An Eyelid Warming Device for the Management of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction

TitleAn Eyelid Warming Device for the Management of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2019
AuthorsNgo, W., S. Srinivasan, and L. Jones
JournalJournal of Optometry
Volume12
Pagination120-130
Keywordsadult, analysis of variance, controlled study, Dry eye, Dry Eye Syndromes, eyelid disease, Eyelid Diseases, female, human, Humans, Hyperthermia, Induced, lacrimal fluid, male, meibomian gland, Meibomian gland dysfunction, Meibomian Glands, mgdrx eyebag, middle aged, pathophysiology, physiology, procedures, Prospective Studies, prospective study, randomized controlled trial, single blind procedure, Single-Blind Method, symptoms, Tears, thermotherapy, Visual acuity, warm compress, young adult
Abstract

Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of the MGDRx EyeBag in managing meibomian gland dysfunction. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled, observer-masked, bilateral eye study that enrolled 29 participants. Participants were randomized into either the EyeBag group or the control group. The EyeBag group used the EyeBag 10 minutes 2x/day, and the control group remained on their own dry eye treatment regimen (if applicable). All participants were observed at baseline, 2 weeks (2wk) and 4 weeks (4wk). At 4wk, participants in the EyeBag group were asked to stop using the EyeBag. All participants were seen again at 8 weeks (8wk). Primary outcomes were the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Current Symptoms Questionnaire (CSQ), meibomian gland score (MG score), and non-invasive tear breakup time (NIBUT). Results: Twenty-five participants completed the study (mean age 38 ± 15 years, 7 male). There was a significant change in OSDI over time for the EyeBag group (mean[lower 95% CI, upper 95% CI], baseline: 39.1[31.1,47.0], 2wk: 26.8[19.7,33.9], 4wk: 26.6[16.5,36.7], 8wk: 27.7[18.4,37.0]; p = 0.01), but not in the control group (p = 0.22), but no significant difference between groups at all time points (all p > 0.27). Symptoms immediately improved after conducting the EyeBag based on at-home CSQ scores (Δ=-5.0 points, p < 0.01), but not in the control group. For both groups, there was no significant change (p-value EyeBag,p-value control) in MG score (0.21,0.17) and NIBUT (0.49,0.06) over time. Conclusions: The EyeBag may relieve symptoms of dry eye, but the effect on meibomian gland function and tear stability when used for only 4 weeks was undetectable. © 2018 Spanish General Council of Optometry

DOI10.1016/j.optom.2018.07.002