A retrospective analysis of characteristic features of responder patients to autologous serum eye drops in routine care

• Published in: The ocular surface 2019-10, Vol.17 (4), p.787-792
• Main Authors: Levy, Natanael, Wang Yin, Gaelle Ho, Noharet, Roxane, Ghazouane, Rkia, Grimaud, Fanny, Aboudou, Houssein, Darque, Albert, Delmotte, Nicolas, Veran, Julie, Hoffart, Louis, Denis, Daniele, Sabatier, Florence, Magalon, Jeremy
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Autologous serum eye drop; Dry eye disease; Dry Eye Syndromes - metabolism; Dry Eye Syndromes - therapy; Female; Growth factors; Human health and pathology; Humans; Life Sciences; Male; Middle Aged; Ophthalmic Solutions; Retrospective Studies; Serum; Tears - metabolism; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1542-0124; 1937-5913; 1937-5913
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jtos.2019.05.003

Autologous serum eye drops (ASEDs) are used worldwide to treat dry eye disease (DED). However, the biological composition of ASEDs has not been well investigated, and effectiveness predictive factors remain to be identified. The main objective of this study was to compare the response of patients treated with ASEDs biologically characterized and used for DED routine care. This retrospective observational study was conducted in a single university hospital, and included 50 patients (87 eyes) with DED refractory to conventional treatment and resulting from various etiologies with Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) ≥ 20. Each patient used eight drops a day per treated eye with 20% diluted ASEDs. Undiluted serum extensive biological characterizations were performed, and symptoms were recorded before the initiation of ASEDs and closer to the sixth month of treatment. Responders were defined as presenting an improvement from baseline ≥14 points in OSDI and/or ≥1 grade in corneal fluorescence staining for all eyes treated. The OSDI and the Oxford scale were significantly reduced from 68.7 ± 23.2 to 54.8 ± 25.7 and 3.2 ± 1.5 to 2.1 ± 1.3 (p ≤ 0.0001), respectively. A total of 68% of the patients were responders. Nonresponding patients had significantly higher epidermal growth factor concentrations in the serum compared to responders (p = 0.017). ASED administration resulted in significant clinical improvement in the management of DED. Biological differences observed between responders and nonresponders suggested that a better understanding of the biological activity of ASEDs is still required.