-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2010Anterior uveitis is rare, with an annual incidence of 12/100,000 population, although it is more common in Finland (annual incidence of 23/100,000), probably because of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Anterior uveitis is rare, with an annual incidence of 12/100,000 population, although it is more common in Finland (annual incidence of 23/100,000), probably because of genetic factors, such as high frequency of HLA-B27 in the population. It is often self-limiting, but can, in some cases, lead to complications such as posterior synechiae, cataract, glaucoma, and chronic uveitis.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of anti-inflammatory eye drops on acute anterior uveitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to November 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found six systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: corticosteroids, mydriatics, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug eye drops.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Incidence; Mydriatics; Ophthalmic Solutions; Uveitis, Anterior
PubMed: 21736765
DOI: No ID Found -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology Oct 2023The aim of this review was to describe the changes in the microbiota of patients with Behçet's disease (BD) and the mechanisms involved in the relationship between the... (Review)
Review
The aim of this review was to describe the changes in the microbiota of patients with Behçet's disease (BD) and the mechanisms involved in the relationship between the microbiome and immunity in BD. A systematic search for relevant articles was made on PubMed and the Cochrane Library database using the following terms: "microbiota AND Behçet's disease" or "microbiome AND Behçet's disease". Sixteen articles were included in a qualitative synthesis. This systematic review on the microbiome and Behçet's disease underlines the presence of gut dysbiosis in BD patients. This dysbiosis is marked by (i) a decrease in butyrate-producing bacteria, which could affect T cell differentiation and epigenetic regulation of immune-related genes, (ii) a modification of tryptophan-metabolising bacteria, which could be linked to dysregulated IL-22 secretion, and (iii) a decrease in bacteria known to have anti-inflammatory properties. Regarding oral microbiota, this review underlines the possible role of Streptococcus sanguinis through molecular mimicry and NETosis. Clinical studies of BD have shown that (i) need for dentistry is associated with a more severe course in BD, and (ii) antibiotic-supplemented mouthwash reduces pain and ulcers. Fecal transplantation of BD patients' microbiota into mouse models led to decreased SCFA production, neutrophil activation, and Th1/Th17 responses.Recipient mice showed exacerbated experimental autoimmune uveitis (EAU) and experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE). In Herpes Virus Simplex-1 (HSV-1) infected mice mimicking BD, administration of butyrateproducing bacteria improved symptoms and immune variables. The microbiome may thus be involved in BD through immunity regulation and epigenetic modifications.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Mice; Behcet Syndrome; Dysbiosis; Epigenesis, Genetic; Uveitis; Microbiota; Bacteria
PubMed: 37382445
DOI: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/zbt4gx -
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 -
Health Technology Assessment... Nov 2017Non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory eye disorders. Management includes local and systemic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory eye disorders. Management includes local and systemic corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and biological drugs.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous adalimumab (Humira; AbbVie Ltd, Maidenhead, UK) and a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex; Allergan Ltd, Marlow, UK) in adults with non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases and clinical trials registries including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched to June 2016, with an update search carried out in October 2016.
REVIEW METHODS
Review methods followed published guidelines. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and adalimumab, each compared with current practice, from a NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon, parameterised with published evidence. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. Substantial sensitivity analyses were undertaken.
RESULTS
Of the 134 full-text articles screened, three studies (four articles) were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [VISUAL I (active uveitis) and VISUAL II (inactive uveitis)] compared adalimumab with placebo, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Time to treatment failure (reduced visual acuity, intraocular inflammation, new vascular lesions) was longer in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.70; < 0.001] in the VISUAL I trial and 0.57 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; = 0.004) in the VISUAL II trial. The adalimumab group showed a significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) composite score in the VISUAL I trial (mean difference 4.20; = 0.010) but not the VISUAL II trial (mean difference 2.12; = 0.16). Some systemic adverse effects occurred more frequently with adalimumab than with placebo. One RCT [HURON (active uveitis)] compared a single 0.7-mg dexamethasone implant against a sham procedure, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Dexamethasone provided significant benefits over the sham procedure at 8 and 26 weeks in the percentage of patients with a vitreous haze score of zero ( < 0.014), the mean best corrected visual acuity improvement ( ≤ 0.002) and the percentage of patients with a ≥ 5-point improvement in VFQ-25 score ( < 0.05). Raised intraocular pressure and cataracts occurred more frequently with dexamethasone than with the sham procedure. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for one dexamethasone implant in one eye for a combination of patients with unilateral and bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the HURON trial, was estimated to be £19,509 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ICER of adalimumab for patients with mainly bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the VISUAL trials, was estimated to be £94,523 and £317,547 per QALY gained in active and inactive uveitis respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the rate of blindness has the biggest impact on the model results. The interventions may be more cost-effective in populations in which there is a greater risk of blindness.
LIMITATIONS
The clinical trials did not fully reflect clinical practice. Thirteen additional studies of clinically relevant comparator treatments were identified; however, network meta-analysis was not feasible. The model results are highly uncertain because of the limited evidence base.
CONCLUSIONS
Two RCTs of systemic adalimumab and one RCT of a unilateral, single dexamethasone implant showed significant benefits over placebo or a sham procedure. The ICERs for adalimumab were estimated to be above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone was estimated to fall below standard thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around the model assumptions. In future work, primary research should compare dexamethasone and adalimumab with current treatments over the long term and in important subgroups and consider how short-term improvements relate to long-term effects on vision.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041799.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Adalimumab; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dexamethasone; Humans; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Uveitis, Intermediate; Uveitis, Posterior
PubMed: 29183563
DOI: 10.3310/hta21680 -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology Sep 2022The assessment of quality of life (QoL) in Behçet's disease (BD) patients has been a surrogate of disease outcomes, but a wider impact on the patient's lifestyle has... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The assessment of quality of life (QoL) in Behçet's disease (BD) patients has been a surrogate of disease outcomes, but a wider impact on the patient's lifestyle has not been considered. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the existing tools specifically adopted to explore the QoL in BD patients.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted using 2 electronic databases, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A combination of BD and QoL-related search terms were used. All articles were screened by 3 independent reviewers for title, abstract and full text level. Studies investigating QoL in BD patients were included.
RESULTS
64 papers of 497 records were retained. Data about 7,449 patients with a BD diagnosis and QoL evaluation were collected. 47 different tools to evaluate QoL were detected. The mean number of tools adopted in each study was 2.14±1.34. General QoL and psychological and social impact were investigated in 68.75% and 54.69% respectively. The correlation with disease activity was investigated in 71.86%.
CONCLUSIONS
The assessment of QoL in BD patients may provide a fundamental measurement for health to evaluate the outcome of interventions for BD patients. The adoption of a single validated QoL tool, developed including the BD patient's perspective, may provide an accurate and effective assessment, ensure the comparison within different cohorts, and set standardised values to define QoL level in BD patients.
Topics: Behcet Syndrome; Humans; Quality of Life
PubMed: 36106544
DOI: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/sian1b -
Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism Feb 2016To evaluate subclinical atherosclerosis in Behcet disease (BD), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies where atherosclerosis was determined by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate subclinical atherosclerosis in Behcet disease (BD), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies where atherosclerosis was determined by flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) and endothelial-mediated dilatation (EMD) and by measurement of intima media thickness (IMT) of carotid arteries.
METHODS
Systematic search of EMBASE and PubMed databases from January 2000 to January 2014 according to PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Nine studies met the inclusion criteria on FMD/EMD, 11 on IMT and 4 on both. BD had lower FMD than controls (SMD = -0.89, 95% CI: -0.660 to -1.11, p < 0.001), which was confirmed by subgroup analyses on active and inactive patients (SMD = -1.17, 95% CI: -1.45 to -0.89 and SMD = -0.72, 95% CI: -0.97 to -0.46, p = 0.0001 for both). EMD was lower in BD but with a large estimate (SMD = 0.38, 95% CI: -0.79 to -0.03, p = 0.06, I(2) = 82.2%). IMT was greater in BD and the large estimate (SMD = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.63-1.28, p < 0.0001, I(2) = 87.6%) persisted after subgroup analysis on active and inactive patients (I(2) = 88.4% and 86.7%, respectively). Pooling IMT studies by a Newcastle Ottawa Scale of 5 and 6/7 yielded lower estimates (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.32-0.75, p < 0.0001, I(2) = 58.7% and SMD = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.35-2.09 p < 0.05, I(2) = 48.6%).
CONCLUSIONS
FMD is impaired in BD even in inactive state and IMT is greater despite a degree of statistical heterogeneity that reflects the clinical heterogeneity of BD. Future prospective studies should account for risk stratification of atherosclerosis in BD.
Topics: Atherosclerosis; Behcet Syndrome; Carotid Arteries; Carotid Intima-Media Thickness; Endothelium, Vascular; Humans; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 26239908
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2015.06.018 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Uveitis is a term used to describe a heterogeneous group of intraocular inflammatory diseases of the anterior, intermediate, and posterior uveal tract (iris, ciliary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Uveitis is a term used to describe a heterogeneous group of intraocular inflammatory diseases of the anterior, intermediate, and posterior uveal tract (iris, ciliary body, choroid). Uveitis is the fifth most common cause of vision loss in high-income countries, accounting for 5% to 20% of legal blindness, with the highest incidence of disease in the working-age population.Corticosteroids are the mainstay of acute treatment for all anatomical subtypes of non-infectious uveitis and can be administered orally, topically with drops or ointments, 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) (Issue 10, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2015), PubMed (1948 to November 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to November 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 15 April 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for studies. We last searched the electronic databases on 6 November 2015.We also searched reference lists of included study reports, citation databases, and abstracts and clinical study presentations from professional meetings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials comparing either fluocinolone acetonide (FA) or dexamethasone intravitreal implants with standard-of-care therapy 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
Two review authors independently reviewed studies for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each study.
MAIN RESULTS
We included data from two studies (619 eyes of 401 participants) that compared FA implants with standard-of-care therapy. Both studies used similar standard-of-care therapy that included administration of prednisolone and, if needed, immunosuppressive agents. The studies included participants from Australia, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We assessed both studies at high risk of performance and detection bias.Only one study reported our primary outcome, recurrence of uveitis at any point during the study through 24 months. The evidence, judged as moderate-quality, showed that a FA implant probably prevents recurrence of uveitis compared with standard-of-care therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.59; 132 eyes). Both studies reported safety outcomes, and moderate-quality evidence showed increased risks of needing cataract surgery (RR 2.98, 95% CI 2.33 to 3.79; 371 eyes) and surgery to lower intraocular pressure (RR 7.48, 95% CI 3.94 to 14.19; 599 eyes) in the implant group compared with standard-of-care therapy through two years of follow-up. No studies compared dexamethasone implants with standard-of-care therapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
After considering both benefits and harms reported from two studies in which corticosteroids implants were compared with standard-of-care therapy, we are unable to conclude that the implants are superior to traditional systemic therapy for the treatment of non-infectious uveitis. These studies exhibited heterogeneity in design and outcomes that measured efficacy. Pooled findings regarding safety outcomes suggest increased risks of post-implant surgery for cataract and high intraocular pressure compared with standard-of-care therapy.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Chronic Disease; Drug Implants; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Prednisolone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Standard of Care; Uveitis
PubMed: 26866343
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010469.pub2 -
Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) 2020To systematically review the characteristics of patients with endogenous tuberculous (TB) endophthalmitis and panophthalmitis in an effort to help clinicians with...
PURPOSE
To systematically review the characteristics of patients with endogenous tuberculous (TB) endophthalmitis and panophthalmitis in an effort to help clinicians with diagnosis and treatment.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We conducted a systematic literature search in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science from inception to August 2020. References and abstracts were screened independently by two authors. Included studies were case reports and case series reporting endogenous TB endophthalmitis and panophthalmitis secondary to complex (MTBC). Available-case analysis was employed to handle missing data.
RESULTS
A total of 1343 articles were found using the search strategy. Following abstract screening, 51 articles were selected for full text-review, from which 26 were deemed eligible for inclusion in the study. Forty-four cases from 26 articles were included in the quantitative analysis. The median age of presentation was 29.5 (range: 1 to 81), and 11/44 patients (25.0%) were pediatric. Immunosuppression was seen in 9/36 cases (25.0%). Most patients (24/38, 63.2%) had no prior history of tuberculosis. Systemic symptoms were absent in half of the patients (16/32, 50.0%). Visual acuity was poor, with 23/27 cases (85.2%) being 20/200 or worse at presentation. Poor organ and visual outcomes were reported: 36/43 cases (83.7%) resulted in enucleation/evisceration or exenteration. Intraocular tumors were suspected in 5/34 cases (14.7%). Pulmonary tuberculosis was seen in 15/35 cases (42.8%), and miliary tuberculosis was seen in 7/35 cases (20.0%). The earliest source of TB diagnosis was through histopathologic specimen after eye removal in 32/44 cases (72.7%), vitreous specimen in 6/44 cases (13.6%) and aqueous specimen in 3/44 cases (6.8%).
CONCLUSION
TB endophthalmitis is a rare and sight-threatening manifestation of ocular tuberculosis. It can occur in apparently healthy individuals and can mimic intraocular tumors and other infectious etiologies. Diagnosis remains a significant challenge, which, often delayed, leads to profound visual loss. Early detection and treatment of intraocular tuberculosis may be associated with better ocular and systemic outcomes.
PubMed: 33116360
DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S265521 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis (NIIPPU) represent a heterogenous collection of autoimmune and inflammatory disorders isolated to or concentrated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis (NIIPPU) represent a heterogenous collection of autoimmune and inflammatory disorders isolated to or concentrated in the posterior structures of the eye. Because NIIPPU is typically a chronic condition, people with NIIPPU frequently require treatment with steroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy. Methotrexate, mycophenolate, cyclosporine, azathioprine, and tacrolimus are non-biologic, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) which have been used to treat people with NIIPPU.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of selected DMARDs (methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, and azathioprine) in the treatment of NIIPPU in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, most recently on 16 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selected DMARDs (methotrexate, mycophenolate, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, and azathioprine) with placebo, standard of care (topical steroids, with or without oral steroids), or with each other.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs with a total of 601 participants in this review. DMARDs versus control Two studies compared an experimental DMARD (cyclosporine A or enteric-coated mycophenolate [EC-MPS]) plus oral steroid with steroid monotherapy. We did not pool these results into a meta-analysis because the dose of cyclosporine used was much higher than that used in current clinical practice. The evidence is very uncertain about whether EC-MPS plus low-dose oral steroid results in a higher proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation over steroid monotherapy (risk ratio [RR] 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 7.17; 1 study, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was reported separately for right and left eyes. The evidence for improvement (lower logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) indicates better vision) between the groups is very uncertain (mean difference [MD] -0.03 and -0.10, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.90 and -0.27 to 0.07 for right and left, respectively; 1 study, 82 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for the following outcomes: proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity, with confirmed macular edema, or achieving steroid-sparing control. The evidence for the proportion of participants requiring cessation of medication in the DMARD versus control group is very uncertain (RR 2.61, 95% CI 0.11 to 60.51; 1 study, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Methotrexate versus mycophenolate We were able to combine two studies into a meta-analysis comparing methotrexate versus mycophenolate mofetil. Methotrexate probably results in a slight increase in the proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation, including steroid-sparing control, compared to mycophenolate at six months (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.50; 2 studies, 261 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Change in BCVA was reported per eye and the treatments likely result in little to no difference in change in vision (MD 0.01 logMAR higher [worse] for methotrexate versus mycophenolate; 2 studies, 490 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). No data were available for the proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the proportion of participants with confirmed macular edema between methotrexate versus mycophenolate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.30; 2 studies, 35 eyes; very low-certainty). Methotrexate versus mycophenolate may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants requiring cessation of medication (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.27; 2 studies, 296 participants; low-certainty evidence). Steroids with or without azathioprine versus cyclosporine A Four studies compared steroids with or without azathioprine (oral steroids, intravenous [IV] steroids, or azathioprine) to cyclosporine A. We excluded two studies from the meta-analysis because the participants were treated with 8 mg to 15 mg/kg/day of cyclosporine A, a significantly higher dose than is utilized today because of concerns for nephrotoxicity. The remaining two studies were conducted in all Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease (VKH) populations and compared cyclosporine A to azathioprine or IV pulse-dose steroids. The evidence is very uncertain for whether the steroids with or without azathioprine or cyclosporine A influenced the proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; 2 studies, 112 participants; very low-certainty evidence), achieving steroid-sparing control (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or requiring cessation of medication (RR 0.85, 95% 0.21 to 3.45; 2 studies, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for improvement in BCVA (MD 0.04 logMAR lower [better] with the steroids with or without azathioprine versus cyclosporine A; 2 studies, 91 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available (with current cyclosporine A dosing) for the proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity or with confirmed macular edema. Studies not included in synthesis We were unable to include three studies in any of the comparisons (in addition to the aforementioned studies excluded based on historic doses of cyclosporine A). One was a dose-response study comparing cyclosporine A to cyclosporine G, a formulation which was never licensed and is not clinically available. We excluded another study from meta-analysis because it compared cyclosporine A and tacrolimus, considered to be of the same class (calcineurin inhibitors). We were unable to combine the third study, which examined tacrolimus monotherapy versus tacrolimus plus oral steroid, with any group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a paucity of data regarding which DMARD is most effective or safe in NIIPPU. Studies in general were small, heterogenous in terms of their design and outcome measures, and often did not compare different classes of DMARD with each other. Methotrexate is probably slightly more efficacious than mycophenolate in achieving control of inflammation, including steroid-sparing control (moderate-certainty evidence), although there was insufficient evidence to prefer one medication over the other in the VKH subgroup (very low-certainty evidence). Methotrexate may result in little to no difference in safety outcomes compared to mycophenolate.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Macular Edema; Cyclosporine; Mycophenolic Acid; Tacrolimus; Azathioprine; Methotrexate; Steroids; Immunosuppressive Agents; Panuveitis; Inflammation; Antirheumatic Agents
PubMed: 36315029
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014831.pub2