-
International Journal For Vitamin and... Oct 2020In the present study, the evidence about the association between vitamin D deficiency and Behcet's disease activity was systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In the present study, the evidence about the association between vitamin D deficiency and Behcet's disease activity was systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed. We searched the English and Persian databases of Medline (Ovid), CINHAL, Scopus, Proquest, the Cochrane library and SID, IranDoc, Magiran, Iran Medex for articles published up until May 2018 with the keywords were related to serum vitamin D and active and inactive Behcet's disease in adults. Meta-analysis was done using the CMA software. A total of 138 titles were retrieved and reduced to 80 titles after deletion of duplicates and finally after close assessing of titles and abstracts eight eligible studies including a total of 939 participants were identified for systematic review and meta-analysis. According to the results of the meta-analysis, the pooled effect size of the differences in the serum level of vitamin D in patients with inactive Behçet's Disease and healthy controls was [OR:-0.05; 95% CI:-2.05, 1.94; p = 0.95]. The serum vitamin D level was significantly lower in active patients compared with healthy controls [OR:1.21; 95%CI: -0.12, 2.31; p = 0.03]. The pooled effect size of the differences in the serum level of vitamin D in active and inactive Behçet's Disease was [OR:-0.71; 95%CI: -1.41, -0.007; p = 0.04] There is an association between vitamin D deficiency and active Behçet's Disease. Future studies investigating the association of vitamin D deficiency and Behçet's Disease needs to involve following information: dietary intake of calcium and vitamin D, measuring of sun exposure, report of drug consumption and physical activity level.
Topics: Adult; Behcet Syndrome; Humans; Iran; Vitamin D; Vitamin D Deficiency
PubMed: 30789802
DOI: 10.1024/0300-9831/a000542 -
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Aug 2015Uveitis describes a heterogeneous group of conditions characterized by intraocular inflammation. Since most of the sight-threatening forms of uveitis are individually... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Uveitis describes a heterogeneous group of conditions characterized by intraocular inflammation. Since most of the sight-threatening forms of uveitis are individually rare, there has been an increasing tendency for clinical trials to group distinct uveitis syndromes together despite clear variations in phenotype which may reflect real aetiological and pathogenetic differences. Furthermore this grouping of distinct syndromes, and the range of manifestations within each uveitis syndrome, leads to a wide range of possible outcome measures. In this study we wished to review the degree of consensus or otherwise in the choice of primary outcome measures for registered clinical trials related to uveitis.
METHODS
Systematic review of data provided in clinical trial registries describing clinical trials dealing with medical treatment of intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis through 01 October 2013. We reviewed 15 on-line clinical trial registries approved by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. We identified all that met the following inclusion criteria: prospective, interventional design; target populations with intermediate, posterior or panuveitis; and one or more pre-specified outcome measures that were related to uveitis. Primary outcome measures were classified in terms of type (efficacy or safety or both; single, composite, or multiple); dimension (disease activity, disease damage, measured or patient-reported visual function); and domain (the specific study variable being measured).
RESULTS
Of 195 registered uveitis studies, we identified 104 clinical trials that met inclusion criteria. There were 14 different domains used as primary outcome measures. Among clinical trials that utilized primary outcome measures of treatment efficacy (n = 94), 70 (74 %) used a measure of disease activity (vitreous haze in 40/70 [57 %]; macular oedema in 19/70 [27 %]) and 49 (70 %) used a measure of visual function (visual acuity in all cases). Multiple primary outcome measures were used in 23 (22 %) of 104 clinical trials. With regard to quality, in 12 (12 %) of 104 clinical trials, outcome measures were poorly defined. No clinical trial utilized a patient-reported study variable as primary outcome measure.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review highlights the heterogeneity of outcome measures used in recent clinical trials for intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis. Current designs prioritize clinician-observed measures of disease activity and measurement of visual function as outcome measures. This apparent lack of consensus regarding outcome measures for the study of uveitis is a concern, as it prevents comparison of studies and meta-analyses, and weakens the evidence available to stake-holders, from patients to clinicians to regulators, regarding the efficacy and value of a given treatment.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Uveitis
PubMed: 26286265
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-015-0318-6 -
Thrombosis and Haemostasis Jul 2022To evaluate the relevance of plasma homocysteine (HC) in Behcet's disease (BD) and its clinical manifestations. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To evaluate the relevance of plasma homocysteine (HC) in Behcet's disease (BD) and its clinical manifestations.
METHODS
Systematic review of EMBASE and PubMed databases according to PRISMA guidelines from inception to July 2021; random-effects meta-analyses for continuous outcomes.
RESULTS
The search strategy retrieved 48 case-control (2,669 BD and 2,245 control participants) and 5 cohort studies (708 BD participants). Plasma HC was higher in BD than in controls ( < 0.0001) with wide heterogeneity ( = 89.7%) that remained unchanged after sensitivity analysis according to year of article publication, age of BD participants, study size, study quality, method of HC determination, and male/female ratio >1.5; some pooled ethnicities explained a small part of the heterogeneity ( = 16.3%). Active BD participants had higher HC than inactive ones ( < 0.0001), with moderate heterogeneity = 49.2%) that disappeared after removal of an outlier study with very high disease activity. BD participants with any vascular involvement had higher HC than those without ( < 0.0001) with wide heterogeneity ( = 89.7%); subgroup analysis on venous thrombosis only changed neither effect size ( < 0.0001) nor heterogeneity ( = 72.7%). BD participants with ocular involvement had higher HC than those without ( < 0.0001) with moderate heterogeneity ( = 40.3%).
CONCLUSION
Although causality cannot be inferred, the consistency of the elevation of plasma HC in BD, particularly in patients with active disease, with vascular and ocular involvement suggests an intrinsic involvement of HC in these clinical manifestations.
Topics: Behcet Syndrome; Case-Control Studies; Female; Homocysteine; Humans; Male; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 34996122
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740637 -
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 -
Medicina Clinica Dec 2017To develop recommendations on the use of immunodepressors in patients with non-infectious, non-neoplastic anterior uveitis (AU) based on best evidence and experience.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
To develop recommendations on the use of immunodepressors in patients with non-infectious, non-neoplastic anterior uveitis (AU) based on best evidence and experience.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A multidisciplinary panel of five experts was established, who, in the first nominal group meeting defined the scope, users, and chapters of the document. A systematic literature review was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of immunosuppressors in patients with non-infectious, non-neoplastic AU. All the above was discussed in a second nominal group meeting and 33 recommendations were generated. Through the Delphi methodology, the degree of agreement with the recommendations was tested also by 25 more experts. Recommendations were voted on from one (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement). We defined agreement if at least 70% voted ≥7. The level of evidence and degree of recommendation was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine's Levels of Evidence.
RESULTS
The 33 recommendations were accepted. They include specific recommendations on patients with non-infectious, non-neoplastic AU, as well as different treatment lines.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with non-infectious, non-neoplastic AU, these recommendations on the use of immunosuppressors might be a guide in order to help in the treatment decision making, due to the lack of robust evidence or other globally accepted algorithms.
Topics: Clinical Decision-Making; Delphi Technique; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Uveitis, Anterior
PubMed: 28911893
DOI: 10.1016/j.medcli.2017.06.059 -
PloS One 2020Behçet's disease (BD) is a multifactorial systemic inflammatory disease of unknown aetiology characterised by several clinical manifestations including vascular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Behçet's disease (BD) is a multifactorial systemic inflammatory disease of unknown aetiology characterised by several clinical manifestations including vascular involvements (i.e., both arterial and venous thrombosis). Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs)-including anticardiolipin (aCL), anti-β2-glycoprotein I (β2-GPI) antibodies and lupus anticoagulant (LA) are detected in systemic autoimmune diseases which contribute to thrombosis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the prevalence of aPLs in patients with BD as compared to controls. A protocol was registered in PROSPERO (Registration No. CRD42018088125) and a systematic literature search was conducted through PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus and ScienceDirect databases. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects model. Quality assessment was carried out by using the modified 9-star Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Publication bias was evaluated via visualisation of contour- enhanced and trim and fill funnel plots along with Begg's and Egger's tests. We included ten case-control studies (a total of 999 participants from 380 BD patients and 619 controls) based on the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of aCL (OR: 12.10, 95% CI: 5.15-28.41, p<0.00001) and anti-β2-GPI antibodies (OR: 23.57, 95% CI: 1.31-423.63, p = 0.03) were statistically significant, however, the prevalence of LA was not significant (OR: 13.77, 95% CI: 0.65-293.59, p = 0.09). The results remained statistically significant from different sensitivity analyses which represented the robustness of this meta-analysis. According to the NOS, 50.0% of the studies were considered as of high methodological quality (low risk of bias). No significant publication bias was detected from contour-enhanced and trim and fill funnel plots or Begg's and Egger's tests. This meta-analysis established that there is a significantly high prevalence of aPLs (i.e., aCL and anti-β2-GPI antibodies) in patients with BD when compared to controls.
Topics: Antibodies, Anticardiolipin; Antibodies, Antiphospholipid; Behcet Syndrome; Humans; Prevalence; beta 2-Glycoprotein I
PubMed: 31929597
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227836 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jul 2008Uveitis is reported to be the most common extra-articular manifestation in spondyloarthritis (SpA); however, its prevalence and characteristics are not well established. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Uveitis is reported to be the most common extra-articular manifestation in spondyloarthritis (SpA); however, its prevalence and characteristics are not well established.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic literature review in order to examine these topics.
METHODS
A systematic literature analysis was conducted in the Medline database up to October 2006 and in the abstracts of rheumatology scientific meetings for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006. A hand search of references was also performed. Articles were analysed if they reported the prevalence or characteristics of uveitis in SpA. Data abstraction was standardised. Statistical analysis was mainly descriptive.
RESULTS
Among the 957 articles selected by the search, 126 articles (29,877 patients) allowed a calculation of the prevalence of uveitis in SpA; 36 articles (1989 patients) described its characteristics. The mean (SD) prevalence of uveitis was 32.7 (0.5)%; it varied with the type of SpA--for example, 33.2 (0.8)% for ankylosing spondylitis versus 25.1 (2.3)% for psoriatic arthritis. This prevalence increased with mean disease duration and was higher in HLA-B27-positive patients with an odds ratio of 4.2. Uveitis was acute in 88.7 (2.5)%, anterior in 90.5 (2.0)%, unilateral in 87.3 (2.8)%. Recurrence occurred in 50.6 (2.6)% and a reduction of visual acuity was observed in 8.3 (3.8)%.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of uveitis varies with disease duration and according to the type of SpA. Reduction of visual acuity is not exceptional. Because of recent promising data about the effects of anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy on uveitis flares in SpA, it was important to determine this baseline prevalence.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Recurrence; Spondylarthritis; Uveitis; Uveitis, Anterior
PubMed: 17962239
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2007.075754 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 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. 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] 0.22 logMAR, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.31; 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 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; Glaucoma; Panuveitis; Quality of Life; Steroids; Uveitis; Uveitis, Intermediate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36645716
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010469.pub3 -
Journal of Ophthalmic Inflammation and... Jan 2020This study aims to determine if the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX implant, Ozurdex; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, California) is effective for treating intermediate,...
BACKGROUND
This study aims to determine if the intravitreal dexamethasone implant (DEX implant, Ozurdex; Allergan, Inc., Irvine, California) is effective for treating intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis as a monotherapy or adjunctive treatment to systemic immunomodulatory therapies.
METHODS
A systematic review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed database searches was conducted with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence criteria to select publications. Available background information and patient data from each study was tabulated. Outcomes studied were central retinal thickness (CRT), best corrected visual acuity, intraocular inflammation (anterior chamber cells, vitreous haze), number of patients with prior and concomitant immunomodulatory treatments, intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation (≥ 25 mmHg), and other adverse effects associated with the implant.
RESULTS
One hundred ninety-five (61.51%) patients had previous immunomodulatory treatment while 232 (64.8%) were treated with concomitant immunomodulatory therapy with the DEX implant. CRT decreased by an average of 198.65 μm (42.74%). Visual acuity improved to an average of 0.451 (logMAR) or 20/57 (Snellen) which is a 43.11% improvement from baseline. One hundred seventy-three (59%) of eyes were quiescent at the end of the trials, of which 40 (13.7%) previously inflamed eyes became quiescent. Elevated IOP occurred in 91 (20.6%). The most common adverse events were cataract/posterior subcapsular opacities in 47 (11.03%) patients and conjunctival hemorrhage in 24 (5.44%) patients.
CONCLUSIONS
The DEX implant is an effective medication for the treatment of posterior segment uveitis, uveitic macular edema, and results in improved visual acuity. Development of elevated IOP and cataract should be closely monitored as they are tangible risks associated with the DEX implant. This study was not able to determine whether the DEX implant was more effective as a monotherapy or as an adjunctive therapy to systemic immunomodulatory treatment.
PubMed: 31925591
DOI: 10.1186/s12348-019-0189-4