Objective: The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of intense pulsed light (IPL) compared with a portable 445 nm laser device in the treatment of dry eye. Our hypothesis was that IPL and 445 nm laser can provide equal reduction of symptoms for patients with dry eye disease. Methods: Participants provided written informed consent as per the Helsinki declaration before a baseline testing (visit 1). All participants completed four in-clinic study visits and one telephone call over the course of ∼4 months. The patients were evaluated at baseline and received the first treatment (visit 1) at the same visit. Thereafter, treatment was repeated every 2 weeks until four treatments had been administered (visits 2-4). The evaluation of dry eye included the following tests for both eyes: tear break-up time (TBUT), in seconds, taken in three measurements using a timer; corneal fluorescein staining (CFS); and lissamine green (grading 0-5 as per Oxford grading system). Other tests included visual acuity and the measurement of intraocular pressure. A full medical history and current ocular and systemic medications were obtained. All participants completed the Dry Eye Questionnaire (DEQ5), as per DEWS II, at each visit, as well as during the final telephone assessment ∼2 months after their fourth treatment. Results: Twenty-eight eyes of 14 patients were included in the study. The eyes were randomized with 14 eyes in each group receiving either 445 nm laser or IPL. The group included 10 female and 4 male participants with average age of 64.8 years (standard deviation 13.9). The primary outcome measures of TBUT, CFS, and the DEQ5 questionnaire were statistically significantly improved. TBUT IPL versus 445 nm laser p = 0.0097 versus 0.0115, CFS IPL versus 445 nm laser p = 0.0027 versus 0.0003. The questionnaire did not discriminate between the two methods but also showed highly statistically significant improvement p = 0.0001. Conclusions: The portable 445 nm laser and IPL were equally effective in the treatment of dry eye in this cohort. No significant adverse events were noted in either treatment group. K-Laser Blue® can be considered as a substitute for IPL treatment for dry eye.
Keywords: K-Laser Blue; blepharitis; dry eye disease; intense pulsed light; meibomian gland disease; photobiomodulation.