-
The Ocular Surface Oct 2019We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of different treatment for Demodex blepharitis. Parameters studied were mites count,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of different treatment for Demodex blepharitis. Parameters studied were mites count, improvement of symptoms and mites' eradication, stratified on type of treatments and mode of delivery of treatments (local or systemic).
METHOD
The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Google scholar and Science Direct databases were searched for studies reporting an efficacy of treatments for Demodex blepharitis.
RESULTS
We included 19 studies (14 observational and 5 randomized clinical trials), for a total of 934 patients, 1741 eyes, and 13 different treatments. For mites count, eradication rate, and symptoms improvement, meta-analysis included fifteen, fourteen and thirteen studies, respectively. The overall effect sizes for efficiency of all treatments, globally, were 1.68 (95CI 1.25 to 2.12), 0.45 (0.26-0.64), and 0.76 (0.59-0.90), respectively. Except usual lid hygiene for mites count, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario ointment (CHEO) for both eradication rate and symptoms, and CHEO, 2% metronidazole ointment, and systemic metronidazole for eradication rate, all treatments were efficient. Stratified meta-analysis did not show significant differences between local and systemic treatments (1.22, 0.83 to 1.60 vs 2.24, 1.30 to 3.18 for mites count; 0.37, 0.21 to 0.54 vs 0.56, 0.06 to 0.99 for eradication rate; and 0.77, 0.58 to 0.92 vs 0.67, 0.25 to 0.98 for symptoms improvement).
CONCLUSION
We reported the efficiency of the different treatments of Demodex blepharitis. Because of less systemic side effects, local treatments seem promising molecules in the treatment of Demodex blepharitis.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antiparasitic Agents; Blepharitis; Eye Infections, Parasitic; Humans; Ivermectin; Metronidazole; Miotics; Mite Infestations; Mites; Pilocarpine; Tea Tree Oil
PubMed: 31229586
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtos.2019.06.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Blepharokeratoconjunctivitis (BKC) is a type of inflammation of the surface of the eye and eyelids which can affect children and adults. BKC involves changes of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Blepharokeratoconjunctivitis (BKC) is a type of inflammation of the surface of the eye and eyelids which can affect children and adults. BKC involves changes of the eyelids, dysfunction of the meibomian glands, and inflammation of the conjunctiva and cornea. Chronic inflammation of the cornea can lead to scarring, vascularisation and opacity. BKC in children can cause significant symptoms which include irritation, watering, photophobia and loss of vision. Loss of vision in children with BKC may be due to corneal opacity, refractive error or amblyopia.BKC treatment is directed towards the obstruction of meibomian gland openings, the bacterial flora of lid margin and conjunctiva, and ocular surface inflammation. Dietary modifications that involve increased intake in essential fatty acids (EFAs) may also be beneficial. Both topical and systemic treatments are used; this Cochrane review focuses on systemic treatments.
OBJECTIVES
To assess and compare data on the efficacy and safety of systemic treatments (including antibiotics, nutritional supplements and immunosuppressants), alone or in combination, for BKC in children aged between zero to 16 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to April 2016), EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 21 April 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials that involved systemic treatments in children aged between zero to 16 years with a clinical diagnosis of BKC. We planned to include studies that evaluated a single systemic medication versus placebo, and studies that compared two or multiple active treatments. We planned to include studies in which participants receive additional treatments, such as topical antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and lubricants, warm lid compresses and lid margin cleaning.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the literature search results (titles and abstracts) to identify studies that possibly met the inclusion criteria of the review. We divided studies into 'definitely include', 'definitely exclude' and 'possibly include' categories. We made a final judgement as to the inclusion or exclusion of studies in the 'possibly include' category after we obtained the full text of each article.
MAIN RESULTS
No report or trial met the inclusion criteria of this Cochrane review; no randomised controlled trials have been carried out on this topic. There is a lack of standardised outcome measures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no evidence from clinical trials regarding the safety and efficacy of systemic treatments for BKC. Trials are required to test efficacy and safety of current and future treatments. Outcome measures need to be developed which can capture both objective clinical and patient-reported aspects of the condition and treatments.
Topics: Adolescent; Blepharitis; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Keratoconjunctivitis
PubMed: 27236587
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011750.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2012Blepharitis, an inflammatory condition associated with itchiness, redness, flaking, and crusting of the eyelids, is a common eye condition that affects both children and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Blepharitis, an inflammatory condition associated with itchiness, redness, flaking, and crusting of the eyelids, is a common eye condition that affects both children and adults. It is common in all ethnic groups and across all ages. Although infrequent, blepharitis can lead to permanent alterations to the eyelid margin or vision loss from superficial keratopathy (abnormality of the cornea), corneal neovascularization, and ulceration. Most importantly, blepharitis frequently causes significant ocular symptoms such as burning sensation, irritation, tearing, and red eyes as well as visual problems such as photophobia and blurred vision. The exact etiopathogenesis is unknown, but suspected to be multifactorial, including chronic low-grade infections of the ocular surface with bacteria, infestations with certain parasites such as demodex, and inflammatory skin conditions such as atopy and seborrhea. Blepharitis can be categorized in several different ways. First, categorization is based on the length of disease process: acute or chronic blepharitis. Second, categorization is based on the anatomical location of disease: anterior, or front of the eye (e.g. staphylococcal and seborrheic blepharitis), and posterior, or back of the eye (e.g. meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD)). This review focuses on chronic blepharitis and stratifies anterior and posterior blepharitis.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of interventions in the treatment of chronic blepharitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1950 to February 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We searched the reference lists of included studies for any additional studies not identified by the electronic searches. There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 9 February 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (CCTs) in which participants were adults aged 16 years or older and clinically diagnosed with chronic blepharitis. We also included trials where participants with chronic blepharitis were a subset of the participants included in the study and data were reported separately for these participants. Interventions within the scope of this review included medical treatment and lid hygiene measures.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed search results, reviewed full-text copies for eligibility, examined risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were meta-analyzed for studies comparing similar interventions and reporting comparable outcomes with the same timing. Otherwise, results for included studies were summarized in the text.
MAIN RESULTS
There were 34 studies (2169 participants with blepharitis) included in this review: 20 studies (14 RCTs and 6 CCTs) included 1661 participants with anterior or mixed blepharitis and 14 studies (12 RCTs and 2 CCTs) included 508 participants with posterior blepharitis (MGD). Due to the heterogeneity of study characteristics among the included studies, with respect to follow-up periods and types of interventions, comparisons, and condition of participants, our ability to perform meta-analyses was limited. Topical antibiotics were shown to provide some symptomatic relief and were effective in eradicating bacteria from the eyelid margin for anterior blepharitis. Lid hygiene may provide symptomatic relief for anterior and posterior blepharitis. The effectiveness of other treatments for blepharitis, such as topical steroids and oral antibiotics, were inconclusive.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite identifying 34 trials related to treatments for blepharitis, there is no strong evidence for any of the treatments in terms of curing chronic blepharitis. Commercial products are marketed to consumers and prescribed to patients without substantial evidence of effectiveness. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of such treatments. Any RCT designed for this purpose should separate participants by type of condition (e.g. staphylococcal blepharitis or MGD) in order to minimize imbalances between groups (type I errors) and to achieve statistical power for analyses (prevent type II errors). Medical interventions and commercial products should be compared with conventional lid hygiene measures, such as warm compresses and eyelid margin washing, to determine effectiveness, as well as head-to-head to show comparative effectiveness between treatments. Outcomes of interest should be patient-centered and measured using validated questionnaires or scales. It is important that participants be followed long-term, at least one year, to assess chronic outcomes properly.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Blepharitis; Chronic Disease; Humans; Hygiene; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Steroids
PubMed: 22592706
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005556.pub2 -
Therapeutic Advances in Ophthalmology 2020Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is the leading cause of dry eye syndrome (DES). Many ocular disorders including DES and blepharitis can be linked to MGD. If we treat... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is the leading cause of dry eye syndrome (DES). Many ocular disorders including DES and blepharitis can be linked to MGD. If we treat MGD, we can treat related diseases easily.
PURPOSE
This systematic review is intended to determine the efficacy of omega-3 supplementation in MGD patients.
METHODS
This systematic review included an electronic search on PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov to include all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) using omega-3 as a treatment for MGD.
RESULTS
Database search yielded to one RCT and six clinical trials through the MEDLINE of a total of 350 participants for the systematic review and meta-analysis study. The investigated treatment group (omega-3 group) had a positive effect on MGD protection in the invasive sodium fluorescein-tear break up time (NaFl-TBUT) score compared with the placebo group (odd ratio = 8.72, 95% confidence interval: 4.73, 16.09; < 0.001). These data suggest that the odd ratios of the omega-3 group to control group increased the likelihood of the improved stated outcome tear break up time (TBUT) being achieved in the treatment group. No evidence of publication bias was detected in the funnel plot inspection or the Egger's statistical test ( = 0.2944).
CONCLUSIONS
A moderate daily dose of omega-3 may be a beneficial therapeutic for MGD. Omega-3 has been beneficial in many diseases, such as heart attack prevention and agerelated macular degeneration, and this systematic review emphasizes its protection against MGD. In addition, this review emphasizes the precision of noninvasive TBUT (NITBUT) compared with invasive NaFl-TBUT which may suggest the importance of NITBUT in the clinic.
PubMed: 33134837
DOI: 10.1177/2515841420952188 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Posterior blepharitis is common and causes ocular surface and lid damage as well as discomfort. It affects 37% to 47% of all ophthalmology patients; its incidence...
BACKGROUND
Posterior blepharitis is common and causes ocular surface and lid damage as well as discomfort. It affects 37% to 47% of all ophthalmology patients; its incidence increasing with age. It is a multifactorial disease associated with multiple other pathologies, such as rosacea, meibomianitis, and infections. Treatment usually focuses on reliefing the symptoms by using artificial tears, lid scrubs, and warm compresses. The condition may be notoriously difficult to manage adequately once it becomes chronic. One such management approach for chronic blepharitis is the use of oral antibiotics for both their antibacterial as well as anti-inflammatory properties. There are currently no guidelines regarding the use of oral antibiotics, including antibiotic type, dosage, and treatment duration, for the treatment of chronic blepharitis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of oral antibiotic use for people with chronic blepharitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 29 August 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral antibiotics with placebo in adult participants with chronic blepharitis (including staphylococcal, seborrhoeic, or Meibomian Gland Dysfunction (MGD)).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology and graded the certainty of the body of evidence for six outcomes using the GRADE classification.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies with 220 participants (numbers of eyes unclear). One parallel-group RCT comparing oral doxycycline (40 mg once a day) with placebo enrolled 70 participants with blepharitis and facial rosacea in the USA. Follow-up duration was three months. One three-arm RCT conducted in South Korea investigated the effect of high-dose (200 mg twice a day) and low-dose (20 mg twice a day) doxycycline versus placebo after one month of study medication. It enrolled 50 participants with chronic MGD in each study arm (i.e. 150 participants enrolled in total). The two studies did not evaluate the same outcome measurements, which precluded any meta-analysis. The evidence for the effect of oral antibiotics on subjective improvement in symptoms was very uncertain. One study suggested that there was little to no effect of oral doxycycline on subjective symptoms based on the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) scores ranging from 0 to 100 (higher score indicates worse condition) (mean difference (MD) 3.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.61 to 11.71; n = 70) and bulbar conjunctival hyperemia ranging from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe) (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.36; n = 70) at 12 weeks. The three-arm RCT showed that oral doxycycline may slightly improve number of symptoms (MD -0.56, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.17; n = 93 (high-dose doxycycline versus placebo); MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.10; n = 93 (low-dose doxycycline versus placebo)) and proportion of participants with symptom improvement (risk ratio (RR) 6.13, 95% CI 2.61 to 14.42; n = 93 (high-dose doxycycline versus placebo); RR 6.54, 95% CI 2.79 to 15.30; n = 93 (low-dose doxycycline versus placebo)) at one month, but the evidence is very uncertain. We judged the certainty of evidence for subjective symptoms as very low. One study evaluated aqueous tear production by Schirmer's test (mm/5 min) (higher score indicates better condition) and tear film stability by measuring tear film break-up time (TBUT) in seconds (higher score indicates better condition) at one month. We found very low certainty evidence that oral doxycycline may improve these clinical signs. The estimated MD in Schirmer's test score after one month of treatment was 4.09 mm (95% CI 2.38 to 5.80; n = 93) in the high-dose doxycycline group versus the placebo group and 3.76 mm (95% CI 1.85 to 5.67; n = 93) in the low-dose doxycycline group versus the placebo group. The estimated MD in TBUT after one month was 1.58 seconds (95% CI 0.57 to 2.59; n = 93) when comparing the high-dose doxycycline group with the placebo group, and 1.70 seconds (95% CI 0.96 to 2.44; n = 93) when comparing the low-dose doxycycline group with the placebo group. Although there was a noted improvement in these scores, their clinical importance remains uncertain. One study suggested that oral doxycycline may increase the incidence of serious side effects: 18 (39%) participants in the high-dose doxycycline group, 8 (17%) in the low-dose doxycycline group, and 3 (6%) out of 47 participants in the placebo group experienced serious side effects (RR 6.13, 95% CI 1.94 to 19.41; n = 93 (high-dose doxycycline versus placebo); RR 2.72, 95% CI 0.77 to 9.64; n = 93 (low-dose doxycycline versus placebo)). Additionally, one study reported that one case of migraine headache and five cases of headache were observed in the oral doxycycline group, and one case of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was observed in the placebo group. We judged the certainty of evidence for adverse events as very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions on the use of oral antibiotics for chronic blepharitis. Very low certainty evidence suggests that oral antibiotics may improve clinical signs, but may cause more adverse events. The evidence for the effect of oral antibiotics on subjective symptoms is very uncertain. Further trials are needed to provide high quality evidence on the use of oral antibiotics in the treatment of chronic blepharitis.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Blepharitis; Chronic Disease; Doxycycline; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34107053
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013697.pub2 -
Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology...To determine the efficacy and safety of eyelid exfoliation treatment in dry eye disease (DED), blepharitis, and contact lens (CL) discomfort patients.
PURPOSE
To determine the efficacy and safety of eyelid exfoliation treatment in dry eye disease (DED), blepharitis, and contact lens (CL) discomfort patients.
METHODS
A systematic review that included only full-length randomized controlled studies, reporting the effects of eyelid exfoliation treatment in 2 databases, PubMed and Web of Science, was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. The search period was between October 29, 2022 and December 6, 2022. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to analyze the quality of the studies selected.
RESULTS
A total of 7 studies were included in this systematic review. Eyelid exfoliation treatment influence on DED, blepharitis, and CL discomfort were analyzed in 6, 4, and 2 studies, respectively. Eyelid exfoliation treatment achieved a better improvement than control group interventions in all reported variables. The mean differences between both groups were as follows: Ocular Surface Disease Index score of -5.0 ± 0.9 points, tear breakup time of 0.43 ± 0.2 seconds, ocular surface staining of -1.4 ± 1.5 points, meibomian glands secretions of 1.2 ± 1.1 points, meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion of 0.6 ± 0.3 points, microorganism load of -3.2 ± 4.7 points, and Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire-8 of -2.15 ± 0.1 points. Minimal discomfort (n = 13) and eyelid irritation (n = 2) were the main complications after an eyelid exfoliation treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Eyelid exfoliation is a safe and effective treatment that should be indicated for DED, blepharitis, and CL discomfort.
Topics: Humans; Blepharitis; Meibomian Glands; Contact Lenses; Tears; Dry Eye Syndromes; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37042457
DOI: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000607 -
Cureus Jan 2024Demodex blepharitis is marked by an excessive presence of Demodex mites on the eyelids, particularly in the lash follicles. While these microscopic mites are a natural... (Review)
Review
Demodex blepharitis is marked by an excessive presence of Demodex mites on the eyelids, particularly in the lash follicles. While these microscopic mites are a natural component of the skin microbiota, their overabundance can lead to ocular complications. Symptoms associated with Demodex blepharitis include eyelid itching, inflammation, and ocular irritation. Our objective is to investigate Lotilaner as a potential treatment for Demodex blepharitis, assessing both the safety and efficacy of the ophthalmic formula in managing this disease. We conducted research in Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus up to November 2023. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and it was employed to evaluate the quality of evidence. Our meta-analysis was executed using Review Manager 5.4. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of Lotilaner ophthalmic solution with a concentration of 0.25%. The following outcomes were assessed: clinically meaningful reduction in collarette, collarette cure, composite cure, drop comfort, erythema cure, mite density, and mite eradication. In the case of dichotomous data, we used the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). In our analysis, all included studies, comprising a total of 891 participants, consistently reported clinically meaningful reductions in collarettes. The findings were statistically significant, with Lotilaner demonstrating a substantially higher reduction compared to the vehicle group (RR = 3.09, 95% CI [2.65-3.60]; -value < 0.0001). Notably, results for Drop Comfort outcomes were nonsignificant, indicating no discernible differences compared to the group that used the vehicle (RR = 1.03, 95% CI [0.98-1.07]; -value = 0.26). However, both mite density and mite eradication outcomes exhibited significant improvements with Lotilaner in comparison to the vehicle (RR = 2.58, 95% CI [2.25-2.95]; -value < 0.0001) and (RR = 3.80, 95% CI [2.88-5.01]; -value < 0.0001). The Lotilaner ophthalmic solution at 0.25% showed superior efficacy over the vehicle in reducing collarettes, achieving complete mite eradication within six weeks, and significantly decreasing erythema in Demodex blepharitis. It demonstrated safety with no reported side effects compared to the vehicle. Direct comparative studies with alternative treatments are recommended for a comprehensive assessment of efficacy and safety.
PubMed: 38380217
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.52664 -
BMC Ophthalmology Nov 2017Bacteria are the major contributor of ocular infections worldwide. Ocular infections, if left untreated, can damage the structures of the eye with possible blindness and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bacteria are the major contributor of ocular infections worldwide. Ocular infections, if left untreated, can damage the structures of the eye with possible blindness and visual impairments. This work was aimed to review the bacterial profile of ocular infections.
METHODS
Literature search was made in different electronic databases; the review was systematically made to get concrete findings.
RESULTS
As far as this review, Staphylococcus aureus, Coagulase negative Staphylococci, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are the leading isolates in ocular infections. Frequent pathogens of the respective clinical diagnose include Staphylococci, Streptococcus pyogenes and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in blepharitis; Staphylococci, Streptococus pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli in Conjunctivitis; Staphylococci, P. aeruginosa and E. coli in dacryocystitis; Coagulase negative Staphylococci, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in keratitis; Streptococcus viridians, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Coagulase negative Staphylococci in endophthalmitis diagnoses. Endogenous endophthalmitis is associated with Klebsiella pneumoniae whereas Coagulase negative Staphylococci and Bacillus spp. are common causes of post-operative and post-traumatic endophthalmitis. However, the predominant pathogens may not be exactly same in all areas of the world, in the United States for instance, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae are the major causes of conjunctivitis.
CONCLUSION
Gram positive bacteria are the major contributor of bacterial ocular infections. The distribution and proportion of bacterial isolates among clinical diagnoses varied but without exclusive anatomical restriction. To mitigate the burden of bacterial ocular infections, physicians should regard on risk reduction and comply with etiologic approach of diagnosis.
Topics: Eye Infections, Bacterial; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Gram-Positive Bacteria; Humans
PubMed: 29178851
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-017-0612-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Blepharokeratoconjunctivitis (BKC) is a type of inflammation of the surface of the eye and eyelids that involves changes of the eyelids, dysfunction of the meibomian... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Blepharokeratoconjunctivitis (BKC) is a type of inflammation of the surface of the eye and eyelids that involves changes of the eyelids, dysfunction of the meibomian glands, and inflammation of the conjunctiva and cornea. Chronic inflammation of the cornea can lead to scarring, vascularisation and opacity. BKC in children can cause significant symptoms including irritation, watering, photophobia and loss of vision from corneal opacity, refractive error or amblyopia.Treatment of BKC is directed towards modification of meibomian gland disease and the bacterial flora of lid margin and conjunctiva, and control of ocular surface inflammation. Although both topical and systemic treatments are used to treat people with BKC, this Cochrane review focuses on topical treatments.
OBJECTIVES
To assess and compare data on the efficacy and safety of topical treatments (including antibiotics, steroids, immunosuppressants and lubricants), alone or in combination, for BKC in children from birth to 16 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE ( January 1946 to 11 July 2016), Embase (January 1980 to 11 July 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 11 July 2016. We searched the reference lists of identified reports and the Science Citation Index to identify any additional reports of studies that met the inclusion criteria.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials that involved topical treatments in children up to 16 years of age with a clinical diagnosis of BKC. We planned to include studies that evaluated a single topical medication versus placebo, a combination of treatments versus placebo, and those that compared two or multiple active treatments. We planned to include studies in which participants received additional treatments, such as oral antibiotics, oral anti-inflammatories, warm lid compresses and lid margin cleaning.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the results of the literature search (titles and abstracts) to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria of the review and applied standards as expected for Cochrane reviews. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one study from the USA that met the inclusion criteria. In the study, 137 children aged zero to six years old with blepharoconjunctivitis were randomised to treatment in one of four trial arms (loteprednol etabonate/tobramycin combination, loteprednol etabonate alone, tobramycin alone or placebo) for 15 days, with assessments on days 1, 3, 7 and 15. We judged the study to be at high risk of attrition bias and bias due to selective outcome reporting. The study did not report the number of children with improvement in symptoms nor with total or partial success as measured by changes in clinical symptoms.All children showed a reduction in blepharoconjunctivitis grade score, but there was no evidence of important differences between groups. Visual acuity was not fully reported but the authors stated that there was no change in visual acuity in any of the treatment groups. The study reported ocular and non ocular adverse events but was underpowered to detect differences between the groups. Ocular adverse events were as follows: loteprednol/tobramycin 1/34 (eye pain); loteprednol 4/35 (eye pain, conjunctivitis, eye discharge, eye inflammation); tobramycin 0/34; placebo (vehicle) 0/34. The evidence was limited for all these outcomes and we judged it to be very low certainty.There was no information on clinical signs (aside from grade score), disease progression or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no high-quality evidence of the safety and efficacy of topical treatments for BKC, which resulted in uncertainty about the indications and effectiveness of topical treatment. Clinical trials are required to test efficacy and safety of current and any future treatments. Outcome measures need to be developed which can capture both objective clinical and patient-reported aspects of the condition and treatments.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anti-Allergic Agents; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Blepharitis; Child; Child, Preschool; Conjunctiva; Eyelids; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Keratoconjunctivitis; Loteprednol Etabonate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tobramycin
PubMed: 28170093
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011965.pub2 -
American Journal of Ophthalmology Mar 2024Several treatments have been in use for Demodex blepharitis, before the discovery of lotilaner, like tea tree oil and antibiotics; however, they either have irritable... (Review)
Review
Efficacy and Safety of Lotilaner Ophthalmic Solution (0.25%) for the Treatment of Demodex Blepharitis: A GRADE Assessed Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational & Experimental Studies.
PURPOSE
Several treatments have been in use for Demodex blepharitis, before the discovery of lotilaner, like tea tree oil and antibiotics; however, they either have irritable effects or systemic adverse effects, respectively. Lotilaner, a novel ectoparasiticide, has been proposed as a treatment for patients grappling with Demodex blepharitis. This review aims to assess the safety and efficacy of lotilaner in the treatment of Demodex blepharitis.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
An extensive search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar to find relevant literature till July 31, 2023 following the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 143 articles were retrieved by database searching, out of which 6 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Four randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis of mite eradication incidence. The review is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42023459997.
RESULTS
Lotilaner is effective in eradicating Demodex mites in individuals suffering from Demodex blepharitis according to RR for the intervention versus the control group of 3.55 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.87-4.40, P < .00001, I = 0%). The meta-analysis of clinically meaningful collarette score revealed the summary RR for the intervention versus the control group was 3.15 (95% CI: 2.56-3.89, P < 0.00001, I = 27%). In conclusion, the results of the included studies were comparable and consistent.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicated that lotilaner is an effective, well-tolerated, and promising drug in treating patients with Demodex blepharitis. Lotilaner administration and cost-effectiveness should now be contemplated for the study population as these constituents have a vital impact on its treatment success.
PubMed: 38513948
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2024.03.019