Intense pulsed light therapy for ocular surface diseases.

Intense pulsed light (IPL) is a non-laser, high-intensity light source that has been shown to play a valuable role in dermatology and has been adopted in ophthalmology for treating meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). In this review, we discuss the mechanism of action of IPL, including its benefits in ophthalmology. IPL therapy has been shown to improve tear film stability, meibomian gland (MG) function, and subjective symptoms of ocular dryness in MGD patients. Moreover, emerging evidence suggests that IPL therapy is beneficial for other ocular surface diseases, such as blepharitis and chalazia. Hence, it can be inferred that IPL has potential as a therapeutic modality in future applications. Large clinical and experimental trials are needed to exploit the full potential of IPL as a treatment for recurrent chalazia, Sjögren's syndrome, and other causes of dry eye disease (DED). This paper reviews the published literature related to the application of IPL for treating ocular surface diseases.

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.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between intense pulsed light therapy using two different filters in meibomian gland dysfunction: prospective randomized study.

Our study compared treatment efficacy between cut-off and notch filters in intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy for meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) through a prospective, randomized paired-eye trial. Additionally, the efficacy of IPL treatment alone was investigated by restricting other conventional treatments. One eye was randomly selected for an acne filter and the other for a 590-nm filter. Identical four regimens of IPL treatments were administered. The tear break-up time (TBUT), Oxford scale, Sjögren's International Clinical Collaborative Alliance (SICCA) staining score, tear matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) expression, tear osmolarity, and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaires were evaluated before and after IPL. Meibomian gland (MG) parameters were measured. When combining the results from both filters, the TBUT, SICCA staining score, OSDI score, and upper and lower lid meibum expressibility were improved after IPL. No significant differences were found between the two filters in the TBUT, Oxford scale, SICCA staining score, MMP-9 expression, tear osmolarity, and MG parameters. Although not significant, the acne filter showed better treatment efficacy than that in the 590-nm filter. IPL alone is efficacious in terms of ocular surface parameters, MG function, and subjective symptoms. Regarding filter selection, both acne and 590-nm filters are promising options for MGD treatment.

Expert opinion about laser and intense pulsed light (IPL)-induced leukoderma or vitiligo: a cross-sectional survey study.

Vitiligo patients may desire laser hair removal, skin rejuvenation, vascular treatments, and other laser or intense pulsed light (IPL) assisted treatments. However, there is a risk of inducing new depigmented patches (Koebner phenomenon). In absence of guidelines on the safe use of laser or IPL in vitiligo patients, dermatologists tend to be reluctant to administer these treatments. The aim of this survey study was to provide an estimation of the occurrence and related risk factors of laser/IPL-induced leukoderma or vitiligo. A cross-sectional survey study was performed among 15 vitiligo experts from 11 countries, with 14 questions about affected patients, involved laser/IPL treatments and the physicians' approach. In a total of 11,300 vitiligo patients, laser/IPL-induced leukoderma or vitiligo was reported in 30 patients (0.27%). Of these, 12 (40%) patients had a medical history of vitiligo and seven (58%) of these patients had stable (> 12 months) vitiligo before the treatment. Most frequently reported were hair removal procedures and localization of the face and legs. Side effects like blistering, crusting, and erosions occurred in 56.7% of the cases. These vitiligo experts based their advice on the risk of the laser treatment on stability of the vitiligo (43%) and activity signs (50%), and 50% discuss the risks before starting a laser treatment. Relevant activity signs are the Koebner phenomenon (57.1%), confetti-like lesions (57.1%) and hypochromic borders (50%). Laser-induced leukoderma or vitiligo is an uncommon phenomenon. Remarkably, a minority had a medical history of vitiligo of which 58% were stable. Consequently, most cases could not have been prevented by not treating vitiligo patients. However, a majority had laser/IPL-induced skin damage. Therefore, caution is advised with aggressive settings and test-spots prior to the treatment are recommended. This study showed significant variation in the current recommendations and approach of vitiligo experts regarding laser/IPL-induced leukoderma or vitiligo.

Assessment of adverse events for a home-use intense pulsed light hair removal device using postmarketing surveillance.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Home-use intense pulsed light (IPL) hair removal devices are convenient for consumers. Consumer safety associated with home-use IPL devices, however, remains a subject of interest. In this descriptive analysis, we assessed the most commonly reported adverse events (AEs) for a home-use IPL device from postmarketing surveillance and qualitatively compared these with AEs from clinical studies and medical device reports of home-use IPL treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this analysis of voluntary reports, we queried a distributor's postmarketing database for IPL devices for the period beginning January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021. All sources of comments, for example, phone, e-mail, company-sponsored web sites, were included in the analysis. AE data were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terminology. Also, we conducted a PubMed search to identify AE profiles from existing literature on home-use IPL devices and we searched the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for reports on home-use IPL devices. These results were qualitatively compared to the data in the postmarketing surveillance database. RESULTS: A total of 1692 cases involving IPL were identified from voluntary reports of AEs between 2016 and 2021. The shipment-adjusted reporting rate for AE cases (number of AE cases/100,000 shipped IPL devices) was 67/100,000 during this 6-year period. The most commonly reported AEs were pain of skin 27.8% (470/1692), "thermal burn" 18.7% (316/1692), and erythema 16.0% (271/1692). Among the top 25 AEs reported, no unexpected health events were observed. The reported AEs were qualitatively similar to the pattern seen in clinical studies and the MAUDE database associated with such home-use IPL treatments. CONCLUSION: This is the first such report documenting AEs for home-use IPL hair removal from a postmarketing surveillance program. These data are supportive of the safety of such home-use low-fluence IPL technology.

Intense Pulsed Light Attenuates Oxidative Stress in Perennial Allergic Conjunctivitis.

Objective: To assess the effects of intense pulsed light (IPL) on oxidative stress (OS) in perennial allergic conjunctivitis (PAC). Background: IPL treatment has been proven effective for dry eye disease (DED). However, we have observed that, after IPL treatment, some patients with DED combined with allergic conjunctivitis (AC), an immune response condition in which excessive OS causes and exacerbates inflammatory damage, not only show an improvement in eye dryness, but also their AC-related eye itching is relieved. The mechanism by which IPL inhibits allergic reactions is not clear. Methods: Five patients with moderate-to-severe PAC were given two IPL treatments on the periorbital skin with a 2-week interval. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores and signs of AC, including eye redness and conjunctival follicles, were assessed before the first treatment (day 1) and 2 weeks after the second treatment (day 30). Tears were also collected at the same time, and lipid oxidation (LPO) metabolite analysis was performed using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to investigate the effects of IPL on OS response. Results: The average VAS score significantly decreased with treatment (30.2 for day 1, 10.6 for day 30; p < 0.001). The general signs of PAC showed no difference (p > 0.05). LPO metabolite analysis revealed that 17,18-diHETE, which is an oxidation product of eicosapentaenoic acid, and 13-OXoODE, which is an oxidation product of linoleic acid, are significantly downregulated after IPL treatment. Conclusions: The photothermal effect of IPL attenuates OS in PAC, and this seems to be one of the mechanisms by which IPL treatment improves PAC. Clinical Trial Registration number: ChiCTR1900022202.

Low-Level Light Therapy Versus Intense Pulsed Light for the Treatment of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: Preliminary Results From a Prospective Randomized Comparative Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of low-level light therapy (LLLT) and intense pulsed light (IPL) for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). METHODS: Forty eyes of 40 patients with MGD were randomized to receive either LLLT or IPL. Four weekly sessions of LLLT (MY MASK-E, Espansione Marketing S.p.A., Bologna, Italy) and IPL (Eye-light device, Espansione Marketing S.p.A., Bologna, Italy) were performed. The following parameters were evaluated before and 2 weeks after the last session for each treatment: Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness questionnaire, noninvasive break-up time, tear meniscus height, redness score, meiboscore, and meibomian gland loss. RESULTS: All patients completed regularly all the scheduled sessions, and no adverse events were reported in any of the groups. The Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness score significantly decreased after both LLLT and IPL (P < 0.001) although the improvement was significantly greater in the LLLT compared with the IPL group (-9.9 ± 3.2 vs. -6.75 ± 4.5; P = 0.014). Patients in the LLLT group showed a significantly higher increase in tear meniscus height compared with those in the IPL group (0.06 ± 0.10 mm vs. -0.01 ± 0.014; P = 0.040). In both groups, the noninvasive break-up time, redness score, meiboscore, and meibomian gland loss did not vary significantly after treatment (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both LLLT and IPL were safe and effective in improving ocular discomfort symptoms in patients with MGD; however, the former determined a greater improvement in symptoms and an improvement of tear volume.

Intense Pulsed Light Therapy to Inhibit Meibomian Gland Inflammation: Untargeted Metabolomics Analysis of Meibomian Gland Secretions.

Objective: To assess the inhibitory effects of intense pulsed light (IPL) on meibomian gland (MG) inflammation. Background: IPL treatment is effective for dry eye disease (DED) caused by meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). However, the anti-inflammatory and regeneration stimulating effects of IPL on MGD remain unclear. Moreover, studies on inflammatory metabolites in MG secretions are lacking. Methods: Six patients with DED were administered two IPL treatments. Ocular surface disease index (OSDI) questionnaires were used to assess DED, MGD signs, including degree of obstruction, secretion, and atrophy of the MG, tear film break-up time (TBUT) was assessed before and after treatments. To determine IPL treatment-induced changes in metabolites, liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was used to analyze MG secretions. Results: Data were gathered before the first treatment (time A) and 2 weeks after the second treatment (time B). Average OSDI score showed a significant decrease (time A and B measurements were 44.07 and 16.65, respectively). Besides, statistically significant differences were observed in MG signs before and after treatments: degree of obstruction improved and secretions became thinner. TBUT was significantly increased to the normal range. LC-MS/MS led to the identification of 53 differential metabolites: 23 were upregulated (e.g., estradiol, coenzyme Q, and azelaic acid) and 30 were downregulated (e.g., prostaglandins, 20-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid, and arachidonic acid). Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathway enrichment analysis showed that most differential metabolites were involved in steroid hormone biosynthesis. Conclusions: Periorbital IPL treatment can improve chronic inflammation of the MG and promote its normal secretion. The steroid hormone biosynthetic pathways may be activated to participate in this anti-inflammatory effect.

Efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light direct eyelid application.

To describe the efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light (IPL) applied directly on the eyelids of patients with Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) without corneal shield protector. Observational retrospective single centre study where patients underwent 3 treatment sessions of IPL with 2 weeks of interval. The IPL was carried out with Lumenis OPT M22 with a double pass technique of 12 impacts on the infraorbital/lower eyelid region with the 15 × 35 mm guide light (step 1) and a double pass technique of 3 impacts over the upper eyelids with the 8 × 15 mm guide light (step 2). The follow up was conducted through Oculus Keratograph 5 M. 30 patients were enrolled in the study. Although there were no significant differences (p > 0.05), non-invasive tear break-up time, ocular redness, and OSDI questionnaire improved during the 3 IPL sessions. A significant improvement (p = 0.024) in the percentage of meibomian gland loss was also observed. Regarding tear meniscus, it was found similar measurements before and after treatment. No serious adverse effects were reported during the procedure or in subsequent follow-up. Preliminary results suggest that IPL therapy applied directly on the eyelids without corneal shield could be safe and effective in the treatment of MGD.

Effect of Intense Pulsed Light Therapy in Dry Eye Disease Caused by Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the effect of intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy in patients harboring dry eye disease caused by meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) based on qualified studies. METHODS: The electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase, were searched using keywords to identify available publications updated to November 2021. Relative risk or weighted mean difference combined with 95% confidence interval was used to synthesize the outcomes of included studies. The meta-analysis included 15 randomized controlled trials with 1,142 patients (2,284 eyes). RESULTS: The results revealed that IPL could significantly decrease the ocular surface disease index (OSDI), standard patient evaluation of eye dryness (SPEED), artificial tear usage, tear film lipid layer, meibomian gland quality (MGQ), meibomian gland expression (MGX), and corneal fluorescein staining (CFS) while increase tear break-up time (TBUT) and noninvasive tear break-up time (NIBUT) compared with sham. Compared with MGX, IPL+MGX markedly decreased the SPEED, CFS, and tear meniscus height (TMH), but with increased TBUT. Compared with MGX, IPL showed significant effect in increasing the OSDI and TBUT, but decreasing the TMH and NIBUT. However, no significant differences were seen between IP+MGX and MGX in OSDI, MGQ, and MGX, nor between IPL and MGX in OSDI, SPEED, and TBUT. CONCLUSION: We identified that the application of IPL alone or IPL combined with MGX elicited superior clinical effect for improving the eye function and symptoms in the treatment of MGD-related dry eye disease, which is considered available for wide clinical application.

Will repeated Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) treatment sessions affect facial skin sensitivity? Results of a twelve-Month, prospective, randomized split-face study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of intense pulsed light (IPL) technology in cosmetic dermatology, the effects of its repeated use on facial skin sensitivity in healthy individuals remains unknown. METHODS: Seventeen healthy female volunteers were included in the study. We measured objective biophysical parameters of the skin, including transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin glossiness, thickness and density of the epidermis and dermis, sensory nerve current perception threshold (CPT), and regional blood flow before and after treatment at different time points. RESULTS: Sixteen volunteers completed a follow-up of 12 months. The treated side of the face showed a decreased TEWL on D1 and D3, which reverted to normal on D7. Epidermal thickness increased and skin glossiness decreased on the treated side on D1, but returned to normal on D3. We found no statistically significant differences in CPT values or in regional blood flow volume and velocity, with the exception of D1, which exhibited a higher regional blood flow volume on the treated side. CONCLUSION: Repeated IPL treatments had no effects on facial skin barrier function, skin nerve sensitivity, or local microcirculation among healthy individuals. IPL is a safe skin care procedure that does not affect skin sensitivity.

Intense Pulsed Light on skin rejuvenation: a systematic review.

Aged skin is characterized by appearance of wrinkles, vascular lesions, hyperpigmentation, lentignes, texture, rhytides, and pores. These changes occur under the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors, as hormone alterations and exposure to ultraviolet light (UV) irradiation, respectively. Skin changes associated with aging have been assuming an important role in nowadays and bring to affect the quality of life. Intense Pulsed Light (ILP) is a noncollimated, polychromatic, and noncoherent non-surgical cosmetic therapy to skin rejuvenation. This is the first systematic review evaluating ILP treatment on skin rejuvenation evaluated by digital photographs and self-reported treatment efficacy. A PRISMA compliant review includes a search of the databases Scopus and PubMed. Sixteen studies treating 637 participants (with Fitzpatrick skin types I to IV and age varying from 21 to 80 years) were included. Patients were treated a mean of 4.29 sessions (range 3-7). The most studies results showed the efficacy of IPL treatment in telangiectasia, wrinkles, pore, erythema, rhytids, texture, lentigines, hiperpigmentation, and photoaging score. Six studies showed IPL-positive effects in association with other treatment and seven studies showed superior effect of other treatment or association to IPL with other treatment related to IPL alone. Nine studies showed low methodological quality. In conclusion, ILP treatment is effective on skin rejuvenation. However, there is no consensus about the parameters and future studies are needed to sample size limitations, made RCTs with low risk of bias, and improve the methodological quality its. Trial registration: Prospero Systematic Review Registration ID: CRD42021237817.

Efficacy of five-flash intense pulsed light therapy technique in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Meibomian gland dysfunction is the main cause of evaporative dry eye disease and can lead to ocular discomfort and ocular surface damage. Early diagnosis and management of this condition can prevent its impact on patients 'visual health and quality of life. BACKGROUND: In the last decade, intense pulsed light therapy (IPL) has been introduced as a therapeutic option for patients with meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Various treatment modalities and protocols have been reported to increase the efficacy of this technique. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a novel five-flash IPL technique in combination with home-based therapy and to compare it with conventional home care alone in patients with MGD. METHODS: In a randomised controlled trial, 100 symptomatic MGD patients were enrolled. The treatment group underwent three sessions of a five-flash IPL therapy. For all participants, eyelid warming, lid hygiene and lubricant therapy was prescribed. Ocular surface parameters were compared for control and treatment groups. RESULTS: Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), non-invasive keratograph tear break up time (NIKBUT), fluorescein TBUT, MG expressibility, meibum quality and tear osmolarity were improved at follow up visits in both groups (p < 0.05). On day 75, NIKBUT was significantly higher in the IPL group (p = 0.045). The IPL treatment effect was not statistically significant (p > 0.05), except for bulbar and limbal hyperaemia (p = 0.02 and p = 0.02). In both groups, younger patients showed more improvement in NIKBUT (p = 0.02, r = -0.32; p < 0.001, r = -0.52). CONCLUSION: IPL therapy combined with conventional home-based therapy, and home care alone are both effective for patients with MGD. IPL may have an additional role in the improvement of ocular hyperaemia.

Clinical and Molecular Outcomes After Combined Intense Pulsed Light Therapy With Low-Level Light Therapy in Recalcitrant Evaporative Dry Eye Disease With Meibomian Gland Dysfunction.

PURPOSE: Dry eye disease (DED) is a leading cause of ocular morbidity worldwide. This study evaluates the effects of combined light therapy [intense pulsed light (IPL) and low-level light therapy (LLLT)] on clinical and molecular outcomes in evaporative DED with meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). METHODS: This prospective study evaluated 94 eyes (47 subjects) with chronic MGD treated with combined light therapy. Patients underwent a detailed evaluation of MGD and DED using the Ocular Surface Disease Index, dry eye tests-tear breakup time and Schirmer test, ocular surface staining, meibomian gland expressibility scoring, and meibography. Patients underwent a single session of combined light therapy (IPL + LLLT treatment) using the Eye-light device. All these tests were repeated at 3 and 6 months after treatment. Tear fluid and ocular surface wash samples were collected from a subset of patients before and after treatment for cellular and secreted immune factor profiling by flow cytometry. RESULTS: Combined light therapy (IPL + LLLT) demonstrated a marked improvement in the clinical metrics studied. Three months after treatment, Ocular Surface Disease Index showed a significant reduction in 95.6% ( P < 0.0001), tear breakup time increased in 72.3% ( P < 0.0001), and meibomian gland expressibility scoring increased in 80.8% ( P < 0.0001) of the eyes. These effects were observed to be sustained during the 6-month follow-up visit. Significant ( P < 0.05) reduction in tear fluid levels of interleukin-1ß, interleukin-17F, and MMP9; MMP9/TIMP1 ratio; and ocular surface B-cell proportions was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Combined light therapy shows promising results in patients with chronic MGD and DED, even in recalcitrant cases. Clinical and molecular factor alterations support the improved symptomatology and reduced inflammation.

Treatment Effect and Pain During Treatment With Intense Pulsed-Light Therapy According to the Light Guide in Patients With Meibomian Gland Dysfunction.

PURPOSE: We investigated whether there is a difference in the treatment effect and pain during the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) with intense pulsed-light (IPL) between new light guide and conventional light guide. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 85 patients (170 eyes) who underwent IPL treatment of the upper and lower eyelids 3 times, at 3-week intervals, for MGD. Patients treated with the 6-mm or 8 × 15-mm cylindrical light guide were designated as group A or group B, respectively. The ocular surface disease index (OSDI), dry eye (DE), and MGD parameters were obtained before the first and after the third IPL treatments. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores were obtained at every IPL treatment. OSDI, DE, and MGD parameters and VAS scores were compared between the groups. RESULTS: VAS scores at the first, second, and third IPL treatments were lower in group A than in group B. OSDI, DE, and MGD parameters were improved after 3 IPL treatments in both groups. There were no significant differences in OSDI, DE symptoms, and MGD parameters between before the first IPL treatment and after the third IPL treatment between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Using the new 6-mm cylindrical light guide for IPL treatment in patients with MGD induced less pain during treatment and had similar treatment effects to the conventional 8 × 15-mm light guide. The new 6-mm cylindrical light guide can be useful when treating patients with dark or hyperpigmented skin and for pediatric patients with low compliance.

Efficacy of Intense Pulsed Light Treatment for Moderate to Severe Acute Blepharitis or Blepharoconjunctivitis: A Retrospective Case Series

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of periocular intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy in the treatment of moderate to severe acute blepharitis or blepharoconjunctivitis. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study performed in one institution. Eleven patients who received bilateral periocular IPL therapy using an IPL device (E>Eye, ESwin, Paris, France) were retrospectively evaluated. The following findings obtained at baseline and 10 weeks after the treatment were recorded: slit-lamp examinations; symptom scores of the Compression of the Eyelid (COTE) grading system and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI); ocular surface staining with Oxford grading scale (OXFORD) scores; lipid layer thickness (LLT); and non-invasive tear meniscus test (TMH), non-invasive break up time measurement (NIBUT), and meibography performed by using I.C.P. Ocular Surface Analyzer (SBM System, Turin, Italy). Results: Significant improvements in OSDI symptom scores (p<0.0001), LLT (p<0.0001), and meibography (p<0.0001) were obtained at 10 weeks after bilateral periocular IPL therapy. COTE and ocular surface staining scores decreased by 59.72% and 57.14% respectively, while NIBUT and TMH increased by 47.34% and 22.16%, respectively. In parallel to the improvement in OSDI, LLT, and meibography, findings of acute blepharitis or blepharoconjunctivitis improved in slit-lamp examination. There were no adverse effects. Conclusion: Serial IPL therapy improves the clinical signs and symptoms of moderate to severe acute blepharitis or blepharoconjunctivitis, meibomian gland morphology, and secretion quality.

Comparison of intense pulsed light and near-infrared light in the treatment of dry eye disease: a prospective randomized study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of intense pulsed light (IPL) and near-infrared light (NIL) treatments in alleviating symptoms and signs of dry eye disease (DED). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with DED at the Peking University Third Hospital Eye Center from January 2019 to October 2019 were randomized to undergo either NIL therapy combined with meibomian gland expression (MGX; NIL Group) or IPL combined with MGX (IPL Group). Treatments were performed three times at 1-month intervals. DED signs and symptoms were evaluated before every treatment. We compared the clinical improvement within and between the groups. Additional comparisons were made according to the meibomian gland (MG) dropout grade. RESULTS: A total of 260 eyes of 130 patients (mean age, 49.68 ± 18.01 years) were included. The dryness and total symptom scores and the MG expressibility and secretion quality (upper and lower eyelids) significantly improved after the three treatments in both groups (p < 0.05). However, IPL had superior efficacy in improving blurred vision, photophobia, burning, increased secretions and the total symptom score at 2 months in patients with more severe MG dropout. CONCLUSIONS: Both IPL and NIL treatments were effective in the treatment of DED, but IPL provided greater symptom improvement, particularly in patients with severe MG dropout. NIL can be a new therapeutic option for the treatment of DED.

Intense pulsed light plus meibomian gland expression versus intense pulsed light alone for meibomian gland dysfunction: A randomized crossover study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the comparative efficacy of intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy alone with that of IPL plus meibomian gland expression (MGX) for meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). METHODS: This is a prospective randomized crossover clinical trial. Sixty patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to two groups. All of patients underwent four treatment sessions in total, which were two weeks apart. Group 1 underwent two sessions of IPL therapy with MGX, as well as two sessions of IPL alone. Group 2 received two sessions of IPL therapy alone, and two sessions of IPL therapy with MGX. The following parameters were measured at baseline (BL), 2 weeks after the second treatment session (FU1), and 2 weeks after the fourth treatment session (FU2): tearfilm break-up time (BUT), Oxford grade for corneal staining, meibomian gland expressibility (MGE), meibum quality (MQ), and ocular surface disease index (OSDI). The separate effect of MGX on improvement of MGD parameters was evaluated using generalized estimating equation (GEE). RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 57.52 ± 10.50 years. The BUT, Oxford grade, MGE, MQ, and OSDI of both groups improved significantly (from baseline) by the end of four treatment sessions (FU2 compared to BL; all p-values <0.05). The MGE and MQ significantly improved after the first and second treatment sessions (FU1 compare to BL; all p-values < 0.001). However, the improvement was not statistically significant after the third and fourth treatment sessions (FU2 compared to FU1; p-value of 0.388 for MGE and 0.645 for MQ in group 1, 0.333 for MGE and 0.333 for MQ in group 2). The IPL plus MGX therapy produced greater improvements in the BUT scores than did IPL therapy alone (p = 0.003 by GEE). In contrast, the Oxford grade, MGE, MQ, and OSDI were not influenced by the addition of MGX to IPL (p = 0.642, 0.663, 0.731, and 0.840, respectively by GEE). CONCLUSION: IPL therapy effectively improves the subjective symptoms and objective ocular findings of MGD. MGX enhanced the improvement of BUT driven by IPL therapy. The meibomian gland function (MGE and MQ) recovers faster in response to IPL therapy than did the other parameters.

Intense Pulsed Light: A Methodical Approach to Understanding Clinical Endpoints.

BACKGROUND: Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) is a non-coherent polychromatic broadband filtered flashlamp that emits light in the spectrum of approximately 400–1200 nm. Its effects on photorejuvenation are well documented. The goal of this study is to help practitioners better conceptualize and fine tune IPL device settings in order to produce the most effective and safest clinical outcome. MATERIALS/METHODS: This was a prospective study testing several filters (515 nm; 560 nm; 590 nm and 530–650; 900–1200 nm vascular filter), fluences, pulse durations, and pulse numbers (ie, multiple sequence pulsing or MSP) with a new IPL system. RESULTS: Post-procedure erythema response was more pronounced with increasing fluence, decreasing wavelength, fewer pulses and shorter pulse duration. The exception was the 515 nm filter with regard to pulse duration, which was observed to have a more pronounced response with longer pulse durations. The overall clinical outcome at the 4-week follow-up visit demonstrated greatest improvement in erythema and pigmentation using the 515 nm filter on a Fitzpatrick Skin Type III individual. CONCLUSION: Greatest clinical endpoint response at 4-week follow-up was observed with more robust initial responses. This was most apparent at higher fluence levels and fewer pulse counts. However, when the IPL is pushed to aggressive parameters, there is risk of hypopigmentation and hair loss as seen in this case study. Skin type is an important consideration when using IPL and MSP adds to its safety profile. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(2):203-207. doi:10.36849/JDD.5638.

Combined treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa with intense pulsed light (IPL) and radiofrequency (RF).

BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory disease with high burden. Treatment options are often unsatisfactory. We assessed the effect of a combination therapy of intense pulsed light (IPL) and radiofrequency (RF). METHODS: The explorative study included 47 patients and was performed as a prospective, monocentric, randomized, three-arm parallel-group design trial with a prior 12 weeks observation period. Treatment arms were IPL and RF monotherapies or IPL + RF combination therapy. After 12 weeks, all patients received IPL + RF for additional 12 weeks (cross-over). Primary endpoint was the change in active lesion numbers, secondary endpoint the change in Dermatology Quality of Life Index (DLQI). RESULTS: After 12 weeks, active lesion counts of the IPL + RF group decreased more than in the IPL group (p = .044); the decrease in DLQI was significantly higher in the IPL + RF and RF groups compared to IPL. Prolonged 24-week treatment with IPL + RF obtained better results as 12 weeks. Overall, disease burden after 24 weeks of treatment compared to disease fluctuation during the observation period was significantly lower (change in active lesions -3.6, p = .001; in DLQI -5.2, p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: IPL + RF treatment appears to represent a promising therapeutic option that leads to reduction of disease activity without severe side effects.