Dataset Information

Effect of a Novel Thermostatic Device on Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Chinese Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is a common eye condition that causes excessive evaporation of tears by changing the tear film composition. Current treatments often fail to produce satisfactory results, which is mostly due to poor patient adherence. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the MiBoFlo Thermoflo® on both subjective symptoms and objective signs in Chinese patients with MGD.

Methods

This prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial included 108 eyes of 54 patients with MGD who were recruited in Beijing Tongren Hospital and randomized 1:1 to MiBoFlo (n = 54 eyes) or LipiFlow® (n = 54 eyes) treatment group. In the MiBoFlo group, patients received three 10-min treatments, each spaced 2 weeks apart, and the treatment was followed by eyelid compression each time. Patients in the LipiFlow group received a single 12-min treatment. The primary parameters measured included changes in Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) score, Meibomian Glands Yielding Liquid Secretion (MGYLS) score, and Meibomian Glands Secretion (MGS) score from baseline to 2 months. The secondary parameters included tear meniscus height (TMH), non-invasive keratograph break-up time (NIKBUT), corneal fluorescein staining (CFS), and meibomian glands (MG) loss from baseline to 2 months. Safety parameters include visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP), anterior segment, and facial skin.

Results

The OSDI, MGYLS, and MGS scores all improved from baseline to 1 month in both MiBoFlo and LipiFlow groups, and these improvements were maintained at 2 months. CFS score, NIKBUT, and MG loss showed no significant change in both groups.

Conclusion

As a portable and comfortable device, MiBoFlo can improve the treatment of MGD and achieve a sustained improvement in both symptoms and meibomian gland function lasting at least 2 months.

SUBMITTER: Li S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8770768 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimThe main treatment for meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD), a major cause of dry eye, is eyelid warming. Lack of compliance is the main reason for treatment failure. This has led to the development of eyelid-warming devices that are safe, effective and convenient. To obtain robust evidence demonstrating their efficacy, the authors conducted a 3-arm randomized clinical study.MethodsThe authors conducted a 3-month assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled trial of patients from the Singapore National Eye Centre experiencing at least one of eight dry eye symptoms 'often' or 'all the time'. Patients who wore contact lenses, had an active infection or known diagnosis of thyroid dysfunction and rheumatoid arthritis were excluded from the study. MGD participants were randomly assigned to warm towel (n = 25), EyeGiene(®) (Eyedetec Medical Inc., Danville, CA, USA) (n = 25) and Blephasteam(®) (Spectrum Thea Pharmaceuticals LTD, Macclesfield, UK) (n = 25) treatments. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes included the proportions of participants with improved symptoms and changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), respectively. Other outcomes included tear break up time (TBUT), Schirmer test, corneal fluorescein dye staining and number of visibly occluded meibomian gland (MG) orifices.ResultsThe study population was 53.5 ± 11.1 years old and predominantly Chinese. For severity of symptom after 3 months of treatment, 78.3% Blephasteam(®) participants reported improvement compared to 45.5% warm towel participants (p = 0.023). The corresponding proportions for improvement in the frequency of symptoms were 82.6% and 50.0%, respectively (p = 0.020). The proportions of improvement of symptoms in EyeGiene(®) patients were not significantly different from warm towel intervention. At 1 month of treatment, the crude odds ratio of improvement of severity of irritation for Blephasteam(®) compared to control was 3.0 (95% CI 0.88-10.18). However, the odds ratio adjusted by age was 5.67 (1.30-24.66). The lid-warming treatments did not significantly change the TBUT, Schirmer test results or number of visibly occluded MGs in the study period. All treatment modalities did not worsen BCVA after 3 months.ConclusionBlephasteam(®) is more effective than warm towel for MGD treatment, with warm towel and EyeGiene(®) being comparable effective. Older age might predict for treatment efficacy. All studied therapies were safe for visual acuity (VA) for 3 months of treatment.

Project description:PurposeTo 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).MethodsThis 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).ResultsThe 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).ConclusionIPL 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.