Randomized trial compares eyelid cleansing methods for ocular surface symptoms in adults, suggesting wipes are more effective.
Blepharitis and meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) commonly cause ocular surface symptoms, but comparative evidence for commonly used eyelid-cleansing strategies remains limited. We compared the 4-week efficacy of preformulated eyelid cleansing wipes, hypochlorous acid-assisted cleansing, and saline-assisted cleansing in adults with blepharitis-associated ocular surface disease. In this single-center, randomized, assessor-masked, parallel-group trial, adults aged 18–70 years were assigned to one of three cleansing interventions for 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the baseline-adjusted Week 4 visual analog scale (VAS) score for the selected study eye in the full analysis set. Pairwise comparisons were performed only after a significant overall test, with Holm adjustment. Seventy-two participants were randomized; 64 were included in the full analysis set, and 59 had observed Week 4 VAS data. The overall between-group difference in baseline-adjusted Week 4 VAS was significant (P = 0.007). Adjusted mean Week 4 VAS values were 27.47 (95% CI, 22.18–32.76) in the wipe group, 33.16 (95% CI, 27.80–38.51) in the hypochlorous acid group, and 40.83 (95% CI, 34.93–46.72) in the saline group. The wipe group had lower Week 4 VAS than the saline group (adjusted difference, − 13.35; 95% CI, − 21.51 to − 5.20; Holm-adjusted P = 0.005). No other pairwise comparison remained significant. Between-group differences in Schirmer test result, corneal fluorescein staining, and MGD expressibility were interpreted as supportive secondary findings. In this single-center, assessor-masked randomized trial, preformulated eyelid cleansing wipes were associated with a lower baseline-adjusted Week 4 VAS symptom score than saline-assisted mechanical lid cleansing. Confirmatory superiority over hypochlorous acid was not established, and sign-based secondary findings should be interpreted as supportive.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: