20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Demodex Blepharitis: A Comprehensive Review of the Disease, Current Management, and Emerging Therapies

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract:

          Demodex blepharitis is a common disease of the eyelid, affecting approximately 25 million Americans. This article reviews what is known about the mechanisms and impact of Demodex blepharitis, risk factors, signs and symptoms, diagnostic techniques, current management options, and emerging treatments. Demodex mites contribute to blepharitis in several ways: direct mechanical damage, as a vector for bacteria, and by inducing hypersensitivity and inflammation. Risk factors for Demodex blepharitis include increasing age, rosacea, and diabetes. The costs, symptom burden, and psychosocial effects of Demodex blepharitis are considerable. The presence of collarettes is pathognomonic for Demodex blepharitis. Redness, dryness, discomfort, foreign body sensation, lash anomalies, and itching are also hallmarks of the disease. Although a number of oral, topical, eyelid hygiene and device-based options have been used clinically and evaluated in studies for the management of Demodex blepharitis, none have been FDA approved to treat the disease. Recent randomized controlled clinical trials suggest that lotilaner ophthalmic solution, 0.25%, is a topical treatment with the potential to eradicate Demodex mites and eliminate collarettes and eyelid redness for an extended period.

          Related collections

          Most cited references83

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pathogenic role of Demodex mites in blepharitis.

          To summarize the key literature and our research experience regarding Demodex infestation as a potential cause of ocular inflammatory diseases with a special emphasis on Demodex blepharitis. Two distinct Demodex species have been confirmed as a cause of blepharitis: Demodex folliculorum can cause anterior blepharitis associated with disorders of eyelashes, and D. brevis can cause posterior blepharitis with meibomian gland dysfunction and keratoconjunctivitis. Tea tree oil treatments with either 50% lid scrubs or 5% lid massages are effective in eradicating mites and reducing ocular surface inflammation. Demodex blepharitis is a common but overlooked external eye disease. The pathogenesis of Demodex blepharitis in eliciting ocular surface inflammation has been further clarified. The modified eyelash sampling and counting method makes it easier and more accurate to diagnose Demodex infestation. Tea tree oil shows promising potential to treat Demodex blepharitis by reducing Demodex counts with additional antibacterial, antifungal, and anti-inflammatory actions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prospective trial of intense pulsed light for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction.

            To evaluate the effect of intense pulsed light (IPL) applied to the periocular area for meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) in a prospective, double-masked, placebo-controlled, paired-eye study.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              High prevalence of Demodex in eyelashes with cylindrical dandruff.

              To determine the prevalence of Demodex in eyelashes with cylindrical dandruff (CD). A modified sampling and counting method was applied to 55 clinical cases. Patients were divided in to group A (n = 20) with diffuse CD, group B (n = 12) with sporadic CD, and group C (n = 23) with clean lashes or greasy scales, of which the latter was divided into subgroup C1 (n = 15) without lid hygiene and subgroup C2 (n = 8) using daily lid hygiene for the past year. Each patient underwent a routine complete eye examination and modified counts of Demodex. Demodex was found in all group A and B patients (n = 32) with CD, which was significantly higher than the 22% of group C patients (n = 23) without CD (P < 0.001). The Demodex counts were 4.1 +/- 1.0 and 2.0 +/- 1.2 per epilated lash with retained CD, significantly higher than the 0.2 +/- 0.5 and 0.2 +/- 0.4 per lash without retained CD in groups A and B, respectively (each P < 0.001) and than the 0.01 +/- 0.09 and 0.12 +/- 0.41 per lash in subgroups C1 and C2, respectively (each P < 0.001). Demodex was still found in CD fragments left on the lid skin after epilation. Five Demodex brevis mites were found among the 422 Demodex specimens. The modified sampling and counting method showed that the prior controversy regarding Demodex has resulted from miscounting and confirmed that lashes with CD are pathognomonic for ocular Demodex infestation. Lid hygiene with shampoo reduces Demodex counts but does not eradicate the mites.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Eye Contact Lens
                Eye Contact Lens
                ecl
                Eye & Contact Lens
                Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice
                1542-2321
                1542-233X
                August 2023
                2 June 2023
                : 49
                : 8
                : 311-318
                Affiliations
                Department of Ophthalmology (M.K.R.), Icahn School of Medicine, Mt. Sinai, NY; Virginia Eye Consultants (E.Y.), Norfolk, VA; University of California (M.B.), Davis Eye Center, Sacramento, CA; Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University (C.J.R.), Philadelphia, PA; University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine (D.K.D.), Pittsburgh, PA; University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Optometry (K.K.N.), Birmingham, AL; Kentucky College of Optometry (P.K.), University of Pikeville, Pikeville, KY; Kentucky Eye Institute (P.K.), Lexington, KY; Scripps Clinic Medical Group (F.S.M.), La Jolla, CA; Tarsus Pharmaceuticals (A.C., J.M.), Irvine, CA; and Gaddie Eye Centers (I.B.G.), Louisville, KY.
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to Elizabeth Yeu, M.D., Virginia Eye Consultants, 241 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 210, Norfolk, VA 23502; e-mail: eyeulin@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3453-3062
                Article
                ECL-22-274 00001
                10.1097/ICL.0000000000001003
                10351901
                37272680
                feb4ade8-be57-4ab2-b2a5-0bca19ec2f78
                Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the CLAO.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                : 11 April 2023
                Categories
                Review Article
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                demodex,blepharitis,ocular surface disease
                demodex, blepharitis, ocular surface disease

                Comments

                Comment on this article