D) 48.04 ± 4.53 50.46 ± 5.09 48.21 ± 3.23 44.63 ± 1.9 <0.001 (1,3) (2,3) 43.24 ± 1.62 <0.001 47.3 (39, 65.05) 49.7 (39, 65.05) 48.15 (42.6, 57.87) 45.35 (39.8, 46.95) 43.35 (38.4, 46.7) Kmax (D) 51.57 ± 5.02 54.2 ± 5.71 51.93 ± 3.76 47.71 ± 1.42 <0.001 (1,3) (2,3) 44.26 ± 1.96 <0.001 50.8 (40.28, 64.14) 54.2 (40.28, 62.0) 51.1 (45.63, 64.14) 47.92 (45, 49.8) 44.3 (38.8, 55.7) Kmeans (D) 49.81 ± 4.28 52.33 ± 4.42 50.07 ± 3.25 46.17 ± 1.54 <0.001 (1,3) (2,3) 43.74 ± 1.67 <0.001 49 (40.7, 61.0) 52.35 (40.7, 59.5) 49.3 (46.75, 61.0) 46.3 (42.85, 48.3) 43.75 (38.6, 50.7) CCT (µm) 468.75 ± 47.89 429.26 ± 41.61 476 ± 34.79 499.56 ± 35.88 <0.001 (1,2) (1,3) 543.32 ± 32.5 <0.001 469 (352, 574) 430 (352, 551) 472 (401, 539) 499 (437, 574) 541.5 (405, 623) KCN, keratoconus; K, keratometry; D, diopter; CCT, central corneal thickness; µm, micrometer ∗Based on ANOVA (Bonferroni Post Hoc Multiple comparison); ∗∗Based on independent T-test However, less frequency of KCN was observed in patients with Fars ethnicity (OR = 0.583, P = 0.042), higher levels of wealth indices (OR = 0.31, P < 0.001), and higher levels of education (OR = 0.18, P = 0.024). Table 2 shows the comparison of clinical characteristics between the case and the control groups. As presented, higher risk of KCN was observed in patients who had a positive familial history in their first- (OR = 12.533, P < 0.001) and second-degree (OR = 7.52, P < 0.001) relatives, and in cases who had systemic diseases including migraine, hypertension, and thyroid disease (OR = 6.828, P = 0.021). In addition, patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis (OR = 7.510, P = 0.003) and severe eye rubbing (OR = 10.625, P < 0.001) were found to be at a higher risk of KCN as compared with the healthy controls. No significant differences were observed when comparing the other factors between the two groups. Description of topographic findings at different stages of KCN and the control group is summarized in Table 3. As shown, higher keratometric values (Kmin, Kmax, and K-means) and thinner central corneal thickness were observed in severe KCN patients as compared with the other stages of KCN and the normal controls (P < 0.001 for both). Table 4 represents the effect of various factors on different stages of KCN. As shown, low wealth index was the only variable identified as associated factor among patients with severe KCN (P = 0.019). No statistically significant association was found when investigating other factors. DISCUSSION In the present study, parental consanguinity, positive familial history in patients’ first- and second-degree relatives, vernal keratoconjunctivitis, severe eye rubbing, and systemic diseases including migraine, hypertension, and thyroid disease were found as associated factors for KCN. On the other hand, lesser frequency of KCN was observed in patients with Fars ethnicity, higher levels of wealth indices and education. We observed that KCN is more prevalent in cases who have positive familial history of KCN. It has been reported that 14% of patients with KCN have an affected family member which could be considered as evidence for the hereditary nature of KCN, which is in line with our observation.[31] Hashemi et al identified this significant association between the incidence of KCN and positive familial history.[32] Furthermore, we observed that KCN patients had higher percentages of parental consanguinity, which is in line with previous studies reporting a high prevalence of KCN among populations of Pakistan, Western Mediterranean countries, and India who have a high percentage of consanguine marriages.[10, 15, 33, 34] Due to the 20 JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMIC AND VISION RESEARCH Volume 18, Issue 1, January-March 2023 Risk Factors for Keratoconus; Mohammad-Rabei et al Table 4. The stages of keratoconus and possible associated factors for severity. Factors Level Total Severity of KCN (n = 100) P-value* Severe (n = 38) Moderate (n = 28) Mild (n = 34) Birthplace North 7 (7.0%) 1 (2.6%) 4 (14.3%) 2 (5.9%) 0.476 South 4 (4.0%) 1 (2.6%) 2 (7.1%) 1 (2.9%) West 31 (31.0%) 13 (34.2%) 7 (25.0%) 11 (32.4%) East 1 (1.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (3.6%) 0 (0.0%) Center 57 (57.0%) 23 (60.5%) 14 (50.0%) 20 (58.8%) Patient’s ethnicity Fars 28 (28.0%) 11 (28.9%) 7 (25.0%) 10 (29.4%) 0.916 Others 72 (72.0%) 27 (71.1%) 21 (75.0%) 24 (70.6%) Parental Consanguinity Yes 40 (40.0%) 18 (47.4%) 12 (42.9%) 10 (29.4%) 0.280 No 60 (60.0%) 20 (52.6%) 16 (57.1%) 24 (70.6%) Patient’s education (yr) 0–6 5 (5.0%) 3 (7.9%) 2 (7.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0.559 6–12 65 (65.0%) 25 (65.8%) 17 (60.7%) 23 (67.6%) >12 30 (30.0%) 10 (26.3%) 9 (32.1%) 11 (32.4%) Wealth index Rich 19 (19.0%) 2 (5.3%) 5 (17.9%) 12 (35.3%) 0.019 Normal 36 (36.0%) 14 (36.8%) 10 (35.7%) 12 (35.3%) Poor 45 (45.0%) 22 (57.9%) 13 (46.4%) 10 (29.4%) KCN in family No 60 (60.0%) 24 (63.2%) 18 (64.3%) 18 (52.9%) 0.096 First-degree 28 (28.0%) 13 (34.2%) 7 (25.0%) 8 (23.5%) Second- degree 12 (12.0%) 1 (2.6%) 3 (10.7%) 8 (23.5%) Ocular diseases Glaucoma 7 (7.0%) 2 (5.3%) 4 (14.3%) 1 (2.9%) 0.826 VKC 10 (10.0%) 4 (10.5%) 2 (7.1%) 4 (11.8%) No 83 (83.0%) 32 (84.2%) 22 (78.6%) 29 (85.3%) Eye rubbing Never 25 (25.0%) 8 (21.1%) 6 (21.4%) 11 (32.4%) 0.373 Low 50 (50.0%) 19 (50.0%) 13 (46.4%) 18 (52.9%) High 25 (25.0%) 11 (28.9%) 9 (32.1%) 5 (14.7%) KCN, keratoconus; VKC, vernal keratoconjunctivitis ∗Based on Chi-square test prevalence of consanguine marriages registering as high as 40% among the Iranian population,[35] more comprehensive investigations of the Iranian population might be necessary to better understand the role of inter family marriage on KCN. In the present study, we did not detect significant associations between allergy, asthma, eczema, and KCN, however atopic diseases have been reported as one of the probable risk factors for KCN.[10, 12, 32] This association was not detected in a study by Bawazeer et al,[36] who believed that KCN is not directly related to atopic diseases. They believed, however, that it happens secondary to eye rubbing, which was also a factor significantly associated with KCN in our study. Furthermore, eye rubbing was reported as a known risk factor of KCN in a meta-analysis and systematic review conducted by Hashemi et al.[32] Naderan et al[37] have reported that KCN patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis or allergic conjunctivitis have significantly thinner and steeper corneas in comparison with non-allergic KCN patients. It was concluded that these patients JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMIC AND VISION RESEARCH Volume 18, Issue 1, January-March 2023 21 Risk Factors for Keratoconus; Mohammad-Rabei et al experience more severe KCN and should be closely followed-up and intensively treated. Regarding the geographical location, it was found that people living in the west regions of Iran were at a higher risk of KCN. However, Kelly et al[18] and Millodot et al[38] showed higher prevalence of KCN among individuals living in tropical countries located around the equator, in comparison with European and North American countries. It can be considered as strong evidence of the significant association between KCN and exposure to sunlight and ultraviolet radiation. However, this significant relationship has not been found in other studies.[16, 17] Regarding different Iranian ethnicities, Fars people were found to be at lesser risk of KCN, which is in line with the findings reported by Hashemi et al,[39] showing a higher prevalence of KCN among Arab, Turk, Kurd, and Lur ethnicities as compared to the Fars population. Regardless of the sunlight exposure, some studies have reported less prevalence of KCN in several geographical regions like Northern Europe,[10, 20, 21] Northern America,[10, 22, 23] and Japan[10, 24] as compared to India, China,[10, 25, 26] and Eastern Mediterranean countries.[10, 27, 28] In addition, a strong relationship was found in children who live in families with low socioeconomic status or low levels of education,[14] as children living in poor families will be dealing with problems of contaminations found in the air, water, and waste.[40] We also noticed less frequency of KCN among people with higher levels of wealth indices and education. Age is another probable associated factor with a positive relationship with the progression of KCN. Due to the incomprehensible visual symptoms in the early stages of KCN, patients are usually diagnosed in older ages with more severe stages of the disease.[10, 13, 41] In the current study, a significant association was found between KCN and some systemic diseases including migraine, hypertension, and thyroid diseases. This finding was inconclusive due to the limited numbers of affected patients. One of the possible drawbacks of the present study is the selection bias regarding the participation of KCN patients with different levels of wealth status. In summary, based on our findings, severe eye rubbing, vernal keratoconjunctivitis, parental consanguinity and positive familial history of KCN, low socioeconomic status and low levels of education were significantly associated with KCN in the Iranian population. Acknowledgements This article is taken from the disease registry, titled ”The Iranian National Registry of Keratoconus (KCNReg®)”, code number IR.SBMU.ORC.REC.1397.12 from the ethics committee, which was supported by the Deputy of Research and Technology at Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (http://dregistry.sbmu.ac.ir). Financial Support and Sponsorship None. Conflicts of Interest The authors have no conflict of interest with the subject matter of this manuscript. REFERENCES 1. Davidson AE, Hayes S, Hardcastle AJ, Tuft SJ. The pathogenesis of keratoconus. Eye 2014;28:189–195. 2. Krachmer JH, Feder RS, Belin MW. Keratoconus and related noninflammatory corneal thinning disorders. Surv Ophthalmol 1984;28:293–322. 3. Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol 1998;42:297–319. 4. Kennedy RH, Bourne WM, Dyer JA. A 48-year clinical and epidemiologic study of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 1986;101:267–273. 5. Jonas JB, Nangia V, Matin A, Kulkarni M, Bhojwani K. Prevalence and associations of keratoconus in rural Maharashtra in central India: The central India eye and medical study. Am J Ophthalmol 2009;148:760–765. 6. Gokhale NS. Epidemiology of keratoconus. Indian J Ophthalmol 2013;61:382–383. 7. Woodward MA, Blachley TS, Stein JD. The association between sociodemographic factors, common systemic diseases, and keratoconus: An analysis of a nationwide healthcare claims database. Ophthalmology 2016;123:457–65.e2. 8. Ziaei H, Jafarinasab MR, Javadi MA, Karimian F, Poorsalman H, Mahdavi M, et al. Epidemiology of keratoconus in an Iranian population. Cornea 2012;31:1044–1047. 9. Aydin Kurna S, Altun A, Gencaga T, Akkaya S, Sengor T. Vision related quality of life in patients with keratoconus. J Ophthalmol 2014;2014:694542. 22 JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMIC AND VISION RESEARCH Volume 18, Issue 1, January-March 2023 Risk Factors for Keratoconus; Mohammad-Rabei et al 10. Gordon-Shaag A, Millodot M, Shneor E, Liu Y. The genetic and environmental factors for keratoconus. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:795738. 11. Carlson AN. Expanding our understanding of eye rubbing and keratoconus. Cornea 2010;29:245. 12. Kaya V, Karakaya M, Utine CA, Albayrak S, Oge OF, Yilmaz OF. Evaluation of the corneal topographic characteristics of keratoconus with orbscan II in patientswith and without atopy. Cornea 2007;26:945–948. 13. Ihalainen A. Clinical and epidemiological features of keratoconus genetic and external factors in the pathogenesis of the disease. Acta Ophthalmol Suppl 1986;178:1–64. 14. Naderan M, Shoar S, Rezagholizadeh F, Zolfaghari M, Naderan M. Characteristics and associations of keratoconus patients. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2015;38:199–205. 15. Gordon-Shaag A, Millodot M, Essa M, Garth J, Ghara M, Shneor E. Is consanguinity a risk factor for keratoconus? Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:448–454. 16. Georgiou T, Funnell CL, Cassels-Brown A, O’Conor R. Influence of ethnic origin on the incidence of keratoconus and associated atopic disease in Asians and white patients. Eye 2004;18:379–383. 17. Pearson AR, Soneji B, Sarvananthan N, Sandford-Smith JH. Does ethnic origin influence the incidence or severity of keratoconus? Eye 2000;14:625–628. 18. Kelly TL, Williams KA, Coster DJ, Australian Corneal Graft Registry. Corneal transplantation for keratoconus: A registry study. Arch Ophthalmol 2011;129:691–697. 19. Rabinowitz YS. The genetics of keratoconus. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 2003;16:607–620. 20. Gorskova EN, Sevost’ianov EN. Epidemiology of keratoconus in the Urals. Vestn Oftalmol 1998;114:38–40. In Russian 21. Nielsen K, Hjortdal J, Pihlmann M, Corydon TJ. Update on the keratoconus genetics. Acta Ophthalmol 2013;91:106– 113. 22. Kennedy RH, Bourne WM, Dyer JA. A 48-year clinical and epidemiologic study of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 1986;101:267–273. 23. Hofstetter HW. A keratoscopic survey of 13,395 eyes. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 1959;36:3–11. 24. Tanabe U, Fujiki K, Ogawa A, Ueda S, Kanai A. Prevalence of keratoconus patients in Japan. Nihon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi 1985;89:407–411. In Japanese 25. Jonas JB, Nangia V, Matin A, Kulkarni M, Bhojwani K. Prevalence and associations of keratoconus in rural Maharashtra in central India. American J Ophthalmol 2009;148:760–765. 26. Xu L, Wang YX, Guo Y, You QS, Jonas JB. Prevalence and associations of steep cornea/keratoconus in greater Beijing. PLoS One 2012;7:e39313. 27. Mohd-Ali B, Abdu M, Yaw CY, Mohidin N. Clinical characteristics of keratoconus patients in Malaysia: A review from a cornea specialist centre. J Optom 2012;5:38–42. 28. Shneor E, Millodot M, Gordon-Shaag A, Essa M, Anton M, Barbara R, et al. Prevalence of keratoconus amoung young Arab students in Israel. Int J keratoconus Ectatic Corneal Dis 2014;3:9–14. 29. Owens H, Gamble G. A profile of keratoconus in New Zealand. Cornea 2003;22:122–125. 30. Alio J-L, Vega-Estrada A, Sanz-Garcia P, Duran-Garcia M-L, Maldonado M. keratoconous management guidelines. Int J Keratoconous Ectatic Corneal Dis 2015;4:1–39. 31. Karimian F, Aramesh S, Rabei HM, Javadi MA, Rafati N. Topographic evaluation of relatives of patients with keratoconus. Cornea 2008;27:874–878. 32. Hashemi H, Heydarian S, Hooshmand E, Saatchi M, Yekta A, Aghamirsalim M, et al. The prevalence and risk factors for keratoconous: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cornea 2020;39:263–270. 33. Al-Gazali L, Hamamy H. Consanguinity and dysmorphology in Arabs. Hum Hered 2014;77:93–107. 34. Saadat M, Ansari-Lari M, Farhud DD. Consanguineous marriage in Iran. Ann Hum Biol 2004;31:263–269. 35. Najmabadi H, Hu H, Garshasbi M, Zemojtel T, Abedini SS, Chen W, et al. Deep sequencing reveals 50 novel genes for recessive cognitive disorders. Nature 2011;478:57–63. 36. Bawazeer AM, Hodge WG, Lorimer B. Atopy and keratoconus: A multivariate analysis. Br J Ophthalmol 2000;84:834–836. 37. Naderan M, Rajabi MT, Zarrinbakhsh P, Bakhshi A. Effect of allergic diseases on keratoconus severity. Ocul Immunol Inflamm 2017;25:418–423. 38. Millodot M, Shneor E, Albou S, Atlani E, Gordon-Shaag A. Prevalence and associated factors of keratoconus in Jerusalem: A cross-sectional study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2011;18:91–97. 39. Hashemi H, Khabazkhoob M, Fotouhi A. Topographic keratoconus is not rare in an Iranian population: The Tehran Eye Study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2013;20:385– 391. 40. Powell DL, Stewart V. Children. The unwitting target of environmental injustices. Pediatr Clin North Am 2001;48:1291–1305. 41. Weed KH, MacEwen CJ, McGhee CN. The variable expression of keratoconus within monozygotic twins: Dundee University Scottish Keratoconus Study (DUSKS). Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2006;29:123–126. JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMIC AND VISION RESEARCH Volume 18, Issue 1, January-March 2023 23