A comparison between hyaluronic acid and other single ingredient eye drops for dry eye, a review

Dry eye disease (DED) is a highly prevalent and debilitating condition. Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a naturally occurring glycosaminoglycan that has a long history as a safe and effective DED treatment. HA is frequently used as a comparator when assessing other topical DED treatments. This study aims to summarise and critically evaluate the literature describing all isolated active ingredients that have been directly compared with HA in the treatment of DED. A literature search was conducted in Embase using Ovid on the 24th of August 2021 and in PubMed including MEDLINE on the 20th of September 2021. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria, 21 of which were randomised controlled trials. Seventeen different ingredients representing six treatment categories were compared with HA treatment. Most measures showed no significant difference between treatments, suggesting either equivalency of treatments or that studies were underpowered. Only two ingredients were represented in more than two studies; carboxymethyl cellulose treatment appears equivalent to HA treatment, while Diquafosol treatment appears superior to HA treatment. Drop-frequency varied from one to eight drops daily. No single study explained the choice of drop frequency. Nine studies used a HA concentration of 0.1% which may be below therapeutic levels. Nine studies reported using preserved formulations, six of them with differences in preservatives between the compared groups. Thirteen studies were financially linked to industry. No major complications were reported. Studies were not designed to find differences in treatment effects for different types or severities of DED. HA is a good comparator treatment when assessing other DED treatments, although consensus after decades of use is still lacking for best choice of concentration, molecular weight and drop tonicity. Well-designed studies are needed to determine an evidence-based standard for HA treatment to be used as comparator.publishedVersio

The association between visual display terminal use and dry eye:a review

Background: Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disease of the tear film and ocular surface. It causes ocular symptoms, reduced quality of life and a considerable economic burden on society. Prolonged use of visual display terminals (VDTs) has been suggested as an important risk factor for DED. Purpose: This review aims to study the association between DED and VDT use with an emphasis on the prevalence of DED among VDT users and harmful daily duration of VDT use. Methods: A PubMed search was conducted and yielded 57 relevant articles based on a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The studies were subclassified according to study design. Results: The far majority of the studies showed an association between VDT use and DED or DED-related signs and symptoms. The prevalence of definite or probable DED in VDT and office workers ranged from 26% to 70%, with as few as 1–2 hr of VDT exposure per day being associated with DED. Conclusion: VDT use is strongly associated with DED. VDT-associated DED is prevalent, but the exact prevalence needs to be further elucidated using standardized DED diagnosis criteria. Furthermore, a safe lower limit of daily VDT use has yet to be established. More research is needed on the effect of digitalization and digital transformation, which are particularly high during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic

In-office thermal systems for the treatment of dry eye disease

Dry eye disease affects millions of people worldwide, causing pain, vision disturbance, and reduced productivity. Meibomian gland dysfunction, a major cause of dry eye, is characterized by chronic glandular inflammation, thickening of the meibum, obstruction of terminal ducts, and glandular atrophy. Treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction can utilize heat and pressure applied to the meibomian glands, increasing meibum expression. With self-treatments, however, not all patients achieve lasting improvement, and compliance is often low. In-office thermal systems offer a second line of treatment and could be a much-needed addition for patients who do not respond to conventional treatment. We critically evaluated the efficacy and safety of LipiFlow, iLux, and TearCare based on existing literature. While the studies found a single in-office thermal treatment to be safe and effective in improving short-term signs and symptoms in patients with dry eye, long-term efficacy needs to be further evaluated. Thus, well-controlled, long-term efficacy studies are warranted to draw clear conclusions. The treatment seemed to provide rapid relief of symptoms that may last up to 1 year, but at a considerably higher cost than the at-home treatments. The choice of treatment depends on cost, compliance with at-home treatment, and personal preference.publishedVersio

Hot towels:The bedrock of Meibomian gland dysfunction treatment – A review

publishedVersionPaid open acces

The association between visual display terminal use and dry eye: a review

Background Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial disease of the tear film and ocular surface. It causes ocular symptoms, reduced quality of life and a considerable economic burden on society. Prolonged use of visual display terminals (VDTs) has been suggested as an important risk factor for DED. Purpose This review aims to study the association between DED and VDT use with an emphasis on the prevalence of DED among VDT users and harmful daily duration of VDT use. Methods A PubMed search was conducted and yielded 57 relevant articles based on a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The studies were subclassified according to study design. Results The far majority of the studies showed an association between VDT use and DED or DED-related signs and symptoms. The prevalence of definite or probable DED in VDT and office workers ranged from 26% to 70%, with as few as 1–2 hr of VDT exposure per day being associated with DED. Conclusion VDT use is strongly associated with DED. VDT-associated DED is prevalent, but the exact prevalence needs to be further elucidated using standardized DED diagnosis criteria. Furthermore, a safe lower limit of daily VDT use has yet to be established. More research is needed on the effect of digitalization and digital transformation, which are particularly high during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic.publishedVersio

Intraductal meibomian gland probing and its efficacy in the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction

Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is a major cause of dry eye, affecting millions worldwide. Intraductal meibomian gland probing (MGP) aims to open obstructed meibomian glands using a small probe to promote meibum secretion. MGP has received increasing interest since 2010, and we critically evaluated the literature on the efficacy and safety of MGP. Despite positive results of MGP on dry eye symptoms in early single-group studies, MGP was not shown to consistently outperform controls in later controlled trials. Furthermore, MGP alone did not show improvement beyond placebo in the only placebo-controlled RCT conducted. Overall, the procedure appears safe. Self-limited intraoperative bleeding was frequent, but no major complications were reported. In conclusion, MGP has not yet been shown to be an effective treatment for MGD. Larger placebo-controlled trials need to be conducted to establish the potential effect of this novel treatment modality

Chambered warm moist air eyelid warming devices – a review

Background Eyelid warming is an important treatment for meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Specialized chambered devices, using warm moist air have been developed. Purpose To critically evaluate the literature on the safety and efficacy of chambered warm moist air devices in MGD treatment and pinpoint areas of future research. Methods PubMed and Embase were searched on 06 June 2021. The search term was ‘(warm OR heat OR steam OR goggle OR spectacle OR moist air) AND (meibomian OR MGD OR blepharitis OR eyelid OR dry eye OR DED)’. All relevant articles with available English full text were included. Results Eighteen articles assessing the application of chambered warm moist air eyelid warming devices were identified. In single-application studies, steam-based eyelid warming increased the eyelid temperature and improved symptoms, lipid layer thickness, and tear film breakup time (TBUT). In treatment studies, the steam-based devices improved TBUT and symptom scores. However, in the only randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing chambered steam-based heat to hot towel treatment, there was no difference between groups for the primary outcome measure; the proportion of subjects noting symptom improvement after 4 weeks. Conclusion Currently available chambered warm moist air eyelid warming devices are safe and effective at raising eyelid temperature to therapeutic levels and improving signs and symptoms of dry eye. However, it is not clear if they provide a greater benefit than other eyelid warming therapies. Further well-conducted RCTs comparing moist and dry heat devices should be conducted on patients across the range of DED severities and subtype spectrum.publishedVersio