-
Ophthalmic Epidemiology Oct 2023Clinical trials in uveitis have led to the expansion of therapeutic options for the management of non-infectious uveitis. The purpose of this systematic review is to... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Clinical trials in uveitis have led to the expansion of therapeutic options for the management of non-infectious uveitis. The purpose of this systematic review is to investigate why some clinical trials have yielded successful results and regulatory approval of new therapies, and some have not.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of the Pubmed/MEDLINE database and clinicaltrials.gov was performed from 2006 to 2021, according to the PRISMA guidelines. Phase III clinical trials of systemic and local therapies in adults with non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis were included.
RESULTS
A total of 79 clinical trials were collected from ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed/MEDLINE database search. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 14 clinical trials were included.
CONCLUSION
This review summarizes the study design, outcome measures, and results of recent phase III trials in non-infectious uveitis, in the interest of understanding limitations and rethinking new methods of defining endpoints in clinical trial design.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Uveitis; Panuveitis; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 36204817
DOI: 10.1080/09286586.2022.2131837 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Uveitis is a term used to describe a group of intraocular inflammatory diseases. Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, with the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Uveitis is a term used to describe a group of intraocular inflammatory diseases. Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment for all subtypes of non-infectious uveitis. They can be administered orally, topically with drops, by periocular (around the eye) or intravitreal (inside the eye) injection, or by surgical implantation.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of steroid implants in people with chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, and panuveitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, PubMed, LILACS, and three trials registries to November 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials comparing either fluocinolone acetonide (FA) or dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implants with standard-of-care therapy or sham procedures, with at least six months of follow-up after treatment. We included studies that enrolled participants of all ages, who had chronic non-infectious posterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, or panuveitis with vision that was better than hand-motion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We applied standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included data from four trials (683 participants, 907 eyes) that compared corticosteroid implants with either sham or standard-of-care therapy. Study characteristics and risk of bias Of the two trials that compared corticosteroid implants with sham procedure, one examined a 0.18 mg FA implant, and the other, a 0.7 mg DEX implant. The other two trials compared a 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care therapy, which included systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressive medications, if needed. Considering improvement in visual acuity, we assessed the four trials to be at either low risk, or with some concerns of risk of bias across all domains. Findings Using sham procedure as control, combined results at the six-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants may decrease the risk of uveitis recurrence by 60% (relative risk [RR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30 to 0.54; 2 trials, 282 participants; low-certainty evidence); and lead to a greater improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; mean difference [MD] 0.15 logMAR, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.24; 1 trial, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (146 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have no effects on visual functioning quality of life, measured on the National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (MD 2.85, 95%CI -3.64 to 9.34; 1 trial, 146 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Using standard-of care therapy as control, combined estimates at the 24-month primary time point suggested that corticosteroid implants were likely to decrease the risk of recurrence of uveitis by 54% (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60; 2 trials, 619 eyes). Combined estimates at 24 months also suggested that steroid implants may have little to no effects on improving BCVA (MD 0.05 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12; 2 trials, 619 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Evidence based on a single-study report (232 participants) suggested that steroid implants may have minimal clinical effects on visual functioning (MD 4.64, 95% CI 0.13 to 9.15; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); physical functioning (SF-36 physical subscale MD 2.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 5.35; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or mental health (SF-36 mental subscale MD 3.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 6.78; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not on EuroQoL (MD 6.17, 95% CI 1.87 to 10.47; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or EuroQoL-5D scale (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08; 1 trial, 232 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects Compared with sham procedures, corticosteroid implants may slightly increase the risk of cataract formation (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.17 to 6.18; 1 trial, 90 eyes; low-certainty evidence), but not the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 6.12; 1 trial, 117 eyes; low-certainty evidence); or the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.81; 1 trial, 180 eyes; low-certainty evidence), during up to 12 months of follow-up. These implants may increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure ([IOP] RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.42 to 5.56; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for IOP-lowering eyedrops (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.25; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but not the need for IOP-lowering surgery (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.17; 2 trials, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence comparing the 0.59 mg FA implant with standard-of-care suggested that the implant may increase the risk of cataract progression (RR 2.71, 95% CI 2.06 to 3.56; 2 trials, 210 eyes; low-certainty evidence); and the need for surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 2 trials, 371 eyes; low-certainty evidence); along with the risk of elevated IOP (RR 3.64, 95% CI 2.71 to 4.87; 2 trials, 605 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); and the need for medical (RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.36 to 3.91; 2 trials, 544 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence); or surgical interventions (RR 5.43, 95% CI 3.12 to 9.45; 2 trials, 599 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). In either comparison, these implants did not increase the risk for endophthalmitis, retinal tear, or retinal detachment (moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our confidence is limited that local corticosteroid implants are superior to sham therapy or standard-of-care therapy in reducing the risk of uveitis recurrence. We demonstrated different effectiveness on BCVA relative to comparators in people with non-infectious uveitis. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that these implants may increase the risk of cataract progression and IOP elevation, which will require interventions over time. To better understand the efficacy and safety profiles of corticosteroid implants, we need future trials that examine implants of different doses, used for different durations. The trials should measure core standard outcomes that are universally defined, and measured at comparable follow-up time points.
Topics: Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Cataract; Panuveitis; Quality of Life; Uveitis, Intermediate
PubMed: 37642198
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010469.pub4 -
Ocular Immunology and Inflammation Nov 2023Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) affects 64-75% of eyes with punctate inner choroidopathy (PIC). Although anti-VEGF agents are considered first-line therapy, there is...
Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) affects 64-75% of eyes with punctate inner choroidopathy (PIC). Although anti-VEGF agents are considered first-line therapy, there is controversy regarding other modalities, such as immunosuppression. We performed a systematic review of individual participant data (IPD) and generated a dataset of 278 eyes with PIC-related CNV from 45 studies. Forty-two percent presented with moderate visual loss (MVL) or worse. Four different treatment modalities (anti-VEGF, photodynamic therapy, local immunosuppression, and systemic immunosuppression) and most combinations among them were represented. Anti-VEGF injections decreased the likelihood of MVL (Odds Ratio 0.3, p = .027), an effect moderated by presenting visual acuity and patient age. Eyes receiving more than 3 injections were more likely to receive additional therapeutic modalities. Increasing number of modalities was associated with longer follow-up time and did not improve vision. The beneficial effect of anti-VEGF injections persisted when controlling for presenting visual acuity and follow-up time.
Topics: Humans; Choroidal Neovascularization; White Dot Syndromes; Eye; Fluorescein Angiography; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36179037
DOI: 10.1080/09273948.2022.2124176 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jul 2023Early poor outcomes of intraocular inflammation (IOI) after intravitreal brolucizumab (IVB) have negatively affected the use of brolucizumab in clinical routine. We... (Review)
Review
Early poor outcomes of intraocular inflammation (IOI) after intravitreal brolucizumab (IVB) have negatively affected the use of brolucizumab in clinical routine. We wished to identify factors related to the treatment details of IOI involving the posterior segment resulting from IVB for neovascular AMD (nAMD), if these were reported in detail. Articles were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials, and CENTRAL using the following search terms:
AND AND . The risk of bias was rated using the JBI Critical Appraisal Tool. We included 31 reports (41 patients and 46 eyes). Patients were 75.9 ± 8.5 years, and 58.5% were female. IOI occurred 41.7 ± 37.5 (median 37.0) days after treatment initiation with 2.0 ± 1.3 (1-6) IVB injections. A mean change in visual acuity of -14.6 ± 21.0 (median -6.5) letters was reported. The mean time from first IOI signs to the initiation of any anti-inflammatory treatment was 3.3 ± 6.2 days, with 63% of the patients receiving systemic corticosteroids as standard treatment. Finally, a period effect was observed, with a change in visual acuity of -25.3 ± 27.1 and -2.6 ± 7.3 letters in the chronologically first and last third, respectively, of treated eyes (effect size: r = 0.71; = 0.006). Functional outcomes markedly improved with increasing experience in managing IOI. PubMed: 37510788
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12144671 -
International Ophthalmology Apr 2024To review all studies reporting the onset of white dot syndromes following COVID-19 vaccines. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To review all studies reporting the onset of white dot syndromes following COVID-19 vaccines.
METHODS
Our protocol was registered prospectively on PROSPERO [registration number: CRD42023426012]. We searched five different databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Science Direct up to May 2023. All the studies that reported the occurrence of white dot syndrome following COVID-19 vaccines were included. All statistical tests were conducted with a 95% confidence interval and a 5% error margin. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The methodological quality of included studies was performed using the IHE Quality Appraisal Checklist for Case Series studies and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports.
RESULTS
Fifty studies involving seventy-one subjects were included. Multiple evanescent white dot syndrome (MEWDS) was the most common disease (n = 25, 35.2% %), followed by acute macular neuroretinopathy (AMN) (n = 22, 31.0%) and acute posterior multifocal placoid pigment epitheliopathy (APMPPE) (n = 4, 5.6%). They were mostly unilateral (n = 50, 70.4%). The presenting symptoms were blurred vision (n = 26, 36.6%), paracentral scotoma (n = 19, 26.8%), visual field disturbance, and photopsia (n = 7, 9.9%). The mean duration for follow-up was 10.15 ± 14.04 weeks. Nineteen subjects (29.69%) received steroids with improvement reported in 68.4%. Eleven subjects (17.19%) were managed by observation only with reported full recovery and improvement.
CONCLUSION
White dot syndromes are very rare entities. Our findings highlight a possible association between COVID-19 vaccines and the occurrence of white dot syndromes. However, larger studies with good quality should be implemented to confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; SARS-CoV-2; Tomography, Optical Coherence; White Dot Syndromes
PubMed: 38652153
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-024-03119-4 -
Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics Dec 2024Considering the widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines as a preventive measure against the spread of the virus, it's necessary to direct attention to the adverse effects...
Considering the widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines as a preventive measure against the spread of the virus, it's necessary to direct attention to the adverse effects associated with vaccines in a limited group of populations. Multiple evanescent white dot syndrome (MEWDS) following COVID-19 vaccination is a rare adverse reaction associated with COVID-19 vaccines. In this systematic review, we collected 19 articles with 27 patients up to November 1, 2023, summarizing the basic information, clinical manifestations, examinations, treatments, and recoveries of the 27 patients. The 27 enrolled patients (6 males, 21 females) had a median age of 34.1 years (15-71 years old) and were mainly from 5 regions: Asia (8), the Mediterranean region (8), North America (7), Oceania (3) and Brazil (1). Symptoms occurred post-first dose in 9 patients, post-second dose in 14 (1 with symptoms after both), post-third dose in 1, and both post-second and booster doses in 1, while details on 2 cases were not disclosed. Treatments included tapered oral steroids (6), topical steroids (3), tapered prednisone with antiviral drugs and vitamins (1), and valacyclovir and acetazolamide (1), while 16 received no treatment. All patients experienced symptom improvement, and nearly all patients ultimately recovered. Moreover, we summarized possible hypotheses concerning the mechanism of COVID-19 vaccine-associated MEWDS. The findings provide insights into the clinical aspects of COVID-19 vaccine-associated MEWDS. More attention should be given to patients with vaccine-associated MEWDS, and necessary treatment should be provided to patients experiencing a substantial decline in visual acuity to improve their quality of life.
Topics: Humans; Adult; COVID-19 Vaccines; Young Adult; Male; Female; Middle Aged; Adolescent; COVID-19; Aged; White Dot Syndromes; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 38752704
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2024.2350812