Tear Film Lipid Layer Changes Following Combined Effect of Heated Eye Mask with Intense Pulsed Light Therapy for Evaporative Dry Eye: A Randomized Control Study.

Background: Dry eye disease (DED) is a complex ocular surface inflammatory disorder with a multifactorial etiology. Therapies such as intense pulsed light (IPL) and heated eye mask (HEM) have been reported to improve the tear film lipid layer (TFLL) and signs and symptoms of DED. Methods: This randomized study aimed to compare the effects of IPL combined with HEM (IPL+HEM) group, IPL group, and control group in participants with evaporative DED. All participants were examined at baseline (D0), day 21 (D21), day 42 (D42), and day 84 (D84) for noninvasive tear breakup time (NITBUT), TFLL, corneal conjunctival staining (CS), meibomian gland quality (MGQ), meibomian gland expressibility (MGEx), and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). Results: The mean age of participants was IPL+HEM: 28.06 ± 3.88 years, IPL: 29.88 ± 4.68 years, and control: 28.52 ± 3.77 years. At D84, significant improvements in TFLL (p < 0.05), noninvasive tear breakup time (NITBUT) (p < 0.05), corneoconjunctival staining (CS) (p < 0.05), MGQ (p < 0.05), MGEx (p < 0.05), and OSDI (p < 0.05) were found in the IPL+HEM and IPL groups, whereas the control group had no significant improvements. Furthermore, ΔTFLL significantly correlated with ΔNITBUT (r = -0.678, p < 0.001), ΔCS (r = 0.321, p < 0.001), ΔMGQ (r = 0.669, p < 0.001), ΔMGEx (r = 0.598, p < 0.001), and ΔOSDI score (r = 0.649, p < 0.001). Conclusions: IPL therapy in combination with HEM and IPL therapy only can significantly improve the quality of TFLL and clinically reduce the sign and symptoms of evaporative DED. However, IPL therapy in combination with HEM was found to be more effective than IPL therapy alone.

Managing Severe Evaporative Dry Eye with Intense Pulsed Light Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy in participants with severe evaporative dry eye disease (DED). METHODS: This randomized, controlled, single-center study included 49 adult participants (≥ 18 years) with severe evaporative DED who received either IPL therapy (n = 56 eyes) or sham therapy (n = 42 eyes) three times. The primary efficacy parameters were ocular surface disease index (OSDI) score, non-invasive tear breakup time (NITBUT), tear film lipid layer (TFLL), conjunctivocorneal staining score (CS), MG Score, meibomian gland (MG) quality, and MG expression score. RESULTS: The mean ages for the IPL group and the control group were 28.05 ± 3.41 years (57.1% female) and 28.14 ± 3.53 years (52.4% female), respectively. Comparison between the IPL group and the control group found significant differences in the mean OSDI score (22.16 ± 6.08 vs. 42.38 ± 6.60; P < 00.01), NITBUT (6.27 ± 0.84 vs. 3.86 ± 0.68; P < 0.001), TFLL (2.14 ± 0.44 vs. 3.45 ± 0.50; P < 0.001), MG Score (1.34 ± 0.55 vs. 1.88 ± 0.33; P < 0.001), MG quality (1.59 ± 0.07 vs. 2.67 ± 0.08), and MG expression (1.54 ± 0.57 vs. 2.45 ± 0.55) at 12 weeks follow-up; however, there was no significant difference in CS (3.32 ± 1.11 vs. 3.74 ± 1.04; P = 0.063). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that IPL therapy is clinically beneficial in ameliorating the signs and symptoms of severe evaporative dry eye disease.