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 (mean difference (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.