Comparison of a single-dose vectored thermal pulsation procedure with 5-day course of daily oral azithromycin for meibomian gland dysfunction.

Purpose: This study aims at comparing the efficacy of a single-dose vectored thermal pulsation (VTP) procedure versus 5 days once daily oral azithromycin in patients with meibomian gland disease (MGD) by measuring the symptomatology and ocular surface parameters.

Materials And Methods: The study was conducted as a prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study over a period of 17 months at a tertiary care center. In this study, 60 patients with MGD were enrolled after they gave their informed consent according to the inclusion-exclusion criteria and were divided into two groups, 30 each in the azithromycin group and the VTP, i.e., the LipiFlow group. One group was treated with oral azithromycin for 5 days and the other group was given LipiFlow treatment. Postprocedure, follow-up was done for 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months.

Results: A statistically significant difference was noted in the score Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness questionnaire after 3 months of treatment in both the azithromycin and LipiFlow group ( < 0.0001), and the LipiFlow group showed sustained improvement at 6-month follow-up as score improved to 8.83 ± 2.32, whereas it deteriorated in azithromycin group to 13.77 ± 1.65. Pretreatment Ocular Surface Disease Index score ( = 0.126) and posttreatment ( < 0.0001) showed significant differences in both groups. The LipiFlow group showed an improved score of 25.65 ± 6.11 after 6 months of treatment, whereas it deteriorated to 34.79 ± 4.98 in the azithromycin group. Pretreatment, tear film break-up time ( = 0.28) and 6 months posttreatment score ( < 0.0001) showed significant differences in both groups, but in the LipiFlow group, it improved to 15.30 ± 1.76 after 6 months, whereas in the azithromycin group, it was 10.07 ± 1.60. The pretreatment MG score was 4.10 ± 0.99 and 4.23 ± 1.07 ( = 0.62) in the azithromycin and LipiFlow group, respectively. After 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months, the MG score was 24.20 ± 3.38, 21.67 ± 3.46, and 15.83 ± 2.41, respectively, in azithromycin group. In the LipiFlow group, the score was 13 ± 1.88, 14.27 ± 2.07, and 14.37 ± 1.85 at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months, respectively, suggestive of improvement in all visits.

Conclusion: Both oral azithromycin and LipiFlow treatment are effective in patients with MGD. The effect of LipiFlow treatment lasted longer as compared to azithromycin. The efficacy of azithromycin in resolving the symptoms of MGD was greater compared to LipiFlow in the initial 2 weeks of treatment. However, the effect deteriorated in the subsequent follow-up at 3 months and 6 months.