Pilot Study to Examine Efficacy and Cytokines Levels After Meibomian Gland Expression (MGX) With and Without Intense Pulsed Light Treatment (IPL)
Phase: NA
Conditions: Ocular Rosacea, Dry Eye
Sponsor: Mayo Clinic

 
 
Pilot Study to Examine Efficacy 
and Cytokine Levels after 
Meibomian Gland Expression 
(MGX) with and without 
Intense Pulsed Light Treatment 
(IPL) 
 
NCT# NCT03194698 
 
4/28/2017 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
1 
 
Pilot Study to Examine Efficacy and Cytokine Levels after Meibomian Gland Expression 
(MGX) with and without Intense Pulsed Light Treatment (IPL) 
Investigators:  Joanne Shen MD, Yael Kusne PhD, William Bourne MD, Michael Fautsch PhD, 
Dave Patel MD, Paul S Keim PhD, Emily Cope PhD 
Location:  
Mayo Clinic Arizona  
  
Chapter 1: Rationale 
1.1 Introduction 
Dry eye disease (DED) is a common condition that causes ocular discomfort and reduces visual 
acuity.[1] The two categories of dry eye disease are evaporative dry eye and aqueous deficient 
dry eye.[2] Both conditions can involve pathology of the meibomian glands, lacrimal glands, lids, 
tear film, and surface cells.[2, 3] Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is the leading cause of 
evaporative dry eye[4] and contributes to aqueous deficient dry eye.[5] 
Meibomian glands are modified sebaceous glands located along the upper and lower eyelid 
margins. Twenty to forty glands are located along each lid[6] and secrete meibum, the lipid 
component of tears.[7] MGD is defined by the International Workshop in Meibomian Gland 
Dysfunction[4] as the chronic, diffuse abnormality of the meibomian glands, commonly 
characterized by terminal duct obstruction and/or qualitative/quantitative changes in the 
glandular secretion. Patients may experience symptoms of eye irritation and clinically 
observable ocular surface disease and inflammation due to alteration of the tear film. 
MGD is a commonly encountered disease by ophthalmologists. The impact of dry eye on 
quality-of-life is comparable to the effect of moderate to severe angina or dialysis treatment.[8, 
9] The goal of MGD therapy is to provide long term improvement of symptoms for patients by 
improving the quality of meibum, increasing meibum flow, improving tear film stability, and 
decreasing inflammation. Commonly used therapies include preservative free drops, omega-3 
fatty acid supplementation, topical cyclosporine, serum tears, topical azithromycin, oral 
doxycycline, moisture chambers, intraductal probing, lid margin exfoliation, automated thermal 
pulsation, warm compresses, and others. Despite the variety of treatment options available, 
patients often do not experience complete or long term relief of symptoms. Forced meibomian 
gland expression was first described in 1921 by Dr. Gifford as an effective method of 
rehabilitating meibomian glands and improving dry eye symptoms in his patient.[10] The eyelid 
margins are forcefully compressed to express gland contents. Korb et al described an 
improvement in lipid layer thickness and symptoms in 10 patients with meibomian gland 
dysfunction treated with MGX.[11] Forced manual expression is painful for patients, and some 
of them are unable to tolerate the pain. 
 
 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
2 
 
1.2 Intense Pulsed Light Therapy  
Intense pulsed light (IPL) devices have long been used in the field of dermatology to treat acne 
rosacea, acne vulgaris, hyperpigmentation, essential telangiectasias, unwanted hair, and 
photodamaged skin. IPL is a high-intensity light source consisting of visible light in the 
wavelength range of 515–1200 nm. The light is both polychromatic and incoherent.[10] Most IPL 
dry eye patients receive this treatment as a last resort after trying several other therapies. They 
often have severe MGD and few to no expressible glands. Treatments are spaced four to six 
weeks apart, and patients typically receive one to four treatments with no established limit on 
the number of quarterly maintenance treatments. 
Given that the majority of dry eye syndrome is due to MGD, IPL/MGX treatment would 
theoretically be successful in improving symptoms in the majority of dry eye patients. For this 
reason, off-label IPL/MGX treatment was attempted to achieve symptom relief even when no 
significant ocular rosacea was detected in refractory dry eye syndrome in very symptomatic 
patients who had exhausted traditional modalities of dry eye treatment. 
The specific mechanism of IPL therapy in improving dry eye symptoms is unknown.   However, 
various hypotheses exist based on dermatological studies. It is postulated that oxyhemoglobin 
in blood vessels located on the surface of the skin absorbs light emitted from the flashlamp. The 
absorption generates heat that coagulates the red blood cells, leading to thrombosis of the 
blood vessels.[11-14] Several studies have examined changes in inflammatory regulators with 
the use of IPL. For instance, when using IPL for aged skin, Huang et al (2011) found an 
upregulation of MMP-1 and a downregulation of TGF-B1; while El-Domyati et al (2015) found no 
change in TGFB levels with IPL. In studies using IPL for acne vulgaris skin treatment, Ali et al 
(2013) found an upregulation of TGF-B1 and Taylor et al (2014) found a downregulation of 
TNFa expression and no change in IL-10 or IL-8. Nevertheless, more data is needed to 
elucidate these mechanisms, and to our knowledge, no studies examining cytokine changes 
with the use of IPL for DED have been published.  
There are approximately 40 centers performing IPL nationally; however, specific guidelines on 
selecting the ideal IPL candidate have not been published. Two peer-reviewed studies have 
been reported to date on the efficacy of combined IPL/MGX for treating MGD as Dr. Rolando 
Toyos, the ophthalmologist who introduced IPL to dry eye patients, has described.[11-15] In his 
three-year retrospective review of 91 patient records, Toyos et al. found a statistically significant 
improvement in tear film break up time (TBUT, p=0.000). Physician-judged improvement in 
meibum and lid margins was present in 94% and 98% of patients, respectively. Eighty-seven 
percent of patients showed improvement in clinical signs and 93% had subjective amelioration 
of their evaporative DED. Thirteen percent of patients experienced an adverse event. Voros and 
Gupta conducted a retrospective review of 37 patient records and found a statistically significant 
decrease in scoring of lid margin edema, facial telangiectasia, lid margin vascularity, and 
improvement in meibum quality score (P<0.001). They also found a significant increase in oil 
flow score and TBUT (P<0.001), and a significant decrease in ocular surface disease index 
scoring (P<0.001).  

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
3 
 
Several prospective trials have been conducted on the efficacy of IPL (without MGX) for treating 
MGD. Craig et al. (2015) reported that IPL alone was effective in improving the lipid layer and 
patient symptoms.[16]  In 2016, Jiang [17] enrolled 40 patients to receive IPL on day 1, day 15, 
day 45 and day 75. When compared to baseline measurements, significant improvements were 
found in both subjective symptomatic assessments and objective measurements of Meibomian 
gland secretion quality, TBUT, and conjunctival injection. While this study provided evidence of 
the benefit of IPL on MGD, its presents some limitations including a lack of control group and no 
analyses of inflammatory markers, or tear cytokines.  In 2016, Gupta et al [18] conducted a 
cohort study of 100 patients with the diagnosis of MGD and DED who underwent an average of 
4 IPL sessions. They reported a significant decrease in lid margin edema, lid margin vascularity, 
meibum viscosity and OSDI score, in addition to a significant increase in oil flow score and 
TBUT. Furthermore, in our previously published retrospective chart review of 35 patients with 
DED who were treated with serial IPL/MGX, we found a significant improvement in dry eye 
symptoms in 89% of patients and improvement in meibomian gland function in 77% of 
patients.[19] 
1.3 Adverse Events 
Previous studies have failed to show significant adverse events with the use of IPL for MGD or 
DED. Jiang et al’s (2016) prospective study reported no change in visual acuity, no change in 
intra ocular pressure (IOP), no changes to pigmentation and no blistering, swelling, redness or 
hair loss at the surface.[17] A similar lack of adverse events was found in Gupta et al (2016).[18] 
Additionally, our 2016 retrospective study found IPL to be well tolerated among participants.[19]  
1.4 Summary and Hypothesis  
Given the aforementioned data and relative lack of prospective studies regarding the use of 
MGX/IPL in patients with DED, we propose a prospective, randomized, case-controlled clinical 
pilot study to examine the efficacy of IPL for both subjective and objective measures. 20 
patients with DED will be recruited, and will be randomly assigned to one of two groups: MGX 
alone, or MGX with IPL, and will undergo treatment every 4-6 weeks for 4 total treatment. 
Subjectively, participants will be scored using dry eye symptom questionnaires, including the 
OSDI, prior to treatment and post-treatment. Objective measures at baseline and at the end of 
the study will include tear cytokine levels, impression cytology for inflammatory markers, 
meibography, tear osmolarity, and ocular microbiome testing (see Chapter 2).  
We hypothesize that use of MGX with IPL will lead to greater improvement in subjective dry eye 
symptoms, improved objective meibomian gland measures, and an upregulation in tear 
cytokines such as TGF-B1 and downregulation of inflammatory markers, such as IL-10, and 
improvement of ocular microbiome load, as compared to participants treated with MGX alone.  
Given the lack of adverse effects reported in the literature, we do not anticipate study 
participants will experience adverse effects with proper performance of the IPL and testing 
procedures.  For IPL subjects, masking using IPL-aid for both eyes will be used to protect the 
ocular structures.  After Fitzpatrick skin type assessment, test application of IPL will be 
performed at the right preauricular skin and evaluated for erythema or skin change prior to 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
4 
 
proceeding with the rest of the IPL application. We will record all events and include them in our 
analyses.  
Chapter 2: Study Overview and Design 
2.1 Participant Inclusion Criteria  
 20  subjects with DED (defined as an OSDI > 33) [20] that has been present for at least 1 year 
will be recruited. Participants must have signs of ocular rosacea including meibomian gland 
disease and marginal lid telangiectasias with  no more than 50% Meibomian gland atrophy 
(MGA), as assessed at baseline using objective measurement analyses (see Chapter 3).   
Patients who have a history of LASIK procedures, or any previous refractive surgery will be 
included in this study.  Participants who have no prior history or concurrent treatment for DED 
within the previous 6 months will be included. (6 months out) Additionally, participants will be 
age matched by decade and sex controlled between groups.  Patients may continue systemic 
and topical treatments for dry eye (including fish oil, flax seed oil, doxycycline, retina A, topical 
cyclosporine, acne treatments except Accutane) if started 6 months prior to enrollment and must 
continue on the same dosing until the end of the study. 
2.2 Participant Exclusion Criteria  
Several exclusion criteria will be included in order to ensure selection of patients who lack 
systemic conditions, or whose DED is not expected to change due to severity. Subjects without 
ocular rosacea will be excluded.  Participants will be excluded solely based on the following 
factors: dry eye symptoms that are not alleviated with topical anesthetic (indicating possible 
neurotrophic eye pain), presence of systemic conditions including Graft versus Host Disease 
(GVHD) or Stevens - Johnson syndrome (SJS), and/or presence or history of alkali burns. 
Additionally, participants who wear contact lenses will be excluded, any participant with 
evidence of >50% MGA, or any participant with prior history or concurrent treatment for DED in 
the past 6 months.  
2.3 Participant Randomization 
Once inclusion criteria have been met, patients will be randomized to one of two groups using a 
random number generator. 10 patients will be randomized to the control group, in which they will 
receive MGX every 4-6 weeks; and 10 patients will be randomized to the treatment group, in 
which they will receive MGX and IPL every 4-6 weeks. Biomarker and microbiome labs and data 
analyzer will be masked to treatment group.  
2.4 Data Collection and Analysis  
Appointment 1/Baseline. Data will be collected on the participants first visit (“baseline”) and 
will include the following: OSDI, visual acuity, slit lamp imaging, lissamine green staining, 
fluorescein, tear film break up time (TBUT), Schirmers 5 minute with anesthesia osmolarity, 
meibography, Keratograph5 redness evaluation, Lipiview lipid tear film thickness, , tear cytokine 
evaluation and impression cytology (for flow cytometry of labeled cells for inflammatory 
markers), and tear sample for ocular microbiome testing . Participants will receive a random 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
5 
 
number identifier, and their data will be entered into an Excel Document (“data file”) and 
RedCap database which will be kept on a secure server at Mayo Clinic Arizona.  
At appointment 1, participants will receive the initial treatment of either MGX or MGX+IPL. At 
appointment 1, participants will be given Tobramycin-Dexamethasone ophth soln to use BID 
topically OU for 2 days, and told to avoid UV exposure for 3 weeks.  
Appointment 2. 4-6 weeks after appointment 1, at appointment 2, participants will be evaluated 
using OSDI, visual acuity, Icare tonometry, slit lamp imaging, lissamine green staining, 
fluorescein staining. This data will be entered into the data file. Participants will receive their 
second treatment of either MGX or MGX+IPL.  At appointment 2, participants will be given 
Tobramycin-Dexamethasone ophth soln BID for 2 days, and told to avoid UV exposure for 3 
weeks  
Appointment 3. 4-6 weeks after appointment 2, at appointment 3, participants will be evaluated 
using OSDI, visual acuity, Icare tonometry, slit lamp imaging, lissamine green staining, 
fluorescein staining. This data will be entered into the data file. Participants will receive their 
second treatment of either MGX or MGX+IPL.  At appointment 3, participants will be given 
Tobramycin-Dexamethasone ophth soln BID for 2 days, and told to avoid UV exposure for 3 
weeks  
Appointment 4. 4-6 weeks after appointment 3, at appointment 4, participants will be evaluated 
with the following: OSDI, visual acuity, slit lamp imaging, lissamine green staining, fluorescein, 
tear film break up time (TBUT), Schirmers 5 minute with anesthesia osmolarity, meibography, 
Keratograph5 redness evaluation, Lipiview lipid tear film thickness, , tear cytokine evaluation 
and impression cytology (for flow cytometry of labeled cells for inflammatory markers), and tear 
sample for ocular microbiome testing.  Participants will receive their final treatment of either 
MGX alone or MGX + IPL. At appointment 4, participants will be given Tobramycin-
Dexamethasone ophth soln BID for 2 days, and told to avoid UV exposure for 3 weeks.  (Data 
from Vegunta et al (2016) [19] proved that 3 treatments alone are sufficient to produce a 
symptomatic MGX/IPL response with improvement of dry eye symptoms and signs.  We did not 
expect that subjects would be compliant to return for a 5th appointment if there was no treatment 
being performed at that visit.)  
Data Analysis. After the completion of 4 treatments, and the collection of data as outlined 
above, data will be analyzed using statistical methods for changes to the aforementioned tests. 
The analysis will be conducted by a research trainee who will be blinded to the participant 
groups. That is, they will receive the identifiers “Group 1” vs “Group 2”, without the identification 
of which group received MGX/IPL vs MGX alone.  

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
6 
 
2.5 Design Summary 
 
Power calculation for sample size for biostatistician 
Range listed for endpoints 
- 
OSDI (range 2-100) 
- 
QOL  
- 
VA  
- 
Slit lamp  
- 
TA 
- 
Fluorescein  (0-15) 
- 
Lissamine Green (0-6) 
- 
Lipiview  (20-100) 
- 
Tear Osmolarity (280-320) 
- 
Meibography (0-100) 
- 
Redness (Keratograph5) 
- 
TBUT (0-10) 
- 
Tear cytokines 
- 
Impression Cytology for inflammatory markers 
- 
Ocular microbiome testing 
Study Start. Time 0. Appt 1 
Baseline testing:  
-
OSDI 
-
QOL  
-
VA  
-
TA 
-
Lissamine Green 
-
Fluorescein  
-
Redness 
(Keratograph5) 
-
MMP9 
-
TBUT  
-
Schirmers 
-
Tear Osmolarity 
-
Meibography  
-
Lipiview  
-
Tear cytokine 
-
Impression Cytology  
-
Ocular Microbiome 
 
Randomization – Control 
(MGX) vs Treatment (MGX + 
IPL)  
Appointment 1:  
Control – MGX  
Treatment – MGX/IPL 
4-6 weeks 
4-6 weeks 
4-6 weeks 
Appt 2 Testing:  
-
OSDI 
-
QOL 
-
VA 
-
Lissamine 
Green  
-
Fluorescein 
-
TBUT  
Appt 4 Testing:  
-
OSDI 
-
QOL  
-
VA  
-
TA 
-
Lissamine Green 
-
Fluorescein  
-
Redness  
(Keratograph5) 
-
MMP9 
-
TBUT  
-
Schirmers 
-
Tear Osmolarity 
-
Meibography  
-
Lipiview  
-
Tear cytokine 
-
Impression Cytology  
-
Ocular Microbiome 
 
Study Completed  
Data reported 
Data analyses. 
Manuscript preparation. 
Appt 3 Testing:  
-
OSDI 
-
QOL 
-
VA 
-
Lissamine  
Green  
-
Fluorescein 
-
TBUT  
 
Appointment 2:  
Control – MGX  
Treatment – MGX/IPL 
Appointment 3:  
Control – MGX  
Treatment – MGX/IPL 
Appointment 4:  
Control – MGX  
Treatment – MGX/IPL 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
7 
 
 
Chapter 3: Experimental Procedures and Cost 
3.1 Subjective Parameters  
Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI). OSDI is the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning 
Questionnaire and has been proven to be valid and reliable instrument for assessing DED.  A 
copy has been attached in Chapter 4. The range of results is 2-100. We hypothesize a decrease 
in OSDI levels with MGX/IPL versus MGX alone. Cost for OSDI is estimated at $20 for each test 
and will be bundled into OPH EST LIMITED EXAM CPT (see 3.3 below). OSDI Survey is 
included in Chapter 4.1. 
 
QOL Survey.  
Cost for QOL is estimated at $20 for each test and will be bundled into OPH EST LIMITED 
EXAM CPT (see 3.3 below). QOL Survey is included in Chapter 4.2. 
3.2 Objective Parameters   
Visual Acuity (VA). VA will be recorded in Snellen format for each eye as a safety measure. 
We hypothesize no changes to VA will be seen between groups. Cost for VA is estimated at $20 
for each test and will be bundled into OPH EST LIMITED EXAM CPT (see 3.3 below). 
 
Applanation tonometry (TA).  Recorded intraocular pressure (IOP) for each eye as measured 
by Goldmann applanation tonometry. IOP measurement and recording is a safety measure.  We 
hypothesize no changes to IOP will be seen between groups. Cost for TA is estimated at $20 for 
each test and will be bundled into OPH EST LIMITED EXAM CPT (see 3.3 below). 
 
Conjunctival Injection Score (Redness). Analyzed using slit lamp images from Keratograph 5. 
Increased injection has been associated with increased DED symptoms.  Score is graded as 0-
3, with 0 being no conjunctival injection and 3 being marked injection. We hypothesize a 
decrease in conjunctival injection score with MGX/IPL versus MGX alone.  Cost for conjunctival 
injection scoring is estimated at $20 for each test and will be bundled into OPH EST LIMITED 
EXAM CPT (see 3.3 below). 
 
Lissamine Green staining of the interpalpebral conjunctiva.  Conjunctival staining is an 
effective tool to examine epithelial damage. It is easy to perform and has been proven with good 
reproducibility. We hypothesize an improvement in conjunctival staining with the use of 
MGX/IPL versus MGX alone. Two areas will be graded from 0-3 in severity. Cost for lissamine 
green staining is estimated at $20 for each test and will be bundled into OPH EST LIMITED 
EXAM CPT (see 3.3 below). 
 
Fluorescein Cornea Staining (FCS). Corneal staining is an effective tool to examine epithelial 
damage. It is easy to perform and has been proven with good reproducibility. We hypothesize 
an improvement in corneal staining with the use of MGX/IPL versus MGX alone. Five areas 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
8 
 
each will be graded from 0-3 in severity. Cost for FCS is estimated at $20 for each test and will 
be bundled into OPH EST LIMITED EXAM CPT (see 3.3 below). 
 
MMP9. A reliable test used as a marker for inflammation which may provide evidence of ocular 
surface disease or dry eye with 85% sensitivity and 94% specificity.[21-23] Data has shown 
abnormal expression of MMP9 expression in DED, which is linked to increased efficacy with the 
use of anti-inflammatory agents such as cyclosporine or doxycycline.[21, 22] Therefore, this test 
is a valuable indication of inflammation in DED. Results of the test are reported as positive or 
negative. We hypothesize that patients treated with MGX/IPL versus MGX alone will show a 
decrease in MMP9 expression over the course of the trial. Cost for MMP9 testing is estimated at 
$20 for each test and will be bundled into OPH EST LIMITED EXAM CPT (see 3.3 below). 
 
Tear Break Up Time (TBUT). Considered a mechanism and contributor of DED symptoms [23]. 
Severe disease criteria cut off is generally considered <3seconds. Split second stopwatch is 
used with the aid of fluorescein dye. Data has shown TBUT is an DED and is frequently used as 
a screen for DED.[24] We hypothesize an increase in TBUT with MGX/IPL versus MGX alone.  
Cost for TBUT is estimated at $20 for each test and will be bundled into OPH EST LIMITED 
EXAM CPT (see 3.3 below). 
 
Schirmers. Schirmers test is used to evaluate aqueous tear production and therefore is used to 
aid in possible diagnosis of DED.[23, 25] Results are abnormal if there is <5mm of wetting after 
5 minutes. We hypothesize an increase in Schirmer’s testing with MGX/IPL versus MGX alone.  
Cost for Schirmers testing is estimated at $20 for each test and will be bundled into OPH EST 
LIMITED EXAM CPT (see 3.3 below). 
 
Tear Osmolarity.  Studies have shown tear osmolarity to be an important contributor to DED, 
as it parallels disease severity and responds to treatments.[25, 26] It is, therefore, an accurate 
and reliable marker of inflammation. Tear osmolarity is evaluated on a continuum, with severe 
disease being reported as >315 mOsms/L.[26] We expect an improvement (decrease in 
absolute value) in measures of tear osmolarity with MGX/IPL versus MGX alone. Cost for tear 
osmolarity is estimated at $20 for each test and will be bundled into OPH EST LIMITED EXAM 
CPT (see 3.3 below).  
 
Meibography Keratograph.  Meibography is a tool to measure the amount of meibomium 
gland atrophy (MGA).  MGA has been reported to be an important cause of dry eye.[27, 28]  
Images are objectively measured using ImageJ (NIH) based on a previously published report. 
[29] Results are reported from 0-100% atrophy of total surface area. We hypothesize a 
significant improvement in MGA with MGX/IPL versus MGX alone.  Cost for meibography is 
estimated at $20 for each test and will be bundled into OPH EST LIMITED EXAM CPT (see 3.3 
below). 
 
Lipiview.  Lipiview measures lipid tear film thickness by interferometry on Lipiview instrument. 
Results are reported on a scale from 20-100. We hypothesize a decrease in the absolute 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
9 
 
thickness of tear film lipid layer with MGX/IPL versus MGX alone. Cost for lipiview is estimated 
at $20 for each test and will be bundled into OPH EST LIMITED EXAM CPT (see 3.3 below). 
 
Tear Cytokine.  Tears will be collected at baseline and after the third treatment to be analyzed 
for the following markers: IL-1B, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-17, IFNg, TNFa, and TGFB1. Tear cytokine 
analysis of these markers has previously been shown as a marker of ocular surface 
inflammation, and is upregulated in DED.[30-33]  We hypothesize an increase in TGFB1 and a 
decrease in the aforementioned inflammatory cytokines with MGX/IPL versus MGX alone. 
Samples will be collected at baseline and frozen at -80*C until analyzed using a pre-made 
custom plate (Millipore, USA). For 40 samples (20 patients x 2 samples each (1 pre and 1 post 
treatment), we will require 1 96-well plate at the cost of $1500 + $260 service fees. Additionally, 
to analyze TGFB1, we will require a separate plate at the cost of $500 + $300 for all samples. 
Therefore, the final cost for tear cytokine analysis will be $2,560 for all samples for the entirety 
of the study.  
 
Impression Cytology. Impression cytology is used to sample conjunctival epithelium which has 
been shown to be affected in DED. [34, 35]  The test is minimally invasive, and is well validated 
within the literature.[34, 35] Using flow cytometry, the expression of 4 markers: HLA-DR (an 
inflammatory marker), Fas antigen (CD95), Fas ligand, and APO2-7 (apoptotic markers), will be 
quantified based on previously published reports.[36]  Published studies have shown these 
markers to be upregulated in DED and therefore a biomarker of ocular surface inflammation. 
[34, 37]  Cost is estimated to be $4,000 for all samples for the entirety of the study, which 
includes antibodies, consumables and service charges. 
 
Microbiology Identification. This test is used to examine the changes in microbiological flora 
of the eye. Conjunctival swabs will be obtained from patients and sent for RNA sequencing.  
Previous studies have shown ocular surface bacteria to be related to various ocular surface 
disease.[38]  Additionally, the presence of Demodex has been shown to influence meibomian 
gland dysfunction, cause inflammation, and lead to changes in tear cytokine levels such as IL-
17[39, 40]. Through this method, we will be able to assess changes in the ocular microbiome, 
including alterations in Demodex, with MGX/IPL versus MGX alone. Cost is estimated to be 
$30.07/sample, with a total cost for all 40 samples $2,500.   See Section 5 for detailed protocol. 
 
Pharmacy costs: Acuvail costs total $10,000.  This is due to the need for 8 vials of the 
preservative free ampules to be given for OU BID dosing after each treatment session, totaling 
640 vials. 
 
 
 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
10 
 
3.3 Budget 
Please refer to attached Budget for details. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
11 
 
Chapter 4: Supplementary & Supporting Materials  
4.1 OSDI 
 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
12 
 
 
 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
13 
 
4.2 QOL Survey  
 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
14 
 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
15 
 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
16 
 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
17 
 
 
 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
19 
 
5.0  Ocular Microbiome Protocol (NAU Sarah Cope/Paul Keim Lab) 
Microbiome samples from meibomian gland expressed material were collected in the office 
under strict aseptic precautions in the ophthalmology clinic using sterile gloves and 
instrumentation.  Material was collected and transferred to sterile swab for right eye and left eye 
samples (COPAN LQ Stuart Transport Swab, COPAN Italia S.p.A, Brescia, Italy). Any 
contaminated swabs were discarded and repeat sampling performed. After collection, the swab 
tips were cut with sterilized scissors and placed into Eppendorf tubes and placed in dry ice 
container. The samples were immediately sent for freezing frozen in a −90°C bath of Novec 
engineered fluid (3M HFE-7000) cooled in a HistoChill freezing bath (SP Scientific HC80A0). 
The time from the start of harvest to freezing was approximately 10 -15 minutes. No saline, 
embedding medium or preservative was added. Unique identification numbers were assigned to 
each individual container with bar code labels. Biospecimens were stored in ThermoFisher Ultra 
Low Temp upright freezers at -80°C until shipped to Keim/Cope lab at NAU on dry ice and then 
stored at -80°C until ready for analysis. 
DNA Extraction  
Total genomic DNA was extracted using the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen; 51304) with some 
prior modifications. Briefly, swab heads were placed in sterile 2mL microcentrifuge tubes with 
400uL of lysis buffer (20mM Tris-HCl [pH 8.0], 2mM EDTA, 1.2% Triton X-100) containing 
1mg/mL Lysozyme (Sigma-Aldrich; L7773), 30U/mL Lysostaphin (Sigma-Aldrich; L2898) and 
375U/mL Mutanolysin (Sigma-Aldrich; M4782). Specimens were incubated at 37°C for 1 hour 
and both the lysates and the swabs were transferred to bead-beating tubes containing 373mg of 
0.1mm-diameter zirconia/silica beads (Biospec; 11079101z). Bead-beating was performed at 
2100 rpm for 1 min using a Digital Vortex Mixer (Fisher Scientific; 0215370) with a vortex 
adapter (Mo-Bio; 1300-V1-24). The samples were centrifuged at 12,000xg for 5 minutes and the 
supernatant was transferred to sterile 1.7mL microcentrifuge tubes. Then, 20uL Proteinase K 
(20mg/mL) and 400uL Buffer AL were added to each sample and incubated at 56°C for 30 
minutes. Further DNA purification was performed as described by the manufacturer.  
Library Preparation 
 
16S primers that encompass the V3 and V4 region were selected as the region for 
library preparation18. The primer pair, S-D-Bact-0341-b-S-17 and S-D-Bact-0785-a-A-21, 
corresponds to a region of 16S that on average spans 459 base pairs. The primers were 
constructed with universal tail (UT) sequences 19. We modified the protocol from a single index 
to a dual index approach. Briefly, the common Illumina PCR primer was replaced with a primer 
containing a second index sequence. Each UT1 and UT2 index was used only once, the 
advantage of which will be addressed in the discussion. Preparing libraries with universal tails is 
a 2-step process: target specific amplification and an extension PCR to add the barcodes and 
Illumina adapter sequences. The target specific primers, in this case 16S primers with universal 
tails, can be found in Table 1. The target specific amplification in a 25 µl reaction contained 12.5 
µl Q5 Hot Start High-Fidelity 2X Master Mix (New England Biolabs Inc.), 1.25 µl of each primer 
at a stock concentration of 10 µM (final concentration: 500 nM/primer), and 10 µl of DNA with 
the following PCR conditions: 1. Initial denaturation at 95°C for 3 min; 2. 25 cycles of 95°C for 
40 sec, 55°C for 2 min, 72°C for 60 sec; 3. Final extension at 72°C for 7 min. The target specific 
amplicon was purified with Agencourt AMPure XP beads (Beckman Coulter) according to the 
manufacturer’s protocol at a 1:1 ratio based on volume. The DNA was eluted from the beads in 
25 µl of 10mM Tris-HCl + 0.05% Tween 20 solution. 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
20 
 
The indexing PCR contained 12.5 µl KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix (KAPA biosystems), 
1 µl each of barcoded UT1 and UT2 indexing primers at stock concentrations of 10µM (final: 
400 nM/primer) and 10.5 µl of template from target specific PCR at a final volume of 25 µl. The 
PCR conditions were: 1. Initial denaturation at 98°C for 2 min; 2. 6 cycles of 98°C for 30 sec, 
65°C for 20 sec, 72°C for 30 sec; 3. Final extension at 72°C for 5 min. The final product was 
purified with Agencourt AMPure XP beads as previously described above and the DNA was 
eluted in 35 µl of Tris-HCl 0.05% Tween 20 solution. The indexed libraries were electrophoresed 
on a 2% agarose gel at 100V for 1 hour to separate the human mitochondrial 16S (~450 bp) 
libraries from the bacterial 16S libraries. Gel extraction of the bacterial 16S libraries was 
performed using the QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit (Qiagen; 28704) following the manufacturer’s 
instructions. 
Library Quantification and Sequencing 
Individually Indexed libraries were quantified using KAPA Library Quantification Kit—
Illumina/ABI Prism (KAPA biosystems) qPCR. The samples were pooled at equimolar 
concentrations to enable efficient multiplexing during the sequencing. The final library pool was 
quantified using the same method and was used for the individual libraries. The final library pool 
was mixed with a phiX control library a phiX control library (Illumina; FC-110-3001) at 25% of 
the total library material, as per Illumina’s instructions for amplicon sequencing, and was loaded 
onto the Illumina MiSeq at 14pM.  PhiX provides the base diversity that the Illumina instrument 
needs for proper calculations. The library pool was sequenced with 300 bp paired end reads 
using version 3 chemistry (Illumina; MS-102-3003).  Custom sequencing primers for the dual 
indexed UT libraries were added to the appropriate wells in the MiSeq cartridge at a 
concentration of 0.5 µM. 
Sequence Processing 
Paired end reads for each sample were assembled using SeqPrep. The following changes were 
made to the default SeqPrep settings: “-L 400”, “-n 1“, “-A 
CAAGCAGAAGACGGCATACGAGAT”, and “-B AATGATACGGCGACCACCGAGATCTACAC”. 
The merged reads were clustered into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at 99% by identity 
against the greengenes database with QIIME (1.9.1) using a previously described protocol 
(default parameters and tools unless otherwise noted)21. Reads that failed to hit the reference 
sequence collection were retained and clustered de novo. Sequences were aligned using 
PyNAST and taxonomy was assigned using uclust in the QIIME environment.  
Sequence and Statistical Analysis  
To determine the baseline variability of the bacterial microbiota within an individual, the V3-V4 
region of the 16S rRNA gene was sequenced on the Illumina MiSeq. All analyses were 
performed on an operational taxonomic unit (OTU; number of clusters of similar sequences) 
table rarefied to 5500 sequences/sample. Alpha-diversity, which is used to assess diversity, 
evenness, and richness in a community in a single sample, was measured to ascertain 
differences in the microbiota between IM and MM across the spectrum of CRS disease. Alpha 
diversity indices studied were: Faith’s phylogenetic diversity (measure of biodiversity 
incorporating phylogenetic difference between species) and Shannon diversity (richness and 
evenness; “evenness” is a measure of relative abundance of different species that make up the 
richness in that area)]. A permutational t-test (999 Monte Carlo permutations) was used to 
determine changes in alpha-diversity (diversity within a sample). Alpha diversity values were 
projected onto an image of the sinonasal cavity on the MM middle or IM using SitePainter22.  

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
21 
 
Beta diversity (comparison of samples to each other to measure the distance or dissimilarity 
between each sample pair) was performed using UniFrac distance matrices generated in QIIME 
1.9.0. Average weighted and unweighted UniFrac values were calculated between subjects. 
Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) plots were used for visualization of the data present in 
the beta diversity distance matrix using Emperor. Permutational analysis of variance 
(PERMANOVA) using the adonis function in the R Vegan package was used to determine 
significance in distance matrices across samples by metadata categories. Procrustes analysis 
was performed on the first three dimensions of a PCoA generated using a weighted UniFrac 
distance matrix and a Monte Carlo simulation was performed with 10000 permutations to 
determine significance. Procrustes sum of squares (m2) and correlation [𝑟𝑟= √(1 −𝑚𝑚2)] are 
reported. To confirm the Procrustes findings, a two-sided Mantel test with 10000 permutations 
was performed on weighted UniFrac distances matrices generated independently for each 
sample within a pair.  
6.0  Intense Pulsed Light – Meibomian Gland Expression (IPL-MGX) treatment protocol 
Subjects undergo Fitzpatrick skin typing to classify their skin response to ultraviolet exposure by 
degree of burning and tanning. Fitzpatrick skin types I, II, III, and IV are included as 
recommended by the manufacturer, and V and VI were excluded. Quadra Q4 IPL Machine 
(DermaMed Solutions, LLC, Lenni, Pennsylvania) is used for all subjects.  Subjects will have 
ocular rosacea and will not have active lesions, skin cancer, or specific skin pathology that 
would exclude treatment with IPL. 
Subjects will receive four IPL-MGX treatments, each spaced four to six weeks apart. IPL 
machine will be set to appropriate dry eye settings—either 1D, 2D, or 4A.  At each treatment, 
the eyelids are bilaterally closed and sealed shut with IPL-Aid disposable eye shields 
(Honeywell Safety Products, Smithfield, Rhode Island). After generous application of ultrasonic 
gel to the treated skin, subjects receive approximately 30-40 pulses (with slight overlapping 
applications) from the right preauricular area, across the cheeks and nose to the left 
preauricular area, treating up to the inferior boundary of the eye shields. Each treatment is 
followed by MGX with Hardten expression forceps to empty meibum from bilateral upper and 
lower eyelids. Expressed material is sent for ocular microbiome testing at NAU.  Subjects use 
tobramycin/dexamethasone drops twice a day for two days following IPL-MGX treatment.  
7.0 MGX only protocol 
Subjects undergo Fitzpatrick skin typing to classify their skin response to ultraviolet exposure by 
degree of burning and tanning. Fitzpatrick skin types I, II, III, and IV are included.  Subjects will 
have ocular rosacea and will not have active lesions, skin cancer, or specific skin pathology that 
would exclude treatment with IPL (to ensure case controls for test group). 
Subjects will receive four MGX treatments, each spaced four to six weeks apart. Each treatment 
consists of MGX with Hardten expression forceps to empty meibum from bilateral upper and 
lower eyelids. Expressed material is sent for ocular microbiome testing at NAU.  Subjects use 
tobramycin/dexamethasone drops twice a day for two days following MGX treatment.  
 
References 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
22 
 
 
1. 
McGinnigle, S., S.A. Naroo, and F. Eperjesi, Evaluation of dry eye. Surv Ophthalmol, 
2012. 57(4): p. 293-316. 
2. 
 The definition and classification of dry eye disease: report of the Definition and   
Classification Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye Workshop. Ocular Surface, 
2007. 5: p. 75-92. 
3. 
Labbe, A., F. Brignole-Baudouin, and C. Baudouin, [Ocular surface investigations in dry 
eye]. J Fr Ophtalmol, 2007. 30(1): p. 76-97. 
4. 
Nelson, J.D., et al., The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: report 
of the definition and classification subcommittee. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2011. 52(4): 
p. 1930-7. 
5. 
Nichols, K.K., et al., The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: 
executive summary. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2011. 52(4): p. 1922-9. 
6. 
Bron, A.J., L. Benjamin, and G.R. Snibson, Meibomian gland disease. Classification and 
grading of lid changes. Eye (Lond), 1991. 5 ( Pt 4): p. 395-411. 
7. 
Chew, C.K., et al., An instrument for quantifying meibomian lipid on the lid margin: the 
Meibometer. Curr Eye Res, 1993. 12(3): p. 247-54. 
8. 
Buchholz, P., et al., Utility assessment to measure the impact of dry eye disease. Ocul 
Surf, 2006. 4(3): p. 155-61. 
9. 
Schiffman, R.M., et al., Utility assessment among patients with dry eye disease. 
Ophthalmology, 2003. 110(7): p. 1412-9. 
10. 
SR, G., Meibomian glands in chronic blepharoconjunctivitis. Am J Ophthalmol 1921. 4: 
p. 489-494. 
11. 
Korb, D.R. and J.V. Greiner, Increase in tear film lipid layer thickness following treatment 
of meibomian gland dysfunction. Adv Exp Med Biol, 1994. 350: p. 293-8. 
12. 
Heymann, W.R., Intense pulsed light. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2007. 56(3): p. 466-7. 
13. 
Papageorgiou, P., et al., Treatment of rosacea with intense pulsed light: significant 
improvement and long-lasting results. Br J Dermatol, 2008. 159(3): p. 628-32. 
14. 
Mark, K.A., et al., Objective and quantitative improvement of rosacea-associated 
erythema after intense pulsed light treatment. Dermatol Surg, 2003. 29(6): p. 600-4. 
15. 
Jabs, D.A., et al., The eye in bone marrow transplantation. III. Conjunctival graft-vs-host 
disease. Arch Ophthalmol, 1989. 107(9): p. 1343-8. 
16. 
Clark, S.M., S.W. Lanigan, and R. Marks, Laser treatment of erythema and 
telangiectasia associated with rosacea. Lasers Med Sci, 2002. 17(1): p. 26-33. 
17. 
Jiang, X., et al., Evaluation of the Safety and Effectiveness of Intense Pulsed Light in the 
Treatment of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction. J Ophthalmol, 2016. 2016: p. 1910694. 
18. 
Gupta, P.K., et al., Outcomes of intense pulsed light therapy for treatment of evaporative 
dry eye disease. Can J Ophthalmol, 2016. 51(4): p. 249-53. 
19. 
Vegunta, S., D. Patel, and J.F. Shen, Combination Therapy of Intense Pulsed Light 
Therapy and Meibomian Gland Expression (IPL/MGX) Can Improve Dry Eye Symptoms 
and Meibomian Gland Function in Patients With Refractory Dry Eye: A Retrospective 
Analysis. Cornea, 2016. 35(3): p. 318-22. 
20. 
Baudouin, C., et al., Diagnosing the severity of dry eye: a clear and practical algorithm. 
Br J Ophthalmol, 2014. 98(9): p. 1168-76. 
21. 
Chotikavanich, S., et al., Production and activity of matrix metalloproteinase-9 on the 
ocular surface increase in dysfunctional tear syndrome. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2009. 
50(7): p. 3203-9. 
22. 
Gurdal, C., et al., Topical cyclosporine in thyroid orbitopathy-related dry eye: clinical 
findings, conjunctival epithelial apoptosis, and MMP-9 expression. Curr Eye Res, 2010. 
35(9): p. 771-7. 

 
 
MGX IPL Pilot Study   V3.0 
 
23 
 
23. 
Dohlman, T.H., J.B. Ciralsky, and E.C. Lai, Tear film assessments for the diagnosis of 
dry eye. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol, 2016. 16(5): p. 487-91. 
24. 
Shah, S. and H. Jani, Prevalence and associated factors of dry eye: Our experience in 
patients above 40 years of age at a Tertiary Care Center. Oman J Ophthalmol, 2015. 
8(3): p. 151-6. 
25. 
Lemp MA, F.G., Diagnosis and management of dry eye disease, in Duane's 
Ophthalmology 2012, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Philadelphia, PA. 
26. 
Lemp, M.A., et al., Tear osmolarity in the diagnosis and management of dry eye disease. 
Am J Ophthalmol, 2011. 151(5): p. 792-798 e1. 
27. 
Knop, E., et al., [Meibomian glands : part III. Dysfunction - argument for a discrete 
disease entity and as an important cause of dry eye]. Ophthalmologe, 2009. 106(11): p. 
966-79. 
28. 
Finis, D., et al., Evaluation of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction and Local Distribution of 
Meibomian Gland Atrophy by Non-contact Infrared Meibography. Curr Eye Res, 2015. 
40(10): p. 982-9. 
29. 
Pult, H. and B. Riede-Pult, Comparison of subjective grading and objective assessment 
in meibography. Cont Lens Anterior Eye, 2013. 36(1): p. 22-7. 
30. 
Wei, Y., et al., Tear cytokine profile as a noninvasive biomarker of inflammation for 
ocular surface diseases: standard operating procedures. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 
2013. 54(13): p. 8327-36. 
31. 
Cocho, L., et al., Biomarkers in Ocular Chronic Graft Versus Host Disease: Tear 
Cytokine- and Chemokine-Based Predictive Model. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2016. 
57(2): p. 746-58. 
32. 
Enriquez-de-Salamanca, A., et al., Tear cytokine and chemokine analysis and clinical 
correlations in evaporative-type dry eye disease. Mol Vis, 2010. 16: p. 862-73. 
33. 
Na, K.S., et al., Correlations between tear cytokines, chemokines, and soluble receptors 
and clinical severity of dry eye disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2012. 53(9): p. 5443-
50. 
34. 
Epstein, S.P., et al., HLA-DR expression as a biomarker of inflammation for multicenter 
clinical trials of ocular surface disease. Exp Eye Res, 2013. 111: p. 95-104. 
35. 
Fernandez, K.B., et al., Modulation of HLA-DR in dry eye patients following 30 days of 
treatment with a lubricant eyedrop solution. Clin Ophthalmol, 2015. 9: p. 1137-45. 
36. 
Brignole, F., et al., Expression of Fas-Fas ligand antigens and apoptotic marker APO2.7 
by the human conjunctival epithelium. Positive correlation with class II HLA DR 
expression in inflammatory ocular surface disorders. Exp Eye Res, 1998. 67(6): p. 687-
97. 
37. 
Tsubota, K., et al., Quantitative analysis of lacrimal gland function, apoptotic figures, Fas 
and Fas ligand expression of lacrimal glands in dry eye patients. Exp Eye Res, 2003. 
76(2): p. 233-40. 
38. 
Miller, D. and A. Iovieno, The role of microbial flora on the ocular surface. Curr Opin 
Allergy Clin Immunol, 2009. 9(5): p. 466-70. 
39. 
Kim, J.T., et al., Tear cytokines and chemokines in patients with Demodex blepharitis. 
Cytokine, 2011. 53(1): p. 94-9. 
40. 
Kheirkhah, A., et al., Corneal manifestations of ocular demodex infestation. Am J 
Ophthalmol, 2007. 143(5): p. 743-749.