Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is the most frequent cause of dry eye disease (DED). Eyelid inflammation, microbial growth, associated skin disorders as well as potentially severe corneal complications culminate to make MGD a complex multifactorial disorder. It is probable that MGD is a heterogeneous condition arising from any combination of the following five separate pathophysiological mechanisms: eyelid inflammation, conjunctival inflammation, corneal damage, microbiological changes and DED resulting from tear film instability. The pathogenesis of both MGD and DED can be described in terms of a ‘vicious circle’: the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of DED and MGD interact, resulting in a double vicious circle. The MGD vicious circle is self-stimulated by microbiological changes, which results in increased melting temperature of meibum and subsequent meibomian gland blockage, reinforcing the vicious circle of MGD. Meibomian gland blockage, dropout and inflammation directly link the two vicious circles. MGD-associated tear film instability provides an entry point into the vicious circle of DED and leads to hyperosmolarity and inflammation, which are both a cause and consequence of DED. Here we propose a new pathophysiological scheme for MGD in order to better identify the pathological mechanisms involved and to allow more efficient targeting of therapeutics. Through better understanding of this scheme, MGD may gain true disease status rather than being viewed as a mere dysfunction.

Dry eye disease (DED) is a growing public health concern affecting quality of life and visual function, with a significant socio-economic impact. It is characterised by the loss of homoeostasis, resulting in tear film instability, hyperosmolarity and inflammation of the ocular surface. If the innate immune response is unable to cope with internal bodily or environmental adverse conditions, the persistent, self-maintaining vicious circle of inflammation leads to the chronic form of the disease. Treatment of DED should be aimed at the restoration of the homoeostasis of the ocular surface system. A proper diagnostic approach is fundamental to define the relevance and importance of each of the DED main pathogenic factors, namely tear film instability, epithelial damage and inflammation. Consideration also needs to be given concerning two other pathogenic elements: lid margin changes and nerve damage. All the factors that maintain the vicious circle of DED in the patient’s clinical presentation have to be considered and possibly treated simultaneously. The treatment should be long-lasting and personalised since it has to be adapted to the different clinical conditions observed along the course of the disease. Since DED treatment is frequently unable to provide fast and complete relief from symptoms, empathy with patients and willingness to explain to them the natural history of the disease are mandatory to improve patients’ compliance. Furthermore, patients should be instructed about the possible need to increase the frequency and/or change the type of treatment according to the fluctuation of symptoms, following a preplanned rescue regimen.