-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
BMJ Open Ophthalmology Jun 2023This study aimed to review effectiveness studies comparing two biological anti-tumour necrosis factor agents, adalimumab (ADA) and infliximab (IFX), in the management of...
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to review effectiveness studies comparing two biological anti-tumour necrosis factor agents, adalimumab (ADA) and infliximab (IFX), in the management of autoimmune uveitis.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar from 2014 until February 2022. The search included the following keywords "Adalimumab", "Infliximab", "Autoimmune", "Anterior", "Intermediate", "Posterior", "Panuveitis", "Refractory" and "Uveitis". Primary studies comparing both ADA and IFX in a population of autoimmune uveitis patients were considered. Outcomes of interest were measures of response to treatment and incidence of adverse events.
RESULTS
The preliminary literature search generated 7156 references. Six studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis; all were non-randomised, retrospective or observational. The included studies found similar effectiveness and side effect profiles for both ADA and IFX in the management of autoimmune uveitis, however, one did not report effectiveness for each separately, and three were limited to Behcet's disease.
CONCLUSION
ADA and IFX seem to display comparable effectiveness and safety profiles. However, the available evidence remains scarce, of low quality and at high risk of bias. A direct comparison between ADA and IFX through large randomised controlled trials is needed to provide more substantial evidence of equivalence or superiority in uveitis.
Topics: Humans; Adalimumab; Infliximab; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Uveitis; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Behcet Syndrome
PubMed: 37493653
DOI: 10.1136/bmjophth-2023-001303 -
Revista Da Sociedade Brasileira de... 2023Ocular toxoplasmosis is the leading cause of infectious posterior uveitis worldwide, accounting for 30-50% of all cases in immunocompetent patients. Conventional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ocular toxoplasmosis is the leading cause of infectious posterior uveitis worldwide, accounting for 30-50% of all cases in immunocompetent patients. Conventional treatment is associated with adverse effects and does not prevent recurrence. Intravitreal drug administration can improve disease outcomes and reduce side effects. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of intravitreal injections for treating ocular toxoplasmosis.
METHODS
The systematic search was conducted using PubMed, SciELO, and Google Scholar with the descriptors "ocular toxoplasmosis" AND "intravitreal". We analyzed studies that met the inclusion criteria, i.e., experimental cases in patients treated intravitreally for ocular toxoplasmosis. Considering the systematic review, we focused on the number of intravitreal injections, the therapeutic drug class, and the presence of preexisting conditions. To assess the efficacy of intravitreal injections, a meta-analysis was performed using visual acuity, side effects, disease recurrence, and inflammatory responses as variables.
RESULTS
Intravitreal injection-induced side effects were rarely observed (0.49% [0.00, 1.51%] ). The use of antiparasitic and anti-inflammatory drugs afforded improved visual acuity (99.81% [98.60, 100.00%]) and marked effectiveness in treating ocular toxoplasmosis.
CONCLUSIONS
Intravitreal injections may facilitate the successful treatment of ocular toxoplasmosis. However, clinicians should carefully evaluate the presence of preexisting conditions for ocular toxoplasmosis or previous diseases, as these can impact the decision to administer intravitreal injections.
Topics: Humans; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Eye Infections; Toxoplasmosis
PubMed: 37222350
DOI: 10.1590/0037-8682-0552-2022 -
Ocular Immunology and Inflammation Apr 2023The present study aimed to estimate the global prevalence of ocular toxoplasmosis in the general population and patients with uveitis.
PURPOSE
The present study aimed to estimate the global prevalence of ocular toxoplasmosis in the general population and patients with uveitis.
METHODS
Four electronic databases were searched and 130 studies for evaluating the prevalence of OT among the general population and uveitis patients were included.
RESULTS
The pooled prevalence of OT among the general population was estimated at 2% (95% CI, 2-3%; 762/486 051). The highest prevalence rate was observed in America 6% (95% CI, 1-11%). In uveitis patients, a prevalence rate of 9% (95% CI, 8-10%; 5668/88 006) was reported. The countries with a lower middle income had higher prevalence rates. The prevalence of OT in posterior uveitis 33% (95%CI, 24-42%) was substantially higher than in panuveitis 7% (95% CI, 5-8%).
CONCLUSION
Our results provide a new perspective on the prevalence of OT. Knowledge of international and regional patterns of disease is essential for the establishment of precise diagnostic protocols and control programs.
PubMed: 37043543
DOI: 10.1080/09273948.2023.2190801 -
PloS One 2023Ocular toxoplasmosis (OT) is caused by the parasite Toxoplasma gondii. OT is the leading cause of posterior uveitis globally; it is a recurrent disease that may result... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ocular toxoplasmosis (OT) is caused by the parasite Toxoplasma gondii. OT is the leading cause of posterior uveitis globally; it is a recurrent disease that may result in visual impairment and blindness. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to summarize and evaluate the risk factors for recurrences, visual impairment, and blindness described in the literature worldwide.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, VHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and DANS EASY Archive. All studies reporting patients with clinically and serologically confirmed OT presenting any clinical or paraclinical factor influencing recurrences, visual impairment, and blindness were included. Studies presenting secondary data, case reports, and case series were excluded. An initial selection was made by title and abstract, and then the studies were reviewed by full text where the eligible studies were selected. Then, the risk of bias was assessed through validated tools. Data were extracted using a validated extraction format. Qualitative synthesis and quantitative analysis were done. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022327836).
RESULTS
Seventy two studies met the inclusion criteria. Fifty-three were summarized in the qualitative synthesis in three sections: clinical and environmental factors, parasite and host factors, and treatment-related factors. Of the 72 articles, 39 were included in the meta-analysis, of which 14 were conducted in South America, 13 in Europe, four in Asia, three multinational, two in North America and Central America, respectively, and only one in Africa. A total of 4,200 patients with OT were analyzed, mean age ranged from 7.3 to 65.1 year of age, with similar distribution by sex. The frequency of recurrences in patients with OT was 49% (95% CI 40%-58%), being more frequent in the South American population than in Europeans. Additionally, visual impairment was presented in 35% (95% CI 25%-48%) and blindness in 20% (95% CI 13%-30%) of eyes, with a similar predominance in South Americans than in Europeans. On the other hand, having lesions near the macula or adjacent to the optic nerve had an OR of 4.83 (95% CI; 2.72-8.59) for blindness, similar to having more than one recurrence that had an OR of 3.18 (95% CI; 1.59-6.38). Finally, the prophylactic therapy with Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole versus the placebo showed a protective factor of 83% during the first year and 87% in the second year after treatment.
CONCLUSION
Our Systematic Review showed that clinical factors such as being older than 40 years, patients with de novo OT lesions or with less than one year after the first episode, macular area involvement, lesions greater than 1 disc diameter, congenital toxoplasmosis, and bilateral compromise had more risk of recurrences. Also, environmental and parasite factors such as precipitations, geographical region where the infection is acquired, and more virulent strains confer greater risk of recurrences. Therefore, patients with the above mentioned clinical, environmental, and parasite factors could benefit from using prophylactic therapy.
Topics: Humans; Toxoplasmosis, Ocular; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Blindness; Vision, Low; Risk Factors; Recurrence
PubMed: 37011101
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283845 -
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 -
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