Intense Pulsed Light Combined with Low Level Blue and Red Light Therapy for <i>Demodex</i>-Associated Blepharitis
Farrant S, Giannaccare G, Lim CHL, Coco G
Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 3 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Case report (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Authors
- At least one author declares a financial tie to industry
Based on full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2025-08-01 · Clin Ophthalmol · vol. Volume 19 · pp. 2575–2585
- Publisher
- Dove Medical Press
- Cited
- 3 citations · more than 91% of similar papers · 2.8× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 74 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY-NC
- Research areas
- Acne and Rosacea Treatments and Effects · Ocular Surface and Contact Lens · Dermatologic Treatments and Research
- Keywords
- Demodex, Medicine, Intense pulsed light, Blepharitis, Ophthalmology, Blue light, Red light, Dermatology, Optometry, Optics, Biology
4 authors
From GB, IT, SG
- Sarah FarrantCollege of Optometrists
- Giuseppe GiannaccareUniversity of Cagliari
- Chris Hong Long LimNational University of Singapore; Singapore Eye Research Institute; National University Hospital
- Giulia CocoUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata
Abstract
Purpose
Demodex-associated blepharitis is a chronic disease of the lid accounting for over 60% of all blepharitis. Although several therapies have been employed to address Demodex mites' infestation, there is no universal consensus about the most effective strategy. Purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of combined intense pulsed light (IPL) and low-level light therapy (LLLT) in the treatment of Demodex-associated blepharitis and associated ocular surface disease (OSD).
Patients and methods
Medical records of patients with Demodex-associated blepharitis resistant to first-line therapy who underwent IPL and LLLT (12 minutes of blue light followed by 12 minutes of red light) were retrospectively examined. The following data collected before treatment (T0) and at last follow-up (T1) were reviewed: collarettes (0-4 grade); saponification (presence/absence); lid margin telangiectasia (0-3 grade); conjunctival hyperemia (0-4 grade); corneal fluorescein staining (CFS) (0-5 grade); noninvasive tear break-up time (NITBUT), tear meniscus height (TMH), inter-blink interval (IBI), meibomian gland dropout (0-3 grade) and symptoms (5-item Dry Eye Questionnaire [DEQ-5]). Treatment-related adverse effects (TrAEs) were recorded.
Results
Data from 34 eyes of 17 patients (3 males, 14 females; mean age 64.6±10.0 years) were included. A mean of 7.6 ± 3.6 treatment sessions of IPL and LLLT was performed. Mean score of collarettes decreases significantly from 1.44 ± 0.83 at T0 to 1.00 ± 0.97 at T1 (p = 0.007). The rate of eyes with saponification decreases significantly (from 41.18% to 11.76%; p = 0.002). Conjunctival hyperemia significantly decreased from 2.00 ± 0.78 to 1.47 ± 0.61 (p = 0.005). Mean CFS score decreased significantly from 0.56 ± 1.16 to 0.24 ± 0.96 (p = 0.031). Symptoms' mean score improved significantly after treatment (from 12.00 ± 5.34 to 7.76 ± 4.92; p = 0.003). No patient reported TrAEs.
Conclusion
Combined light therapy with IPL and LLLT employing blue and red lights is an effective treatment strategy for patients with recalcitrant Demodex-associated blepharitis to reduce mites count and improve main ocular surface parameters along with patients' symptoms.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY-NC).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.