<p>Comparison of the iLUX and the LipiFlow for the Treatment of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction and Symptoms: A Randomized Clinical Trial</p>

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the effects of eyelid treatment with the iLUX MGD Treatment System and the LipiFlow Thermal Pulsation System on objective and subjective parameters of meibomian gland function and symptoms. Patients and Methods: In this randomized, open-label, controlled, multicenter clinical trial, both eyes of 142 patients aged ≥18 years with Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) scores ≥23, total meibomian gland scores (MGS) ≤12 in the lower eyelid of each eye, and tear break-up time (TBUT) <10 s were randomized 1:1 to iLUX or LipiFlow treatment, with stratification by test center. The primary effectiveness endpoints were changes in total MGS (masked) and TBUT from baseline to 4 weeks. The secondary effectiveness endpoint was changed in OSDI score from baseline to 4 weeks. Results: Both devices significantly improved effectiveness outcomes, with no differences between the two devices. At the 4-week visit, mean MGS, TBUT, and OSDI scores improved at least 16.9 ± 11.5, 2.6 ± 3.2 s, and 28.0 ± 22.8, respectively, across treatment groups and treated eyes. Four device/procedure-related events occurred in the iLUX group, compared with none in the LipiFlow group, but there were no device-related adverse events that involved changes in lid margins, eyelids, or lash integrity. Corneal staining, intraocular pressure, and visual acuity did not differ in the two groups. Conclusion: Both treatments produced significant improvements in meibomian gland function and symptoms. For all effectiveness measures, there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatments.

Therapeutic Instruments Targeting Meibomian Gland Dysfunction

“…Only two studies (III) found an improvement in signs, such as MG secretion and BUT [ 39 , 41 ]. Other authors compared LipiFlow ® with other medical devices, such as Tauber et al [ 42 ] (I), who compared LipiFlow ® with iLux ® and did not find differences between the two treatments. Another study (II) reported that one single LipiFlow ® session was more effective in decreasing DED symptoms compared to 3 months of oral doxycycline [ 43 ].…”

“…An inner pad slips behind the eyelid and an outer pad is pressed against the outer surface of the eyelid [ 58 ]. As mentioned above, a clinical trial (I) compared the effectiveness of LipiFlow ® and iLux ® , without finding differences [ 42 ].…”

Current treatments for Meibomian Gland Dysfunction and Eye Lid Margin Disease

“…Multiple studies have detailed the benefits of this technology and we are not going to cover those in this review [31][32][33][34]. Tuber., et al have done an excellent review of both technologies and found both systems to be equally beneficial in statistically improving meibomian gland function yet with no statistically significant difference between the two technologies [35].…”

Low Level Light Therapy as an Adjunct Treatment for Meibomian Gland Dysfunction

“…The gland ducts become clogged, initially with overly viscous meibum and in chronic conditions as a result of keratinized cells on the duct margin. The traditional treatment of MGD has ranged from warm compresses and lid scrubs to topical or systemic pharmaceutical therapy, but in recent years new devices to warm the lids and/or to manually express viscous meibum have been developed [6][7][8].…”