| Literature DB >> 31533289 |
Federico Bernabei1, Matilde Roda2, Marina Buzzi3, Marco Pellegrini4, Giuseppe Giannaccare5, Piera Versura6.
Abstract
The use of blood-based eye drops as therapy for various diseases of the ocular surface has become increasingly popular in ophthalmic practice during recent years. The rationale for their use is based on the promotion of cellular proliferation and migration thanks to the supply of metabolically active substances, in particular growth factors. Blood-derived eye drops have been used for the treatment of several ocular surface disorders, such as dry eye disease, corneal ulcer, persistent epithelial defect, neurotrophic keratitis, ocular surface burn, recurrent corneal erosion, and limbal stem-cell deficiency. Both autologous (from patients themselves) and heterologous (from adult donors or from cord blood sampled at birth)-derived products exist, and each source has specific pros and cons. Despite an extensive literature, several issues are still under debate and the aim of this manuscript is to review the indications, preparation methods and storage, characterization of content, rationale for clinical outcomes, patient stratification, length of treatment, and rationale for repeated treatments at disease relapse. A rationale based on a "5 Ws and 2 Hs" protocol is proposed as a way of thinking, with the attempt to clarify Who, Why, When, Where, What, and How to use these treatment options.Entities:
Keywords: allogenic serum; autologous serum; cord blood serum; dry eye; ocular surface disease; platelet-derived eye drops
Year: 2019 PMID: 31533289 PMCID: PMC6780616 DOI: 10.3390/jcm8091478
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Summary of studies related to Auto-SED. Legend: Auto-SED = Autologous serum eye drops; CIC = Conjunctival impression cytology; CMC = Carboxymethylcellulose; d = day; DED = Dry eye disease; FS = Fluorescein staining; GVHD = Graft versus host disease; I = interventional; ISS = Isotonic Saline Solution; LASIK = Laser assisted in situ keratomileusis; M = Month; NaHy = Sodium hyalutonate; NK = Neurotrophic keratitis; OSDI = Ocular Surface Disease Index; P = Prospective; PED = Persistent epithelial defects; PK = Penetrating Keratoplasty; RCT = randomized controlled trial; RBS = Rose Bengal staining; SS = Sjogren’s syndrome; LSCD = Limbal stem cell deficiency; ST = Schirmer test; TBUT = Tear Break Up Time; wks = weeks.
| Study First Name, Year | Evidence Level | Design | Condition | Inclusion Criteria | Patients ( | Controls ( | Control arm | Solvent | Dilution | Posology | Duration of Treatment | Main Outcomes | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tananuvat 2001 [ | 2 | RCT | DED | Refractory to treatment (tear substitute, punctum plug) | 12 | Fellow eye | Saline solution | ISS | 20% | 6×/d | 2 Ms | Subjective symptoms, FS, RBS, and CIC | No significant improvement of symptoms and signs between the two groups |
| Ogawa 2003 [ | 2 | P, I | DED (GVHD) | Refractory to treatment (tear substitute) | 14 | / | / | ISS | 20% | 10×/d | 4–41 Ms | Subjective symptoms, FS, RBS, TBUT, and Schirmer test | Improvement of symptoms, TBUT, RBS, and FS |
| Matsumoto 2004 [ | 3 | Retrospective, non-comparative case series | NK | Refractory to treatment (therapeutic contact lenses, tear substitute, and sodium hyaluronate) | 11 | / | / | ISS | 20% | 5–10×/d | Up to 36 Ms | Changes in corneal disease state, corneal sensitivity, and BCVA | 100% healing; 64% increase of corneal sensitivity |
| Noble 2004 [ | 1 | RCT, Cross over | DED | Epitheliopathy with corneal/conjunctival RBS, ST < 5 mm/5 min and punctal occlusion | 8 + 8 | 8 + 8 | Conventional treatment | ISS | 50% | As previous therapy | 3 Ms + 3 Ms | Subjective symptoms, TBUT, ST, FS, clearance test, and CIC | Improvement of symptoms and CIC after Allo-SED |
| Kojima 2005 [ | 1 | RCT | DED | DED symptoms, positive FS or RBS, ST < 5 mm/5 min or TBUT < 5 s | 10 | 10 | Preservative-free tear substitute | ISS | 20% | 6×/d | 2 wks | Subjective symptoms, FS, RBS, TBUT, and ST | Improvement of symptoms, TBUT, RBS, and FS in Allo-SED group |
| Noda-Tsuruya 2006 [ | 1 | RCT | Post-LASIK | Patients who received LASIK | 12 | 15 | Tear substitute | ISS | 20% | 5×/d | 1 week–6 M | Subjective symptoms, FS, RBS, TBUT, and ST | Improvement of TBUT, FS, and RBS. No change in symptoms |
| Schulze 2006 [ | 2 | RCT | Corneal Epithelial Abrasions in Diabetic Patients | Diabetic patients undergoing pars plana vitrectomy who received corneal abrasion for better intraoperative visualization | 13 | 10 | NaHy | ISS | 50% | Every hour | Until epithelial healing | Size of abrasion | Faster closure of corneal epithelial wounds |
| López-Garcia 2008 [ | 2 | P, I | LSCD | Aniridic keratopathy | 13 | / | / | Isotonic saline solution | 20% | 8×/d | 2 Ms | CIC, TBUT, ST, and tear meniscus level | Improvement of symptoms epithelialization, and ST |
| Ziakas 2010 [ | 2 | P, I | Recurrent Corneal Erosion | Refractory to treatment and history of at least three relapses | 33 | / | / | ISS | 20% | 6×/d for 3 Ms, then 3×/d for 3 Ms | 6 Ms | Subjective symptomsand recurrence | 85% healing with no recurrences over the whole follow-up period |
| Chen 2010 [ | 1 | P, I | Post PK | Patients who received PK | 82 | 83 | Tear substitute | Tear substitute | 20% | 8×/d | 3 d–2 wks | Corneal epithelial healing | Improvement of healing time |
| Urzua 2012 [ | 1 | RCT, Cross over | DED (NSS) | DED symptoms score more than 40 (OSDI questionnaire), TBUT < 5 s, positive FS or ST < 5 mm/5 min | 6 + 6 | 6 + 6 | Tear substitute | ISS | 20% | 4×/d | 2 wks + 2 wks | Subjective symptoms | Improvement of OSDI after Allo-SED |
| Lekhanont 2013 [ | 2 | P, I | PED after ocular surgery | Refractory to treatment | 181 | / | / | Tear substitute | 100% | Every 2 h | Until full healing | Rate of full healing corneal epithelial defect | 93% healing within 4 d |
| Cho 2013 [ | 2 | P, I | DED (SS and NSS) PED | DED: Symptoms, TBUT ≤ 5 s, ST ≤ 5 mm/5 min, positive corneal FS | 22 | Group 2: 35 | / | ISS; NaHy; Ceftazidime | 100% vs. 50% | 6×/d | 3 Ms | Subjective symptoms, TBUT, ST, FS, and rate of complete healing of PED | In SS and PED, Allo-SED 100% was the most effective in decreasing symptoms and FS and in accelerating healing. In NSS, Allo-SED 100% and 50% were similar in reducing symptoms and FS |
| Celebi 2014 [ | 1 | RCT, Cross-over trial | DED | Refractory to treatment | 10 + 10 | 10 + 10 | Preservative-free tear substitute | ISS | 20% | 4×/d | 1 M + 1 M | Subjective sympthoms | Significant improvement of OSDI and TBUT after Allo-SED. No change of corneal damage and ST |
| Hussain 2014 [ | 2 | Retrospective, cohort study | DED | Refractory to treatments (lubrication, topical corticosteroids, cyclosporine 0.05%, and/or punctal occlusion) | 63 | / | / | ISS | 50% | 4×/d | 3 Ms–48 Ms | Subjective symptoms, FS, TBUT, and ST | Significant improvement of TBUT, FS, and symptoms |
| Lopez-Garcia 2014 [ | 1 | RCT | DED (SS) | Diagnosis of SS | 13 + 13 | / | / | ISS | 20% | 3×/d | 2 Ms | TBUT, ST, FS, RBS, and CIC | Improvement of symptoms, epithelialization, BUT, and ST in both groups |
| Hwang 2014 [ | 2 | P, I, cross-sectional | DED (SS) | ST < 5 mm/5 min, corneal Staining above 2 (Oxford Scale) | 34 | / | / | NaHy | 50% | 8×/d | 4 wks | Subjective symptoms, FS, and TBUT | Patients with primary SS had improvements in ocular symptoms, FS, and TBUT. Patients with secondary SS had no improvement. |
| Jirsova 2014 [ | 2 | P, I | DED | ST I < 5 mm/5 min, TBUT < 5 s | 17 | / | / | ISS | 20% | Open, up to 12×/d | 3 Ms | Subjective symptoms, FS, CIC, and ST | Significant improvement of ST and symptoms |
| Semeraro 2016 [ | 2 | P, I, case-control | DED (SS) | DED symptoms, ST < 5 mm/min or TBUT < 10 s | 12 | 12 | Tear substitute | ISS | 50% | 5×/d | 12 Ms | Tear production, tear stability, and FS | Significant improvement of symptoms |
| Yilmatz 2017 [ | 1 | RCT, cross-over trial | DED (due to isotretinoin) | DED symptoms, TBUT < 10 s, ST < 10 mm/min | 24 | 24 | Preservative-free tear substitute | ISS | 20% | Not specified | 1 M + 1 M | Subjective symptoms, ST, and TBUT | Significant improvement of symptoms and TBUT in Allo-SED group |
| Sul 2018 [ | 1 | P, I, case-control | Post Pterygium excision | Patients who received Pterygium Excision | 25 | 25 | Tear substitute | CMC | 50% | 8×/d | 3–8 d | Subjective symptoms and corneal epithelial healing | Improvement of healing time and symptoms |
Summary of studies related to Allo-SED from adult donors. Legend: Allo-SED = Allogenic serum eye drops; CMC = Carboxymethylcellulose; d = day; DED = Dry eye disease; FS = Fluorescein staining; GVHD = Graft versus host disease; I = interventional; ISS = Isotonic Saline Solution; OSDI = Ocular Surface Disease Index; P = Prospective; PED = Persistent epithelial defects; ST = Schirmer test; TBUT = Tear Break Up Time; wks = weeks.
| Study First Name, Year | Evidence Level | Design | Condition | Inclusion Criteria | Patients ( | Controls ( | Control Arm | Solvent | Dilution | Posology | Duration of Treatment | Main Outcomes | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chiang 2009 [ | 2 | P,I | PED | PED since >2 wks refractory to treatment (tear substitute and soft contact lenses) | 36 | / | / | / | 100% | Every hour | Variable | Healing | Complete healing in 42% within 2 weeks |
| Na and Kim 2012 [ | 2 | P,I | DED (GVHD) | Refractory to treatment | 16 | / | / | CMC and ofloxacin | 20% | 6–8×/d | 4 wks | Subjective symptom, TBUT, ST, FS, tear osmolarity, corneal staining, and CIC | Improvement in OSDI, FS, IC, and tear osmolarity |
| Harritshøj 2014 [ | 3 | Retrospective cohort | DED, PED | Refractory to treatment | DED 20 | / | / | ISS | 20% | 6×/d | 2–4 wks | Subjective symptoms and healing | Improvement of symptoms and FS in DED group at 4 wks. No Improvement in PED group |
Summary of the studies on the use of UCBS. Legend: Auto-SED = Autologous serum eye drops; AMT = Amniotic membrane transplantation; BSS: Balanced salt solution; CIC = Conjunctival impression cytology; CMC = Carboxymethylcellulose; d = day; DALK = Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty; DED = Dry eye disease; FS = Fluorescein staining; GVHD = Graft versus host disease; I = interventional; ISS = Isotonic Saline Solution; LASEK = laser epithelial keratomileusis; M = Month; OSDI = Ocular Surface Disease Index; P = Prospective; PED = Persistent epithelial defects; PK = Penetrating Keratoplasty; RCT = randomized controlled trial; RBS = Rose Bengal staining; SS = Sjogren’s syndrome; ST = Schirmer test; TBUT = Tear Break Up Time; wks = weeks.
| Study First Name, Year | Evidence Level | Design | Condition | Inclusion Criteria | Patients ( | Controls ( | Control Arm | Solvent Composition | Dilution | Posology | Duration of Treatment | Main Outcomes | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vajpayee 2003 [ | 1 | RCT | PED | Refractory to treatments (tear substitute, patching, and contact lens) | 31 | 29 | Auto-SED | ISS | 20% | 6×/d | 3 wks | BCVA, FS, TBUT, ST, and PED size | Improvement of re-epithelization rate in UCBS group |
| Yoon 2005 [ | 3 | P, I | PED | PED refractory to treatments; persisted for at least 2 weeks | 14 | / | / | ISS | 20% | 6×/d | 2 wks–1 M | PED area | 43% healing within 2 weeks; |
| Yoon 2006 [ | 2 | P, I | DED | Refractory to treatments. DED symptoms > 3 months, TBUT < 5 s, ST < 5 mm/min, positive FS or RBS | 31 | / | / | ISS | 20% | 6–10×/d | 2 Ms | Subjective symptoms, TBUT, ST, corneal sensitivity, and FS | Improvement of symptoms, TBUT, and FS |
| Yoon 2007 [ | 2 | P, I | DED | Refractory to treatments. DED symptoms > 3 months, TBUT < 5 s, ST < 5 mm/min, positive FS or RBS | 27 | 21 | Auto-SED | ISS | 20% | 6–10×/d | 2 Ms | Symptom scoring, corneal sensitivity, TBUT, ST, tear clearance rate, FS, and CIC | Symptoms, TBUT, FS, and CIC findings improved in both groups. Symptoms and FS were lower in the CBS group |
| Yoon 2007 [ | 2 | P, I | DED (GVHD) | Refractory to treatments, TBUT < 5, ST < 5 mm/min, positive FS | 12 | / | / | ISS | 20% | 6–10×/d | 6 Ms | Subjective symptoms, TBUT, ST, corneal sensitivity test, FS, and tear clearance rate | Significant improvement in symptoms, corneal sensitivity, TBUT, and FS |
| Yoon 2007 [ | 2 | P, non-comparative case series | NK | Refractory to treatment (tear substitute and contact lens) | 28 | / | / | ISS | 20% | 6×/d | 2–4 wks | Epithelial healing time, BCVA, and corneal sensitivity | 100% corneal healing after 4 weeks |
| Sharma 2011 [ | 1 | RCT | Acute Chemical Burn | Acute chemical burns of grades III, IV, and V (Dua’s classification) | Group 1: 12 | Group 2: 11 | Group 2: Auto-SED | ISS | 20% | 10×/d | 3 Ms | Time to epithelialization, subjective symptoms, PED area, extent of limbal ischemia, corneal clarity, and symblepharon formation | Significant reduction of time to epithelialization after CBS therapy compared to AS and medical treatment |
| Yoon 2011 [ | 2 | P, I, case-control | RCE | History of RCE | 18 | 17 | Tear substitute | ISS | 20% | 4–6×/d | 1 year | Number of recurrences | Reduction of recurrences in UCBS group |
| Versura 2013 [ | 2 | P, I | PED (GVHD and SS) | DED symptoms, positive FS or RBS, ST < 5 mm/5 min or TBUT < 5 s | 30 | / | / | Phosphate buffered saline | 20% | 8×/d | 1 M | PED area, subjective symptom (OSDI), ST I, TBUT, tear osmolarity, corneal esthesiometry, and CIC | Significant reduction of epithelial damage |
| Yoon 2013 [ | 2 | P, I, case-control | Epithelial defect post-LASEK | Patients underwent LASEK | 32 | 28 | Tear substitute | ISS | 20% | 4–6×/d | 3 Ms | Epithelial healing time, BCVA, Haze score (0–4), ST, and TBUT | Improvement of corneal haze and tear film parameters |
| Erdem 2014 [ | 2 | P, I | PED | Refractory to treatment (tear substitute and patching contact lens) | 14 | / | / | ISS | 20% | 10×/d then 5x/d | 3 wks | PED area | 75% healing within 12 ds |
| Mukhopadhyay 2015 [ | 1 | RCT | DED (Hansen’s disease) | ST < 5 mm/5 min | 48 | Group B: 52 | Group B: Auto-SED 20% | ISS | 20% | 6–10×/d | 6 wks | Subjective symptom, ST I, TBUT, and CIC | Better improvement of clinical parameters in CBS group |
| Sharma 2016 [ | 1 | RCT | Acute Chemical Burn | Acute chemical burns of grades III, IV, and V (Dua’s classification) | Group 3: 15 | Group 1: 15 | Group 1: Medical treatment | / | 20% | 10×/d | Open | Subjective symptoms, TBUT, and ST | UCS and AMT are equally efficacious |
| Giannaccare 2017 [ | 2 | P, I | DED | DED symptoms, positive FS or RBS, ST < 5 mm/5 min or TBUT < 5 s | 20 | / | / | ISS | 20% | 8×/d | 4 Ms | Subjective symptom (OSDI), ST I, TBUT, FS, and corneal sensitivity | Significant improvement of all clinical parameters |
| Kamble 2017 [ | 1 | RCT | Epithelial defect post-keratoplasty | Epithelial defect post PK and DALK | Group 1: 35 | Group 2: 35 | Group 2: Auto-SED 20% | BSS | 20% | 6×/d | Until healing | Rate of re-epithelialization | Rate of re-epithelialization comparable between CBS and Auto-SED groups |
Summary of the studies on the use of preparations from PRP (Platelet-Rich Plasma); PL = Platelet Lysate; PRGF = Platelet Rich in Growth Factors. Legend: Allo-SED = Allogenic serum eye drop; AMT = Amniotic membrane transplantation; CIC = Conjunctival impression cytology; d = day; DED = Dry eye disease; GVHD = Graft versus host disease; I = interventional; ISS = Isotonic Saline Solution; LASIK = Laser assisted in situ keratomileusis; M = Month; NaHy = Sodium hyalutonate; NK = Neurotrophic keratitis; OSDI = Ocular Surface Disease Index; P = Prospective; PED = Persistent epithelial defects; PRGF = plasma rich in growth factors; PRP = Platelet rich plasma; PL = Platelet lysate; RCT = Randomized controlled trial; RBS = Rose Bengal staining; SS = Sjogren’s syndrome; ST = Schirmer test; TBUT = Tear Break Up Time; wks = weeks.
| Study, First Name, Year, [ref] | Evidence Level | Product | Design | Disease | Inclusion Criteria | Patients ( | Controls ( | Control Arm | Solvent | Dilution | Posology | Duration of Treatment | Main Outcomes | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim 2012 [ | 2 | PRP | Retrospective | PED | Refractory to treatment (Tear substitute) | 28 | 17 | Allo-SED | ISS | 20% | 4×/d | Until healing | Epithelial healing time and rate | Higher healing rate in PRP group |
| Alio 2007 [ | 2 | PRP | P, I | DED | FS > 50%, clinical signs of inflammation | 18 | / | / | ISS | / | 4–6×/d | 1 M | Subjective symptoms, BCVA, tear meniscus height, TBUT, FS, and CIC | Improvement of symptoms (89%), BCVA (28%), tear meniscus height (56%), TBUT (50%), and FS (72%) |
| Alio 2007 [ | 2 | PRP vs. AMT | P, I | Corneal ulcers | Refractory to treatment | 38 | / | / | ISS | / | 6×/d | 6 Ms | Ulcer size, inflammation, healing, BCVA, and subjective symptoms | Improvement of signs and symptoms |
| Alio 2007 [ | 3 | PRP | P, I | DED post-LASIK | Patients who received LASIK | 13 | / | / | ISS | / | 6×/d | 1 M | Subjective symptoms, BCVA, FS, and TBUT | Improvement of symptoms (85%); BCVA from 1 to 2 lines (54%); disappearance of FS (69%); increase of TBUT > 2 s (46%) |
| Lee 2016 [ | 2 | PRP | Retrospective | RCE | Patients treated with conventional therapy | 47 | 20 | Tear substitute | ISS | 20% | Every 2 h for 2 Ms, 4×/d for 4 Ms | 6 M | Recurrence rate | Reduced recurrence rate in PRP group |
| Panda 2012 [ | 1 | PRP | RCT | Chemical injury | / | 20 | 10 | Tear substitute | ISS | / | 10×/d | 3 Ms | Corneal transparency and BCVA | Significant improvement of corneal transparency and BCVA in PRP group |
| García-Conca 2018 [ | 1 | PRP | RCT | Hyposecretory | ST < 5.5 mm, OSDI ≥ 13, Oxford scale score ≥ 1 | 83 | 39 | NaHy, Tear substitute | ISS | / | 6×/d | 30 ds | ST, tear osmolarity, FS, TBUT, conjunctival hyperaemia, OSDI, and CIC | Improvement of signs in PRP group |
| Avila 2018 [ | 1 | PRP injected | RCT | DED (SS) | Patients who did not receive medications like ciclosporin or topical steroids or lacrimal plugs and lacrimal occlusion | 30 | 15 | Tear substitute | ISS | / | 1 mL PRP | FS and TBUT | Improvement of lacrimal production and TBUT; reduction FS in PRP group | |
| Wróbel-Dudzińska 2018 [ | 2 | PRP | P, I | NK | Refractory to treatment | 25 | / | / | / | / | 5×/d | 3 Ms | BCVA, healing of corneal surface, subjective symptoms, and corneal thickness | Improvement of BCVA; PED full healing (80%); lack of discomfort and photophobia (96%); no progression of corneal damage |
| Pezzotta 2017 [ | 2 | PL | P | DED (GVHD) | Refractory to treatment (tear substitute for at least 3 Ms) | 23 | / | / | / | / | 4×/d | 6 Ms | Symptoms, TBUT, and FS | Improvement of symptoms (74%), TBUT (86.9%), and FS (69.6%) |
| Fea 2016 [ | 2 | PL | P, case-control | DED (SS) | Severe DED, OSDI ≥ 23, Oxford scale score ≥ 1; refractory to treatment for more than 2 Ms (tear substitute, steroids, cyclosporine A, or allo-SED) | 30 | 10 | Tear substitute | ISS | 50% | 4×/d | 3 Ms | OSDI, ST, FS, BCVA, and TBUT | Improvement of OSDI, FS, and TBUT in PL group |
| Zallio 2016 [ | 2 | PL | P, I | DED (GVHD) | Recent diagnosis of GVHD | 26 | / | / | BSS | 30% | 6×/d | 1 year | / | Improvement in symptoms (91%); remission of corneal damage, (86%) and improved National Institutes of Health scores (73%) |
| Lopez-Plandolit 2010 [ | 2 | PRGF | P, I | PED | Refractory to medical and surgical treatments | 18 | / | / | ISS | / | Every 2 h for 3 d, then variable | Until healing | Epithelial healing rate and time | 85% healing within a mean of 11 weeks |
| Sanchez-Avila 2017 [ | 2 | PRGF | Retrospective | DED (SS) | SS | 26 | / | / | ISS | / | 4×/d | 6 wks (= 1 cycle) | OSDI, VAS, and BCVA | Improvement of OSDI score, BCVA, VAS frequency, and VAS severity |
| Sanchez-Avila 2018 [ | 2 | PRGF | Retrospective | NK stage 2 and 3 | ST < 5 mm, TBUT < 5 s, severity of subjective symptoms in the level of severity of dry eye | 31 | / | / | ISS | / | 4×/d | 6 wks (1 cycle) | Ulcer closure at 4 weeks, OSDI, VAS, and BCVA | Resolution of corneal defect/ulcer (97.4%) in 11.4 weeks; reduction of OSDI (60.9%), VAS frequency (59.9%), and VAS severity (57%); improvement of BCVA (52.8%) |
| Sanchez-Avila 2018 [ | 2 | PRGF | retrospective, comparative, and descriptive | DED post-LASIK | Patients who received LASIK | 79 | 39 | Tear substitute | ISS | / | 4×/d | 6 wks (1 cycle) | VAS, OSDI, BCVA, TBUT, ST, and IOP | Improvement in OSDI (38.12%), VAS (41.89%), severity (42.47%), and ST (88.98%) in PRGF group |
| Sanche-Avila 2018 [ | 2 | PRGF | Retrospective | DED (GVHD) | Refractory to treatments for 3 Ms (tear substitute, topical/oral antibiotics, corticoids and antivirals, contact lens, punctal occlusion, Allo-SED, cyclosporine, and AMT) | 12 | / | / | ISS | / | 4×/d | 6 wks (1 cycle) | Resolution of corneal ulcers | Improvement in the area (75.7%) and density (73.3%) corneal staining, BCVA (74.7%), OSDI (75.4%), visual analog score frequency (81.4%), and VAS severity (81.9%), and an increase of 3.8 s in TBUT and 6 mm in ST |
| Merayo-Lloves 2016 [ | 2 | PRGF | Retrospective | Evaporative DED | Refractory to treatment (tear substitute, topical or/and systemic corticosteroids, AS, or cyclosporine) | 83 | / | / | ISS | / | 4×/d | 6 wks | OSDI, BCVA, VAS, and ST | Reductions in the OSDI (38.2%), BCVA (27.4%), and VAS for frequency (32%) and severity (34%) and improvement in ST (177.5%) |
Figure 1Summary of the conditions treated with blood-based eye drops, graphed in columns where each colour represents a specific product. Numbers in the columns represent the number of studies.
Figure 2Summary of the inclusion criteria considered in patients entering a therapeutic program with blood-based eye drops, graphed in columns where each colour represents a specific product. Numbers in the columns represent the number of studies.
Figure 3Summary of the main outcomes reported in patients treated with blood-based eye drops, graphed in columns where each colour represents a specific product. Numbers in the columns represent the number of studies.