Cargando…

Autologous Serum Eye Drops for Dry Eye: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Dry eye is a common condition with serious implications worldwide. The unique composition of autologous serum (AS) eye drops has been hypothesized as a possible treatment. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to review the effectiveness and safety of AS. DATA SOURCES: We searched five databases...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Quan, Nicolas G., Leslie, Louis, Li, Tianjing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10510841/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37410855
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000002042
_version_ 1785108029405921280
author Quan, Nicolas G.
Leslie, Louis
Li, Tianjing
author_facet Quan, Nicolas G.
Leslie, Louis
Li, Tianjing
author_sort Quan, Nicolas G.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Dry eye is a common condition with serious implications worldwide. The unique composition of autologous serum (AS) eye drops has been hypothesized as a possible treatment. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to review the effectiveness and safety of AS. DATA SOURCES: We searched five databases and three registries up to September 30, 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AS with artificial tears, saline, or placebo for participants with dry eye. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We adhered to Cochrane methods for study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and synthesis. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to evaluate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included six RCTs with 116 participants. Four trials compared AS with artificial tears. We found low-certainty evidence that AS may improve symptoms (0- to 100-point pain scale) after 2 weeks of treatment compared with saline (mean difference, −12.00; 95% confidence interval, −20.16 to −3.84; 1 RCT, 20 participants). Ocular surface outcomes (corneal staining, conjunctival staining, tear breakup time, Schirmer test) were inconclusive. Two trials compared AS with saline. Very low-certainty evidence suggested that Rose Bengal staining (0- to 9-point scale) may be slightly improved after 4 weeks of treatment compared with saline (mean difference, −0.60; 95% confidence interval, −1.11 to −0.09; 35 eyes). None of the trials reported outcomes of corneal topography, conjunctival biopsy, quality of life, economic outcomes, or adverse events. LIMITATIONS: We were unable to use all data because of unclear reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of AS is uncertain based on current data. Symptoms improved slightly with AS compared with artificial tears for 2 weeks. Staining scores improved slightly with AS compared with saline, with no benefit identified for other measures. IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: High-quality, large trials enrolling diverse participants with varying severity are needed. A core outcome set would allow for evidence-based treatment decisions consistent with current knowledge and patient values.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10510841
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105108412023-09-21 Autologous Serum Eye Drops for Dry Eye: Systematic Review Quan, Nicolas G. Leslie, Louis Li, Tianjing Optom Vis Sci Reviews BACKGROUND: Dry eye is a common condition with serious implications worldwide. The unique composition of autologous serum (AS) eye drops has been hypothesized as a possible treatment. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to review the effectiveness and safety of AS. DATA SOURCES: We searched five databases and three registries up to September 30, 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AS with artificial tears, saline, or placebo for participants with dry eye. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We adhered to Cochrane methods for study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and synthesis. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to evaluate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included six RCTs with 116 participants. Four trials compared AS with artificial tears. We found low-certainty evidence that AS may improve symptoms (0- to 100-point pain scale) after 2 weeks of treatment compared with saline (mean difference, −12.00; 95% confidence interval, −20.16 to −3.84; 1 RCT, 20 participants). Ocular surface outcomes (corneal staining, conjunctival staining, tear breakup time, Schirmer test) were inconclusive. Two trials compared AS with saline. Very low-certainty evidence suggested that Rose Bengal staining (0- to 9-point scale) may be slightly improved after 4 weeks of treatment compared with saline (mean difference, −0.60; 95% confidence interval, −1.11 to −0.09; 35 eyes). None of the trials reported outcomes of corneal topography, conjunctival biopsy, quality of life, economic outcomes, or adverse events. LIMITATIONS: We were unable to use all data because of unclear reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of AS is uncertain based on current data. Symptoms improved slightly with AS compared with artificial tears for 2 weeks. Staining scores improved slightly with AS compared with saline, with no benefit identified for other measures. IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: High-quality, large trials enrolling diverse participants with varying severity are needed. A core outcome set would allow for evidence-based treatment decisions consistent with current knowledge and patient values. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023-08 2023-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10510841/ /pubmed/37410855 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000002042 Text en Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Optometry. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/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) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , 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.
spellingShingle Reviews
Quan, Nicolas G.
Leslie, Louis
Li, Tianjing
Autologous Serum Eye Drops for Dry Eye: Systematic Review
title Autologous Serum Eye Drops for Dry Eye: Systematic Review
title_full Autologous Serum Eye Drops for Dry Eye: Systematic Review
title_fullStr Autologous Serum Eye Drops for Dry Eye: Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Autologous Serum Eye Drops for Dry Eye: Systematic Review
title_short Autologous Serum Eye Drops for Dry Eye: Systematic Review
title_sort autologous serum eye drops for dry eye: systematic review
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10510841/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37410855
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000002042
work_keys_str_mv AT quannicolasg autologousserumeyedropsfordryeyesystematicreview
AT leslielouis autologousserumeyedropsfordryeyesystematicreview
AT litianjing autologousserumeyedropsfordryeyesystematicreview