LipiFlow for the treatment of dry eye disease.

BACKGROUND: Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is the most common underlying cause of dry eye disease (DED). MGD leads to pathological alteration of the composition or quantity of meibum, or both, which subsequently results in tear evaporation and the typical signs and symptoms associated with DED. The LipiFlow Thermal Pulsation System (LipiFlow) is a medical device used to treat MGD in office; however, it is unclear if LipiFlow can outperform other DED treatments. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of LipiFlow for treating DED signs and symptoms and the safety of LipiFlow compared with sham or other available treatments for MGD in adults. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Eyes and Vision Information Specialist searched the electronic databases for randomized controlled trials. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, including the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase.com, PubMed, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) electronic databases. We also examined the reference lists of identified trials, review articles, and guidelines for information about relevant trials that may not have been identified by our search strategy. We contacted investigators regarding ongoing trials. The last database search was performed on 24 October 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies conducted in adults (over 18 years of age) with DED or MGD as defined by the primary trial investigators. We imposed no restrictions on race, ethnicity, or sex. We considered trials involving contact lens wearers if they were equally represented between groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We applied standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 trials that randomized a total of 1155 participants (28 to 236 participants randomized per study). Six trials were conducted in the USA, three in China, two in Thailand, one in France, and one in Italy. Eight trials were of single-center design, while four trials were of multicenter design; one trial did not report the number of participating centers. Study characteristics The study population of the included trials was 66% female (range 48% to 80%), with an age range of 19 to 86 years. LipiFlow, used as a stand-alone intervention, was compared with basic warm compresses in five studies, thermostatic device in five studies, oral intervention in one trial, and topical dry eye medications in one trial. LipiFlow was also evaluated together with eyelid hygiene product versus eyelid hygiene products alone in one trial. Findings Five trials compared LipiFlow with a basic warm compress applied for varying durations and frequencies during the trial period; only one of these trials combined a warm compress with eyelid massage. Analyzing symptom scores by different questionnaires (Ocular Surface Disease Index [OSDI] and Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness [SPEED]) yielded conflicting evidence of a difference in symptoms between LipiFlow and basic warm compresses after four weeks. There was no evidence of a difference in meibomian gland expression, meibum quality, or tear breakup time when comparing LipiFlow with basic warm compresses. Another five trials compared LipiFlow with thermostatic devices. Analysis of symptom scores at four weeks showed that thermostatic devices had reduced OSDI scores by a mean difference (MD) of 4.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23 to 7.95; I2 = 0, P = 0.007; 553 participants; very low certainty evidence) as compared with LipiFlow. When we compared LipiFlow plus eyelid hygiene with eyelid hygiene alone, there was no evidence of difference in signs or symptoms at any time point evaluated. Only one trial compared LipiFlow with a topical DED medication (lifitegrast 5%). The single-trial estimate suggested that 5% lifitegrast may increase meibomian gland expression scores compared with LipiFlow at day 42 (MD -1.21, 95% CI -2.37 to -0.05; 50 participants; low certainty evidence) by using a meibomian gland expression scale of 0 to 8. One trial compared LipiFlow with an oral intervention (doxycycline), finding that LipiFlow may result in significantly better SPEED scores than doxycycline at three months (MD -4.00, 95% CI -7.33 to -0.67; 24 participants; very low certainty evidence). No other significant differences in signs or symptoms were found between LipiFlow and doxycycline at three months. We did not find any other statistically significant differences in symptoms or signs for any other analysis performed in this review at the one- to four-week time point. Adverse events No trial reported any intervention-related, vision-threatening adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: LipiFlow performs similarly to other commonly used DED treatments with regard to DED signs and symptoms. The best available evidence was deemed to have a high level of bias, leading to low or very low certainty evidence. Additional research with adequate masking, a standardized testing methodology, and a sample representative of the MGD population is therefore needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn regarding comparative benefits and harms.

Silicone hydrogel versus hydrogel soft contact lenses for differences in patient-reported eye comfort and safety: A Cochrane systematic review summary.

SIGNIFICANCE: This work is significant because it is the first Cochrane systemic review that compares the comfort and safety of hydrogel and silicone hydrogel soft contact lenses (SCL). PURPOSE: This study aimed to conduct a systemic review of randomized trials comparing the comfort and safety of silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCLs. METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE.com, PubMed, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched on or before June 24, 2022, to identify randomized clinical trials that compared silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCLs. RESULTS: Seven trials were identified and evaluated. One trial reported Ocular Surface Disease Index results, with the evidence being very uncertain about the effects of SCL material on Ocular Surface Disease Index scores (mean difference, -1.20; 95% confidence interval, -10.49 to 8.09). Three trials reported visual analog scale comfort score results, with no clear difference in comfort between materials, although results were of low certainty; trial results could not be combined because the three trials reported results at different time points. None of the included trials reported Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire 8 or Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness scores. There was no evidence of a clinically meaningful difference (>0.5 unit) between daily disposable silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCLs in corneal staining, conjunctival staining, or conjunctival redness (very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The overall evidence for a difference between all included silicone hydrogel and hydrogel SCL trials was of very low certainty, with most trials judged as having a high overall risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence to support recommending one SCL material over the other. Future well-designed trials are needed to generate high certainty evidence to further clarify differences in SCL material comfort and safety.

Refitting contact lens dropouts into a modern daily disposable contact lens.

PURPOSE: To determine the number of previous contact lens (CL) wearers who could be comfortably refitted into delefilcon A (DAILIES TOTAL1®) CLs. METHODS: This was a 6-month, three-visit study that recruited subjects who discontinued CLs within the past 2 years because of discomfort or dryness symptoms. Subjects were required to have Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) questionnaire scores ≤3 and to be able to wear spherical study CLs. Subjects were asked to complete a ±50 comfort visual analogue scale (VAS) at 1 month and a Likert questionnaire after 1 and 6 months of CL wear to understand the subjects' CL experience. RESULTS: All 60 subjects who were fitted with the study CLs were still wearing them after 1 month, while one subject had dropped out by 6 months. Subjects had a median (interquartile range) age of 24.0 (7.0) years (71.7% female). They reported a median VAS score of 44.0 (8.0) units at the 1-month visit, with all reporting a comfortable score. At the 1-month/6-month visits, 98.3%/93.2%, 86.5%/78.0% and 93.2%/91.5% of subjects responded that they were very satisfied or satisfied with their vision, their end-of-day CL comfort and overall CL comfort, respectively. The same subjects responded that they were very likely or likely to continue to wear the study CLs at 1 (89.6%) and 6 months (80.7%) and to recommend the study CLs to a friend at 1 (98.3%) and 6 months (93.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that when encountering a CL dropout, a practitioner could educate a patient about trying an alternative CL and consider delefilcon A lenses as an option.

Comparing meibomian gland visibility on optical coherence tomography and Keratograph 5M images using objective and subjective grading methods.

PURPOSE: To investigate if there is a visible difference in meibomian gland (MG) length between images captured with the Visante optical coherence tomography (OCT; wavelength = 1,310 nm) and the OCULUS Keratograph 5M (K5M; wavelength = 880 nm). METHODS: Adults between 18 and 40 years were recruited. Baseline dry eye disease was evaluated with the Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) and tear meniscus height and tear breakup time with the K5M. Right upper and lower eyelid MGs were imaged with the K5M and Visante OCT. Each image was graded with the 0 to 3 meiboscore scale. The central 5 MGs were evaluated with ImageJ for percent gland length visibility. RESULTS: Thirty participants were analyzed with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 23.0 (5.0) years (53.3 % female). Overall, participants were asymptomatic and had normal tear films. Meiboscores based on K5M and Visante OCT was significantly different for the lower eyelid (0[1] vs 1[2]; p = 0.007) but not the upper eyelid (0[1] vs 0[1]; p = 1.00). The mean percent gland visibility of the upper eyelid (82.7[9.6] vs 75.2[13.5]; p < 0.001) and the lower eyelid (81.2[12.7] vs 64.1[17.6]; p < 0.001) were significantly greater on the Visante OCT than the K5M images, respectively. CONCLUSION: OCT images had significantly greater percent visible MG lengths than the K5M images. This suggests viable segments of the MGs may be missed with typical imaging, which may explain how it is possible that studies have found less post-treatment MG atrophy.