Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional survey reveals low willingness to switch to allogeneic serum eye drops among autologous eye drop users unless medically necessary, highlighting patient concerns as key barriers.
Background/Objectives: To assess the acceptance of, attitudes towards, and concerns regarding allogeneic serum eye drops (Allo-SEDs) among patients treated with autologous serum eye drops (ASEDs). Methods: We conducted this investigator-initiated, cross-sectional, single-center survey at the Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland. We consecutively recruited all patients using ASEDs during routine visits, who anonymously completed a 9-item questionnaire comprising eight 11-point Likert-scale items and one open numerical item on the daily application frequency. We assessed perceived ASED effectiveness, willingness to switch to Allo-SEDs under different scenarios, and concerns regarding safety, efficacy, and immunological risks. Results: Of 202 eligible patients, 107 returned the questionnaire (53.0%). The full eligible cohort had a median (IQR) age of 63.5 (49.2–75.0) years and a median ASED treatment duration of 4.0 (1.0–8.0) years. They rated ASEDs as highly effective (median 9, IQR 8.2–10.0) and applied them a median of 7 (5–10.5) times daily. Willingness to switch was low without clinical need (median 3, IQR 0–6; p = 1.0), increased when autologous production was no longer feasible (median 7, IQR 5–9; p < 0.001), and was intermediate for general openness (median 5, IQR 2–8; p = 0.7). Concerns regarding infectious disease transmission, immunological reactions, and therapeutic efficacy correlated with lower willingness to switch (all r = −0.29 to −0.46). Daily application frequency did not correlate with acceptance. Conclusions: Patients were highly satisfied with ASEDs but were reluctant to switch to Allo-SEDs unless autologous production was no longer feasible. Among the domains assessed, concerns regarding infection, immunological reactions, and efficacy were the main barriers to acceptance, supporting targeted patient education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Blaser et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: