Summary

This AI-generated content is provided without warranty, with no liability accepted for reliance on it. Learn more.

• This summary is based on the review of two systematic review(s)/meta-analysis(es). ^[1-2]
• Comparison with Basic Warm Compresses: Five trials comparing LipiFlow with warm compresses reported conflicting results for symptom improvement (Ocular Surface Disease Index [OSDI] and Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness [SPEED]) after four weeks, with no significant differences in meibomian gland expression, meibum quality, or tear breakup time.
• Comparison with Thermostatic Devices and Lifitegrast 5%: Thermostatic devices were associated with reduced OSDI scores compared to LipiFlow (MD 4.59; very low certainty). Lifitegrast 5% improved meibomian gland expression scores at day 42 compared to LipiFlow (MD -1.21), with a broader range of positive outcomes observed for lifitegrast across various dry eye measures in comparison to placebo.
• LipiFlow vs. Oral Doxycycline: One trial indicated that LipiFlow might result in improved SPEED scores over doxycycline at three months (MD -4.00; very low certainty).
• Adverse Events: No trials reported any intervention-related, vision-threatening adverse events for LipiFlow, while lifitegrast was associated with a higher incidence of mild to moderate treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including instillation site discomfort and dysgeusia, with an incidence slightly above placebo.
• Withdrawal Due to TEAEs: Withdrawals caused by TEAEs were rare, indicating tolerability of both interventions despite the mild to moderate TEAEs associated with lifitegrast.
• There is no population types or subgroups information available in the reviewed studies.