Randomized controlled trial on the efficacy and safety of autologous serum eye drops in dry eye syndrome.
Alternative therapy
Autologous serum eye drops
Conventional artificial tears
Dry eye syndrome
Effectiveness
Safety
Journal
World journal of clinical cases
ISSN: 2307-8960
Titre abrégé: World J Clin Cases
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101618806
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Oct 2023
06 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
08
08
2023
revised:
31
08
2023
accepted:
14
09
2023
medline:
30
10
2023
pubmed:
30
10
2023
entrez:
30
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Autologous serum eye drops (ASEDs), a novel treatment derived from blood serum, have emerged as a groundbreaking solution for managing dry eye syndrome (DES). These drops have shown significant promise in relieving the distressing symptoms of DES. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ASEDs compared to traditional treatments, which often prove inadequate or result in unwanted side effects, particularly in individuals with moderate-to-severe DES. To evaluate whether ASEDs are safer and more effective than conventional artificial tears in the treatment of moderate-to-severe DES. This multi-centered randomized controlled trial included 240 patients with moderate-to-severe DES from three ophthalmology clinics in China. They were randomly assigned to receive either ASEDs or artificial tears for 12 wk. The primary outcome was the change in the ocular surface disease index (OSDI) score, with secondary outcomes including tear break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer I test, corneal fluorescein staining (CFS), and conjunctival impression cytology (CIC). Statistics analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance with adjustments made for baseline values. Our findings revealed that both ASEDs and artificial tears significantly improved the OSDI score, TBUT, Schirmer I test, CFS, and CIC from baseline to week 12. The ASEDs group showed significantly greater improvement in all these measures than the artificial tears group (all ASEDs are more effective and safer than artificial tears for mitigating symptoms of moderate-to-severe DES. ASEDs could be an alternative/supplementary therapy for patients with DES less responsive to traditional treatments.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Autologous serum eye drops (ASEDs), a novel treatment derived from blood serum, have emerged as a groundbreaking solution for managing dry eye syndrome (DES). These drops have shown significant promise in relieving the distressing symptoms of DES. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of ASEDs compared to traditional treatments, which often prove inadequate or result in unwanted side effects, particularly in individuals with moderate-to-severe DES.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate whether ASEDs are safer and more effective than conventional artificial tears in the treatment of moderate-to-severe DES.
METHODS
METHODS
This multi-centered randomized controlled trial included 240 patients with moderate-to-severe DES from three ophthalmology clinics in China. They were randomly assigned to receive either ASEDs or artificial tears for 12 wk. The primary outcome was the change in the ocular surface disease index (OSDI) score, with secondary outcomes including tear break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer I test, corneal fluorescein staining (CFS), and conjunctival impression cytology (CIC). Statistics analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance with adjustments made for baseline values.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Our findings revealed that both ASEDs and artificial tears significantly improved the OSDI score, TBUT, Schirmer I test, CFS, and CIC from baseline to week 12. The ASEDs group showed significantly greater improvement in all these measures than the artificial tears group (all
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
ASEDs are more effective and safer than artificial tears for mitigating symptoms of moderate-to-severe DES. ASEDs could be an alternative/supplementary therapy for patients with DES less responsive to traditional treatments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37901024
doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i28.6774
pmc: PMC10600870
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
6774-6781Informations de copyright
©The Author(s) 2023. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 28;2:CD009327
pubmed: 28245347
Arch Ophthalmol. 2003 Aug;121(8):1132-40
pubmed: 12912691
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015 Jan 30;112(5):71-81; quiz 82
pubmed: 25686388
Arch Ophthalmol. 2012 Jan;130(1):90-100
pubmed: 22232476
Arch Ophthalmol. 1984 Jul;102(7):1049-51
pubmed: 6378156
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 23;2:CD009729
pubmed: 26905373
Transfus Med Rev. 1997 Apr;11(2):130-44
pubmed: 9140172
Cornea. 2011 Dec;30(12):1312-7
pubmed: 22012030
Eye Contact Lens. 2015 May;41(3):133-40
pubmed: 25603439
Cornea. 2003 Oct;22(7):640-50
pubmed: 14508260
Optom Vis Sci. 2018 Oct;95(10):930-936
pubmed: 30234832
Br J Ophthalmol. 1999 Apr;83(4):390-5
pubmed: 10434857
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Aug 09;52(9):6279-85
pubmed: 21474767
Ocul Surf. 2017 Jul;15(3):334-365
pubmed: 28736337
Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2010 Jul;54(4):259-65
pubmed: 20700790
Br J Ophthalmol. 2004 Nov;88(11):1467-74
pubmed: 15489495
Cornea. 2001 Nov;20(8):802-6
pubmed: 11685055
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014 Apr;252(4):619-26
pubmed: 24566903
Ocul Surf. 2017 Jul;15(3):539-574
pubmed: 28736342
Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2011 Oct;6(5):575-582
pubmed: 22174730
Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Feb;139(2):242-6
pubmed: 15733983
Ocul Surf. 2017 Jul;15(3):276-283
pubmed: 28736335
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Mar 30;52(4):1979-93
pubmed: 21450916
Curr Eye Res. 2010 Jul;35(7):553-64
pubmed: 20597641
Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2008 Nov-Dec;71(6 Suppl):47-54
pubmed: 19274411
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006 Jun;47(6):2438-44
pubmed: 16723454
Arthritis Rheum. 1984 Apr;27(4):459-61
pubmed: 6712760
Ocul Surf. 2017 Jul;15(3):438-510
pubmed: 28736340
Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2004 Jul;4(4):314-9
pubmed: 15175147