Despite identifying 34 trials related to treatments for blepharitis, there is no strong evidence for any of the treatments in terms of curing chronic blepharitis. Commercial products are marketed to consumers and prescribed to patients without substantial evidence of effectiveness. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of such treatments. Any RCT designed for this purpose should separate participants by type of condition (e.g. staphylococcal blepharitis or MGD) in order to minimize imbalances between groups (type I errors) and to achieve statistical power for analyses (prevent type II errors). Medical interventions and commercial products should be compared with conventional lid hygiene measures, such as warm compresses and eyelid margin washing, to determine effectiveness, as well as head-to-head to show comparative effectiveness between treatments. Outcomes of interest should be patient-centered and measured using validated questionnaires or scales. It is important that participants be followed long-term, at least one year, to assess chronic outcomes properly.
Comparison of the safety and efficacy of loteprednol 0.5%/tobramycin 0.3% with dexamethasone 0.1%/tobramycin 0.3% in the treatment of blepharokeratoconjunctivitis.
This study compared the safety and efficacy of loteprednol etabonate 0.5%/tobramycin 0.3% (LE/T; Zylet) with dexamethasone 0.1%/tobramycin 0.3% (DM/T; Tobradex) in the treatment of ocular inflammation associated with blepharokeratoconjunctivitis. Research design and methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked, parallel-group study. Subjects with clinically diagnosed blepharokeratocon-junctivitis in at least one eye were randomized to LE/T (n = 138) or DM/T (n = 138) administered four times per day, for 14 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline to Day 15 (+/- 1 day) in the signs and symptoms composite score using a non-inferiority metric to compare LE/T to DM/T. Safety endpoints included visual acuity (VA), biomicroscopy, intraocular pressure (IOP) assessments, and adverse events.
                At Day 15, the mean (SD) change from baseline in the signs and symptoms composite score was -15.2 (7.3) for LE/T-treated subjects and -15.6 (7.7) for DM/T-treated subjects. The upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in change from baseline was less than the non-inferiority margin not only at Day 15 but also at Day 7 and Day 3 for both the intent-to-treat and per protocol populations. Subjects treated with DM/T experienced a significant increase in IOP versus those treated with LE/T at Day 7, Day 15, and overall (mean [SD] of 0.6 [2.3] vs, -0.1 [2.2], p = 0.03, 1.0 [3.0] vs. -0.1 [2.4], p = 0.01, and 2.3 [2.3] vs. 1.6 [1.7], p = 0.02, respectively).
                LE/T satisfied the condition of non-inferiority to DM/T in decreasing the signs and symptoms of ocular inflammation associated with blepharokeratoconjunctivitis. Subjects treated with DM/T experienced more of an increase in IOP. Limitation: Although the single-masked design of this study could be considered a limitation, care was taken to ensure that the investigator was masked.