Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose: To evaluate the durability of thermomechanical device treatment effect in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) at 6 months post-treatment. Methods: This was an extension of an initial 3-month, prospective, controlled, randomized, masked, multicenter pivotal study, in which subjects with MGD were randomized to thermomechanical device treatment (3 sessions, 2 weeks apart) or a single control treatment. The extension study was a single-arm, observational study in the same 5 sites of the pivotal study. A subset of subjects from the thermomechanical device group with an increase in tear break-up time (TBUT) of 2.5 s or greater in at least 1 eye at 1- or 3-month follow-up and able to attend the 6-month follow-up were included. Effectiveness endpoints included changes in TBUT, Meibomian gland score (MGS), and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) from baseline to 6 months. Device-related adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. Results: At 6 months post-treatment, 21 subjects (42 eyes) demonstrated significant improvements from baseline in mean TBUT (5.2 ± 3.8 s; P < 0.001), mean MGS (18.2 ± 10.9; P < 0.0001), and mean OSDI (−24.3 ± 26.5; P = 0.0004). Improvements in corneal staining scores were also observed. No ocular AEs were reported. Conclusions: The findings of the extension study demonstrate that the clinical benefit of the thermomechanical device, evaluated by TBUT, MGS, and OSDI, can be maintained out to 6 months and that the device is safe and effective in improving the signs and symptoms of evaporative dry eye disease in MGD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sadri et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: