Beyoglu eye journal · 2026
Efficacy and Safety of Topical Insulin Eye Drops for Corneal Epithelial Defects: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Assessment.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alfatih Muhammad, Wunardi Christina, Fitri Rifa'i Alfiani Zukhruful
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to review and meta-analyze the efficacy and safety of topical insulin eye drops (TIED) in treating corneal epithelial defects (CED).
METHODS: We registered the protocol in PROSPERO (CRD420251051879). A systematic literature search on PubMed, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Google Scholar until May 2025 was done to identify controlled comparative studies. Outcomes of interest include time to complete re-epithelialization, re-epithelialization rate, treatment failure, recurrence, and adverse events. We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model and assessed the certainty of evidence for each result using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment.
RESULTS: Seven studies involving 238 patients were included in the analysis. TIED significantly shortened re-epithelialization time (mean difference [MD] -1.20 days [-1.71--0.69], p<0.0001) and accelerated the healing rate (MD +0.26 mm2/h [0.10-0.42], p=0.002). In addition, TIED significantly reduced the risk of treatment failure (risk ratio [RR] 0.30 [0.16-0.57], p=0.003) and recurrence (RR 0.25 [0.11-0.56], p=0.0007) compared to conventional treatments, with no adverse events reported. GRADE assessments indicated very low to low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSION: TIED may speed corneal healing, cut failures and recurrences, and is well-tolerated and inexpensive. Robust randomized controlled trials are still needed to nail down the optimal dosing, long-term safety, and its role in CED management.
METHODS: We registered the protocol in PROSPERO (CRD420251051879). A systematic literature search on PubMed, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Google Scholar until May 2025 was done to identify controlled comparative studies. Outcomes of interest include time to complete re-epithelialization, re-epithelialization rate, treatment failure, recurrence, and adverse events. We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model and assessed the certainty of evidence for each result using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment.
RESULTS: Seven studies involving 238 patients were included in the analysis. TIED significantly shortened re-epithelialization time (mean difference [MD] -1.20 days [-1.71--0.69], p<0.0001) and accelerated the healing rate (MD +0.26 mm2/h [0.10-0.42], p=0.002). In addition, TIED significantly reduced the risk of treatment failure (risk ratio [RR] 0.30 [0.16-0.57], p=0.003) and recurrence (RR 0.25 [0.11-0.56], p=0.0007) compared to conventional treatments, with no adverse events reported. GRADE assessments indicated very low to low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSION: TIED may speed corneal healing, cut failures and recurrences, and is well-tolerated and inexpensive. Robust randomized controlled trials are still needed to nail down the optimal dosing, long-term safety, and its role in CED management.