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.

Efficacy of intense pulsed light therapy on signs and symptoms of dry eye disease: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

This study reviewed the efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light (IPL) for the treatment of dry eye disease (DED). The PubMed database was used to conduct the literature search, which used the keywords "intense pulsed light" and "dry eye disease". After the authors evaluated the articles for relevancy, 49 articles were reviewed. In general, all treatment modalities were proven to be clinically effective in reducing dry eye (DE) signs and symptoms; however, the level of improvement and persistence of outcomes differed amongst them. Meta-analysis indicated significant improvement in the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) scores post-treatment with a standardized mean difference (SMD) = -1.63; confidence interval (CI): -2.42 to -0.84. Moreover, a meta-analysis indicated a significant improvement in tear break-up time (TBUT) test values with SMD = 1.77; CI: 0.49 to 3.05. Research suggests that additive therapies, such as meibomian gland expression (MGX), sodium hyaluronate eye drops, heated eye mask, warm compress, lid hygiene, lid margin scrub, eyelid massage, antibiotic drops, cyclosporine drops, omega-3 supplements, steroid drops, and warm compresses along with IPL, have been found to work in tandem for greater effectiveness; however, in clinical practice, its feasibility and cost-effectiveness have to be taken into consideration. Current findings suggest that IPL therapy is suitable when lifestyle modifications such as reducing or eliminating the use of contact lenses, lubricating eye drops/gels, and warm compresses/eye masks fail to improve signs and symptoms of DE. Moreover, patients with compliance issues have been shown to benefit well as the effects of IPL therapy is sustained for over several months. DED is a multifactorial disorder, and IPL therapy has been found to be safe and efficient in reducing its signs and symptoms of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD)-related DE. Although the treatment protocol varies among authors, current findings suggest that IPL has a positive effect on the signs and symptoms of MGD-related DE. However, patients in the early stages can benefit more from IPL therapy. Moreover, IPL has a better maintenance impact when used in conjunction with other traditional therapies. Further research is needed to assess cost-utility analysis for IPL.

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.