Abstract
Purpose :
Ocular surface diseases (OSD) are a complex group of disorders that can severely impact health and vision-related quality of life. Blood-based eye drops are used to treat refractory cases based on their anti-inflammatory and regenerative role in OSD. However, the autologous source is sometimes logistically or clinically unavailable or unsuitable for patients' conditions. We performed a systemic review of randomized clinical trials (RCT) assessing the comparative effects of allogeneic blood-base eyedrops (either serum-based or plasma/platelet-based) on OSD.
Methods :
The Protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023439178), and we adhered to Cochrane methods. An electronic search without time or language restriction was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus databases on November 30, 2023. An additional hand-searching was performed, focusing on proceeding and on grey literature. Two independent reviewers selected the articles for eligibility and extracted the data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed if at least 2 studies were available. Outcomes were ocular symptoms, ocular surface staining, epithelization, break-up time, Schirmer test, and adverse events. The quality of individual trials was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment tool, and the evidence was assessed at an outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations.
Results :
Results: The search yielded 1498 articles, and finally, 10 (617 participants) met the selection criteria. Most (60%) focus on dry eye disease. Only RCT-testing serum-based eye drops, either from peripheral blood (PB-S) or from cord blood (CB-S), were found. When comparing PB-S or CB-S. No significant statistical difference was found in ocular symptoms or signs in DED when comparing PB-S or CB-S to autologous serum (AS), nor between both allogenic products; however, CB-S showed a faster healing rate compared to AS in patients with epithelial defect due to chemical burns or persistent epithelial defects. Overall, 5 cases of mild side effects were found with no difference between the comparison groups.
Conclusions :
PB-S and CB-S showed comparable efficacy and safety in OSD.
This abstract was presented at the 2024 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, WA, May 5-9, 2024.