-
International Ophthalmology Feb 2022To provide an overview of the ocular features of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and of the ophthalmic adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that may be associated with the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To provide an overview of the ocular features of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and of the ophthalmic adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that may be associated with the administration of antirheumatic drugs.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. In addition, a cohort of 489 RA patients who attended the Authors' departments were examined.
RESULTS
Keratoconjunctivitis sicca, episcleritis, scleritis, peripheral ulcerative keratitis (PUK), and anterior uveitis were diagnosed in 29%, 6%, 5%, 2%, and 10%, respectively, of the mentioned cohort. Ocular ADRs to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are rarely reported and include subconjunctival hemorrhages and hemorrhagic retinopathy. In patients taking indomethacin, whorl-like corneal deposits and pigmentary retinopathy have been observed. Glucocorticoids are frequently responsible for posterior subcapsular cataracts and open-angle glaucoma. Methotrexate, the prototype of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), has been associated with the onset of ischemic optic neuropathy, retinal cotton-wool spots, and orbital non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Mild cystoid macular edema and punctate keratitis in patients treated with leflunomide have been occasionally reported. The most frequently occurring ADR of hydroxychloroquine is vortex keratopathy, which may progress to "bull's eye" maculopathy. Patients taking tofacitinib, a synthetic DMARD, more frequently suffer herpes zoster virus (HZV) reactivation, including ophthalmic HZ. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors have been associated with the paradoxical onset or recurrence of uveitis or sarcoidosis, as well as optic neuritis, demyelinating optic neuropathy, chiasmopathy, and oculomotor palsy. Recurrent episodes of PUK, multiple cotton-wool spots, and retinal hemorrhages have occasionally been reported in patients given tocilizumab, that may also be associated with HZV reactivation, possibly involving the eye. Finally, rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, has rarely been associated with necrotizing scleritis, macular edema, and visual impairment.
CONCLUSION
The level of evidence for most of the drug reactions described herein is restricted to the "likely" or "possible" rather than to the "certain" category. However, the lack of biomarkers indicative of the potential risk of ocular ADRs hinders their prevention and emphasizes the need for an accurate risk vs. benefit assessment of these therapies for each patient.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Glaucoma, Open-Angle; Humans; Iatrogenic Disease; Rituximab
PubMed: 34802085
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-021-02058-8 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research 2021Uveitis is the third leading cause of blindness worldwide. This study aimed to summarize the pattern of uveitis in Iran through a systematic review.
PURPOSE
Uveitis is the third leading cause of blindness worldwide. This study aimed to summarize the pattern of uveitis in Iran through a systematic review.
METHODS
This review was conducted according to the guidelines for systematic reviews in the following four steps: literature search, study selection and assessment, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and statistical analysis.
RESULTS
One hundred and fifteen articles were identified by an encyclopedic literature search, and three independent investigators examined them according to the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eventually, 109 manuscripts were retrieved and six cross-sectional studies covering 3,567 patients were included and reviewed. According to the results, the mean age of patients was 40 years, and sex was not a statistically significant predisposing factor. The most common anatomical pattern of involvement was anterior uveitis, and the prevalence of the other three types of uveitis, including middle, posterior, and pan-uveitis, were almost equal. Overall, the most common etiologies of uveitis in the Iranian population were idiopathic uveitis, toxoplasmosis, Behcet's syndrome, and Fuchs heterochromic iridocyclitis.
CONCLUSION
This study depicted the pattern of uveitis in the Iranian society; this can help physicians in the diagnostic approach, management, and treatment of patients.
PubMed: 33520132
DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v16i1.8255 -
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 -
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Aug 2012Uveitis is an autoimmune disease of the eye that refers to any of a number of intraocular inflammatory conditions. Because it is a rare disease, uveitis is often... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Uveitis is an autoimmune disease of the eye that refers to any of a number of intraocular inflammatory conditions. Because it is a rare disease, uveitis is often overlooked, and the possible associations between uveitis and extra-ocular disease manifestations are not well known. The aim of this study was to characterize uveitis in a large sample of patients and to evaluate the relationship between uveitis and systemic diseases.
METHODS
The present study is a cross-sectional study of a cohort of patients with uveitis. Records from consecutive uveitis patients who were seen by the Uveitis Service in the Department of Ophthalmology at the Medical University of Vienna between 1995 and 2009 were selected from the clinical databases. The cases were classified according to the Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature Study Group criteria for Uveitis.
RESULTS
Data were available for 2619 patients, of whom 59.9% suffered from anterior, 14.8% from intermediate, 18.3% from posterior and 7.0% from panuveitis. 37.2% of all cases showed an association between uveitis and extra-organ diseases; diseases with primarily arthritic manifestations were seen in 10.1% of all cases, non-infectious systemic diseases (i.e., Behçet´s disease, sarcoidosis or multiple sclerosis) in 8.4% and infectious uveitis in 18.7%. 49.4% of subjects suffering from anterior uveitis tested positively for the HLA-B27 antigen. In posterior uveitis cases 29% were caused by ocular toxoplasmosis and 17.7% by multifocal choroiditis.
CONCLUSION
Ophthalmologists, rheumatologists, infectiologists, neurologists and general practitioners should be familiar with the differential diagnosis of uveitis. A better interdisciplinary approach could help in tailoring of the work-up, earlier diagnosis of co-existing diseases and management of uveitis patients.
Topics: Age of Onset; Cohort Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Humans; Male; Rare Diseases; Uveitis
PubMed: 22932001
DOI: 10.1186/1750-1172-7-57 -
Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2021Children and adults may develop Behçet's disease (BD), often with ocular involvement such as uveitis. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and type of ocular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Children and adults may develop Behçet's disease (BD), often with ocular involvement such as uveitis. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and type of ocular manifestations in childhood and adult BD.
METHODS
Medline, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to October 5, 2018 to identify publications related to Behçet's disease comprising minimum twenty patients and providing the frequency of ocular manifestations (OC). Random effects models were used to combine the prevalence of OC in adults and children with BD. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I2.
RESULTS
The search resulted in 3129 articles, of which 51 were included in meta-analysis. OCs were slightly more frequent in childhood onset BD with the mean [95% Confidence Interval] frequency of 45 [34-56%] compared to 36 [29-43%] in adults, however, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.198). In both children and adults, posterior uveitis (children 27% vs. adults 25%, and retinal vasculitis in adults 16%) was the most common ocular manifestation, followed by anterior uveitis (children 18% vs. adults 23%). When comparing the distribution of OC in Behcet's in adults, there was geographic variation where OC were higher in Turkey and the Middle East 42%, followed by Europe and North America (36%), North Africa 26% and East Asia 25% but not significantly (p=0.27).
CONCLUSIONS
Ocular manifestations, predominantly uveitis; are common in BD. Ocular manifestations are not proportionately more frequent in adults with BD along the ancient Silk Road.
Topics: Adult; Behcet Syndrome; Child; Humans; Prevalence; Retinal Vasculitis; Uveitis; Uveitis, Posterior
PubMed: 34596037
DOI: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/pt60bc -
Systematic Reviews Jul 2021Ocular toxoplasmosis (OT) is the most common cause of posterior uveitis, which leads to visual impairment in a large proportion of patients. Antibiotics and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ocular toxoplasmosis (OT) is the most common cause of posterior uveitis, which leads to visual impairment in a large proportion of patients. Antibiotics and corticosteroids lower the risk of permanent visual loss by controlling infection and inflammation. However, there remains disagreement regarding optimal antibiotic therapy for OT. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the effects and safety of existing antibiotic treatment regimens for OT.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Gray Literature in Europe ("OpenGrey") were searched for relevant studies; manual searches of reference lists were performed for studies identified by other methods. All published and unpublished randomized controlled trials that compared antibiotic schemes known to be effective in OT at any dosage, duration, and administration route were included. Studies comparing antibiotics with placebo were excluded. This review followed standard methodological procedures recommended by the Cochrane group.
RESULTS
Ten studies were included in the narrative summary, of which four were included for quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). Interventions were organized into three groups: intravitreal clindamycin versus pyrimethamine + sulfadiazine, trimethoprim + sulfamethoxazole versus other antibiotics, and other interventions. The first comparison favored intravitreal clindamycin (Mean difference (MD) = 0.10 logMAR; 95% confidence interval = 0.01 to 0.22). However, this finding lacks clinical relevance. Other outcomes showed no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups. In general, the risk of performance bias was high in evaluated studies, and the quality of the evidence found was low to very low.
CONCLUSIONS
No antibiotic scheme was superior to others, and the selection of a treatment regimen depends on multiple factors; therefore, treatment should be chosen based on safety, sulfa allergies, and availability.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Clindamycin; Europe; Humans; Toxoplasmosis, Ocular
PubMed: 34275483
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01758-7