Purpose: To study the efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light (IPL) in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Methods: This prospective randomized double-masked sham-controlled trial included 114 patients with MGD. Patients were randomized into the IPL or sham group. Either the IPL or sham procedure was performed on days 0, 15, and 45. Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), visual analog scale, visual acuity, tear breakup time, meibum quality and expressibility, meibography grade, ocular surface staining, tear film lipid layer thickness, tear osmolarity, Schirmer test, tear interleukin-1 receptor agonist, and interleukin-6 levels were examined on days 0, 15, and 45 and at months 3 and 6. Subgroup analysis according to stage and the patient's compliance to conventional treatment were also analyzed. Any adverse events during the study were recorded. A multilevel mixed-effect linear regression model was used. P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: At 6 months, tear breakup time, meibum quality grades, expressibility grades, and OSDI were better in the IPL group (5.23 ± 2.91 vs. 3.11 ± 0.99 seconds, P < 0.001; 8.74 ± 4.74 vs. 13.19 ± 5.01, P < 0.001; 0.50 ± 0.67 vs. 1.12 ± 0.70, P < 0.001; 24.29 ± 16.92 vs. 32.71 ± 20.07, P < 0.05). OSDI, meibum quality, and expressibility in the IPL group began to improve at day 15 (P < 0.001), whereas the results in the sham group began to improve at day 45 (P < 0001). No adverse event occurred after IPL. Conclusions: IPL is effective and safe for MGD treatment in all stages regardless of compliance.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of additional thermal pulsatile system compared to standard lid hygiene alone in meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) patients who are using long-term anti-glaucoma medications. Patients and Methods: Well-controlled glaucoma patients who used anti-glaucoma medications for at least 1 year and had MGD were enrolled and randomized between a study group who received thermal pulsatile system (Lipiflow ®) treatment and standard lid hygiene, and a control group who received standard lid hygiene alone. The primary outcome was meibomian gland expression score, and the secondary outcomes were the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) score, Schirmer test score, tear break-up time (TBUT), corneal staining score, lipid layer thickness (LLT), and meibography score. All the outcomes were re-evaluated at 1 week, then at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. Results: Of 60 participants who underwent randomization, 48 completed the study. At the 6-month mark, this study could not demonstrate any significant difference between groups in both primary and secondary outcomes. However, there was significant improvement from baseline in both groups of the following outcomes: meibomian gland expression score, OSDI score, LLT, and meibography score. No serious adverse event was found in this study. Conclusion: An additional single thermal pulsatile system treatment with standard lid hygiene significantly improved meibomian gland assessment score and subjective symptoms at 6 months. Any difference between additional thermal pulsatile system treatment and lid hygiene alone was not found in this study. The results may suggest more chronic MGD and more damaged meibomian gland induced by long-term anti-glaucoma medications.

No abstract