A randomized clinical trial comparing methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil for noninfectious uveitis

Can Simvastatin Reduce the Need for Immunomodulatory Drugs to Treat Uveitis?: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Objective

To assess the efficacy of simvastatin 80 mg/day versus placebo in patients with noninfectious nonanterior uveitis receiving prednisolone ≥ 10 mg/day.

Design

Randomized, double-masked, controlled trial.

Subjects

Adult patients with noninfectious nonanterior uveitis on oral prednisolone dose of ≥ 10 mg/day.

Methods

Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive either simvastatin 80 mg/day or placebo. A total of 32 patients were enrolled (16 in each arm), all of whom completed the primary end point, and 21 reached the 2-year visit (secondary end points).

Main Outcome Measures

The primary end point was mean reduction in the daily prednisolone dose at 12 months follow-up. Secondary end points were mean reduction in prednisolone dose at 24 months, percent of patients with a reduction in second-line immunomodulatory agents, time to disease relapse, and adverse events.

Results

Our results show that simvastatin 80 mg/day did not have a significant corticosteroid-sparing effect at 12 months (estimate: 3.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.15 to 15.38; P = 0.54). There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to prednisolone dose or change in dose at 12 and 24 months. There was no difference between the 2 groups in percent of patients with reduction in second-line agent by 24 months. Among patients who achieved disease quiescence, the median time to first relapse was longer for those receiving simvastatin (38 weeks, 95% CI: 14-54) than placebo (14 weeks, 95% CI: 12-52), although this was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference in adverse events or serious adverse events between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

Simvastatin 80 mg/day did not have an effect on the dose reduction of corticosteroids or conventional immunomodulatory drugs at 1 and 2 years. The results suggest that it may extend the time to disease relapse among those who achieve disease quiescence.

Financial Disclosures

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Healthcare professionals' views on the most important outcomes for non-infectious uveitis of the posterior segment: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Uveitis comprises a range of conditions that result in intraocular inflammation. Most sight-threatening uveitis falls into the broad category known as Non-infectious Posterior Segment-Involving Uveitis (PSIU). To evaluate treatments, trialists and clinicians must select outcome measures. The aim of this study was to understand healthcare professionals' perspectives on what outcomes are important to adult patients with PSIU and their carers.

METHODS

Twelve semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken to understand the perspectives of healthcare professionals. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Findings were compared with the views of patients and carers and outcomes abstracted from a previously published systematic review.

RESULTS

Eleven core domains were identified as important to healthcare professionals: (1) visual function, (2) symptoms, (3) functional ability, (4) impact on relationships, (5) financial impact, (6) psychological morbidity and emotional well-being (7) psychosocial adjustment to uveitis, (8) doctor / patient / interprofessional relationships and access to health care, (9) treatment burden, (10) treatment side effects, (11) disease control. Healthcare professionals recognised a similar range of domains to patients and carers but placed more emphasis on certain outcomes, particularly in the disease control domain. In contrast the range of outcomes identified via the systematic review was limited.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professionals recognise all of the published outcome domains as patients/carers in the previous publication but with subtly differing emphasis within some domains and with a priority for certain types of measures. Healthcare professionals discussed the disease control and side effects/complications to a greater degree than patients and carers in the focus groups.

Trends in Immunosuppressive Agent Use for Non-Infectious Uveitis by US Ophthalmologists in Medicare Beneficiaries and Association with Physician-Industry Interactions

PURPOSE

To report the trends of immunosuppressive drug use for non-infectious uveitis and explore their relationship with industry payments.

METHODS

A retrospective review of ophthalmologists reimbursed by Medicare for the administration of adalimumab (ADA), repository corticotropin (RCI), methotrexate (MTX), and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) between 2014 and 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 316 ophthalmologists were reimbursed by Medicare for 1567 ADA, 465 RCI, 1752 MTX, and 12 333 MMF administrations. The number and dollar amount of industry payments were positively associated with ADA and RCI use (P < 0.001). From 2014 to 2018, there was a positive trend in the proportion of ADA (P = 0.007) and RCI (P = 0.007) used and negative trend in the proportion of MMF (P = 0.025) used.

CONCLUSION

From 2014 to 2018, the use of ADA and RCI increased while MMF decreased and MTX remained stable. There was a positive association between ADA and RCI use and physician-industry interactions. A causal relationship is not determined.

SER recommendations for the treatment of uveitis

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based expert-consensus recommendations for the management of non-infectious, non-neoplastic, non-demyelinating disease associated uveitis.

METHODS

Clinical research questions relevant to the objective of the document were identified, and reformulated into PICO format (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome) by a panel of experts selected based on their experience in the field. A systematic review of the available evidence was conducted, and evidence was graded according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria. Subsequently, recommendations were developed.

RESULTS

Three PICO questions were constructed referring to uveitis anterior, non-anterior and complicated with macular edema. A total of 19 recommendations were formulated, based on the evidence found and/or expert consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

Here we present the first official recommendations of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology for the treatment of non-infectious and non-demyelinating disease associated uveitis. They can be directly applied to the Spanish healthcare system as a tool for assistance and therapeutic homogenisation.

Rheumatologist's Perspective on Non-Infectious Uveitis: Patterns from Tertiary Referral Rheumatologic Clinics in Italy

Non-infectious uveitis (NIU) can be an early or even the first extra-articular manifestation of systemic rheumatic diseases, or the first one; thus, rheumatologists are often involved in the diagnostic and therapeutic assessment of NIU. We evaluated 130 patients with a diagnosis of NIU who were admitted to two Italian rheumatologic clinics (Tor Vergata University Hospital in Rome, and Federico II University in Naples) from January 2018 to December 2021. Anterior uveitis (AU) occurred in 75.4% of patients, followed by posterior uveitis (PU, 21.5%); acute (54.6%) and recurrent (35.4%) NIU were more documented than chronic NIU (10%), and a bilateral involvement was observed in 38.7% of cases. Half of NIU cases were associated with spondyloarthritis (SpA); the remaining were affected by Behçet disease (BD)-related uveitis (13.9%) and idiopathic NIU (9.2%). HLA-B27⁺ patients (34.8%) had a higher prevalence of anterior and unilateral NIU (p = 0.005) with acute course (p = 0.04) than HLA-B27^- patients. On the contrary, HLA-B51⁺ patients (19.6%) had mostly PU and bilateral NIU (p < 0.0001) and recurrent course (p = 0.04) than HLA-B51^- patients. At the first rheumatologic referral, 117 patients (90%) received systemic treatments. Findings from this study demonstrate that rheumatologic referral has a pivotal role in the diagnostic work-up of NIU and may dramatically influence NIU-treatment strategies.

Glaucoma in Uveitic Eyes: Long-Term Clinical Course and Management Measures

BACKGROUND

The management of glaucoma in uveitis is challenging. A meticulous combination of anti-glaucoma and anti-inflammatory agents is often needed to control the intraocular pressure (IOP) and preserve the visual status in an otherwise blinding disease.

AIM

To study the clinical course and management of glaucoma in uveitic eyes.

METHODS

A retrospective study analyzing the case records of patients over 12 years, referred for the management of uveitic glaucoma in the last two decades.

RESULTS

The analysis of 582 uveitic glaucoma eyes of 389 patients was done, and the mean IOP at baseline was 25.89 (±13.1) mmHg. Non-granulomatous uveitis (102 eyes) was the most common diagnosis. Granulomatous uveitis was the most common diagnosis among the treatment failure eyes and in eyes requiring more than one surgical intervention for glaucoma.

CONCLUSION

An appropriate and adequate combination of anti-inflammatory and IOP-lowering therapy will lead to better clinical outcomes.

Systemic Administration of Acazicolcept, a Dual CD28 and Inducible T cell Costimulator Inhibitor, Ameliorates Experimental Autoimmune Uveitis

Purpose

Combined inhibition of CD28 and inducible T cell costimulator (ICOS) pathways with acazicolcept (ALPN-101) represents a potential new treatment for uveitis. Here, we evaluate preclinical efficacy using experimental autoimmune uveitis (EAU) in Lewis rats.

Methods

Efficacy was tested in 57 Lewis rats treated with either systemic (subcutaneous) or local (intravitreal) administration of acazicolcept and compared to treatment with a matched Fc-only control or corticosteroid. Impact of treatment on uveitis was assessed using clinical scoring, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and histology. Ocular effector T cell populations were determined using flow cytometry, and multiplex ELISA used to measure aqueous cytokine concentrations.

Results

When compared to Fc control treatment, systemic acazicolcept led to statistically significant decreases in clinical score (P < 0.01), histologic score (P < 0.05), and number of ocular CD45+ cells (P < 0.01). Number of ocular CD4+ and CD8+ T cells expressing IL-17A+ and IFNγ+ were also decreased with statistical significance (P < 0.01). Similar results were achieved with corticosteroids. Intravitreal acazicolcept decreased inflammation scores when compared to untreated fellow eyes and to Fc control treated eyes, although not statistically significant. Systemic toxicity, measured by weight loss, occurred in the corticosteroid-treated, but not in the acazicolcept-treated animals.

Conclusions

Systemic treatment with acazicolcept statistically significantly suppressed EAU. Acazicolcept was well-tolerated without the weight loss associated with corticosteroids. Acazicolcept may be an effective alternative to corticosteroids for use in treating autoimmune uveitis. Additional studies are needed to clarify the optimal dose and route for use in humans.

Translational Relevance

We show that T cell costimulatory blockade could be an effective mechanism for treating uveitis.

Non-biologic, steroid-sparing therapies for non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis in adults

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.

A Network of Serum Proteins Predict the Need for Systemic Immunomodulatory Therapy at Diagnosis in Noninfectious Uveitis

Purpose

Early identification of patients with noninfectious uveitis requiring steroid-sparing immunomodulatory therapy (IMT) is currently lacking in objective molecular biomarkers. We evaluated the proteomic signature of patients at the onset of disease and associated proteomic clusters with the need for IMT during the course of the disease.

Design

Multicenter cohort study.

Participants

Two hundred thirty treatment-free patients with active noninfectious uveitis.

Methods

We used aptamer-based proteomics (n = 1305 proteins) and a bioinformatic pipeline as a molecular stratification tool to define the serum protein network of a Dutch discovery cohort (n = 78) of patients and healthy control participants and independently validated our results in another Dutch cohort (n = 111) and a United States cohort (n = 67). Multivariate Cox analysis was used to assess the relationship between the protein network and IMT use.

Main Outcome Measures

Serum protein levels and use of IMT.

Results

Network-based analyses revealed a tightly coexpressed serum cluster (n = 85 proteins) whose concentration was consistently low in healthy control participants (n = 26), but varied among patients with noninfectious uveitis (n = 52). Patients with high levels of the serum cluster at disease onset showed a significantly increased need for IMT during follow-up, independent of anatomic location of uveitis (hazard ratio, 3.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.22–9.5; P = 0.019). The enrichment of neutrophil-associated proteins in the protein cluster led to our finding that the neutrophil count could serve as a clinical proxy for this proteomic signature (correlation: r = 0.57, P = 0.006). In an independent Dutch cohort (n = 111), we confirmed that patients with relatively high neutrophil count at diagnosis (> 5.2 × 10⁹/L) had a significantly increased chance of requiring IMT during follow-up (hazard ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.5–6.8; P = 0.002). We validated these findings in a third cohort of 67 United States patients.

Conclusions

A serum protein signature correlating with neutrophil levels was highly predictive for IMT use in noninfectious uveitis. We developed a routinely available tool that may serve as a novel objective biomarker to aid in clinical decision-making for noninfectious uveitis.

Treatment Outcomes in Birdshot Chorioretinitis: Corticosteroid Sparing, Corticosteroid Discontinuation, Remission, and Relapse

PURPOSE

To describe treatment-related outcomes among patients with birdshot chorioretinitis (BSCR).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients diagnosed with BSCR at 2 tertiary care academic medical centers.

METHODS

Clinical and treatment-related data were collected for all patients with BSCR diagnosed between 2003 and 2017 at the 2 centers and for each eye at each clinical visit.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Four outcomes were considered: (1) corticosteroid-sparing success, defined as inactive disease and prednisone dose of ≤7.5 mg/day; (2) corticosteroid-discontinuation success, defined as inactive disease and discontinuation of prednisone; (3) sustained drug-free remission, defined as inactive disease off all medications for ≥3 months; and (4) relapse of BSCR after remission.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients with BSCR were identified, of whom 94 had follow-up data. Corticosteroid-sparing success was achieved in 95.4% of the oral corticosteroid-treated patients at a rate of 0.60 successes per person-year (PY) (95% CI: 0.50/PY, 0.70/PY). The median time to corticosteroid-sparing success was 12 months. Corticosteroids were discontinued successfully in 76.5% of oral corticosteroid-treated patients (rate = 0.28/PY; 95% CI: 0.21/PY, 0.35/PY). The median time to successful corticosteroid discontinuation was 2.0 years. A sustained drug-free remission was achieved in 24 patients (rate = 0.06/PY; 95% CI: 0.04/PY, 0.09/PY), with approximately 25% of patients achieving remission by 4 years of follow-up. Relapse of inflammation in patients after achieving a sustained, drug-free remission occurred at a rate of 0.24/PY (95% CI: 0.14/PY, 0.37/PY).

CONCLUSIONS

Successful corticosteroid sparing and discontinuation was achieved in the majority of patients with BSCR. Remission occurred less often, but data were limited by the time needed to induce a remission (4 years) and the amount of follow-up (median, 4.6 years). The relapse rate after a remission was 0.24/PY.

Clinical course and outcome in pediatric idiopathic chronic anterior uveitis

PURPOSE

To examine the clinical course and outcome in children with idiopathic chronic anterior uveitis (iCAU) and compare the results with age-matched children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis (JIA-U).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

Data regarding ocular complications, visual acuity, and systemic treatment were retrospectively collected for two patient groups that were matched regarding age and year of uveitis diagnosis. Outcome was evaluated using survival analysis.

RESULTS

The iCAU and JIA-U groups included 48 patients with 83 affected eyes and 48 patients with 73 affected eyes, respectively. Multivariate analyses showed that iCAU was associated with a higher prevalence of posterior synechiae (adjusted hazard rate [aHR]: 3.63; P < 0.001) and cataract surgery (aHR: 2.90; P = 0.006). Baseline visual acuity was worse in the iCAU group compared to the JIA-U group (20/25 vs. 20/20, respectively; P < 0.001), but improved in the iCAU group after 5 years (20/20 vs. 20/20, respectively; P = 0.052). At the 5-year follow-up, the younger children with iCAU (≤8 years of age at diagnosis) had a higher prevalence of posterior synechiae (aHR: 2.56; P = 0.007), secondary glaucoma (aHR: 16.0; P = 0.020), and cataract surgery (aHR: 4.79; P = 0.004) compared to older children with iCAU (≥9 years at diagnosis).

CONCLUSIONS

Vision-threatening ocular complications are more common in children with iCAU compared to children with JIA-U, particularly in cases in which the onset of uveitis occurred at ≤8 years of age. However, the long-term vision of these children can be improved with adequate treatment.

Efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of methotrexate, adalimumab or their combination in non-infectious non-anterior uveitis: a protocol for a multicentre, randomised, parallel three arms, active-controlled, phase III open label with blinded outcome assessment study

INTRODUCTION

Non-infectious uveitis include a heterogeneous group of sight-threatening and incapacitating conditions. Their correct management sometimes requires the use of immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs), prescribed in monotherapy or in combination. Several observational studies showed that the use of ISDs in combination could be more effective than and as safe as their use in monotherapy. However, a direct comparison between these two treatment strategies has not been carried out yet.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Combination THerapy with mEthotrexate and adalImumAb for uveitis (CoTHEIA) study is a phase III, multicentre, prospective, randomised, single-blinded with masked outcome assessment, parallel three arms with 1:1:1 allocation, active-controlled, superiority study design, comparing the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of methotrexate, adalimumab or their combination in non-infectious non-anterior uveitis. We aim to recruit 192 subjects. The duration of the treatment and follow-up will last up to 52 weeks, plus 70 days follow-up with no treatment. The complete and maintained resolution of the ocular inflammation will be assessed by masked evaluators (primary outcome). In addition to other secondary measurements of efficacy (quality of life, visual acuity and costs) and safety, we will identify subjects' subgroups with different treatment responses by developing prediction models based on machine learning techniques using genetic and proteomic biomarkers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol, annexes and informed consent forms were approved by the Reference Clinical Research Ethic Committee at the Hospital Clínico San Carlos (Madrid, Spain) and the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Products. We will elaborate a dissemination plan including production of materials adapted to several formats to communicate the clinical trial progress and findings to a broad group of stakeholders. The promoter will be the only access to the participant-level data, although it can be shared within the legal situation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

2020-000130-18; NCT04798755.

Mycophenolate versus Methotrexate in Non-infectious Ocular Inflammatory Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus methotrexate (MTX) in non-infectious ocular inflammatory disease (NIOID).

METHODS

The study was performed as per the PRISMA Guidelines. A search identified all studies comparing MMF versus MTX in NIOID. Treatment result and side effects were primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Four studies enrolling 905 patients were identified. There was no significant difference between MMF and MTX groups in overall treatment success (OR = 0.97, P = .96), treatment failure (OR = 0.86, P = .85). MTX showed a significantly improved effect in cases involving posterior uveitis and panuveitis (OR = 0.41, P = .003). In addition, MTX was associated with a faster median time to treatment success and had less side effects when compared to MTX, however this was not significant. For secondary outcomes, no significant difference was found in visual acuity and resolution of macular oedema.

CONCLUSION

MMF is comparable to MTX in the treatment of NIOID.

Outcomes of uveitic macular edema in the First-line Antimetabolites as Steroid-sparing Treatment (FAST) Uveitis Trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes of uveitic macular edema at 6 months and 12 months in patients treated with methotrexate or mycophenolate mofetil.

DESIGN

Subanalysis of a block-randomized, observer-masked, multi-center clinical trial.

SUBJECTS/PARTICIPANTS

Patients were enrolled into the First-line Antimetabolites as Steroid-sparing Treatment (FAST) uveitis trial between August 2013 and August 2017.

METHODS/INTERVENTION/TESTING

Patients were randomized to oral methotrexate 25mg weekly or mycophenolate mofetil 1.5g twice daily for 12 months, along with a corticosteroid taper. In addition to standardized clinical examination, all patients underwent spectral domain optical coherence tomography imaging at each visit. At the 6-month primary endpoint, patients who achieved treatment success continued the same treatment for a subsequent 6 months and treatment failures switched to the other treatment group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pre-specified primary outcome at 6 months and 12 months outcomes of central subfield thickness and visual acuity.

RESULTS

Of 216 patients in the FAST Trial, 42 eyes of 30 patients in the methotrexate group and 55 eyes of 41 patients in the mycophenolate group had uveitic macular edema. Baseline median central subfield thickness was 359μm and 342μm in the methotrexate and mycophenolate groups, respectively. At 12 months, for those who stayed on the same treatment, macular thickness decreased from baseline by 23 μm (IQR, -39.0 to 13) and 18 μm (IQR, -68.5 to 9), in the methotrexate and mycophenolate groups, respectively, (P=0.76). In patients who switched treatment at 6 months, macular thickness decreased from baseline by 12.5 μm (IQR, -29.8 to -2.3) and 92 μm (IQR, -240 to -18) in the methotrexate and mycophenolate groups, respectively, (P=0.23). At 12 months, 7/19 (37%) eyes on methotrexate had resolution of macular edema compared to 15/25 (60%) eyes on mycophenolate (P=0.10). For those that switched treatments, 8/17 (47%) eyes on methotrexate and 6/11 (55%) eyes on mycophenolate had improvement of macular edema, (P=0.92) CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with methotrexate or mycophenolate mofetil for uveitic macular edema results in similar improvements in macular thickness at 6 and 12 months. At 12 months, approximately half of eyes in each antimetabolite group still had persistent macular edema.

Methotrexate Effectively Controls Ocular Inflammation in Japanese Patients With Non-infectious Uveitis

This single-center retrospective study investigated the clinical characteristics and efficacy of methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of non-infectious uveitis for more than 6 months at Hiroshima University, from February 2016 to May 2021. Outcome variables included changes in systemic immunosuppressive treatment and intraocular inflammation. Out of 448 patients with non-infectious uveitis, 35 patients (14 male patients and 21 female patients; 65 eyes) treated with MTX for more than 6 months were analyzed. There were 15 patients with anterior uveitis and 20 with posterior and panuveitis. The mean dose of systemic corticosteroids decreased from 12.1 mg/day at baseline to 1.3 mg/day at 6 months and 0.6 mg at 12 months after starting MTX, and approximately 90% of patients were corticosteroid-free at 12 months. The percentage of eyes with inactive uveitis at 6, 12, and 24 months was 49.2%, 59.6%, and 90.0%, respectively. Mean relapse rate score also significantly decreased from 2.88 at baseline to 0.85 at 12 months (p < 0.001). Inflammatory control was achieved with MTX doses of 8-16 mg/week, with a median dose of 12 mg/week. Adverse effects of MTX were observed in 34.3% of patients, and 11.4% required discontinuation; most commonly hepatotoxicity (58.3%), followed by fatigue (25.0%), and hair loss (16.7%). No significant differences were found between the survival curves of patients with anterior uveitis and posterior/panuveitis (Wilcoxon rank-sum test). The percentage of eyes without IOP-lowering eye drops was significantly higher in patients with posterior/panuveitis at 24 months (p = 0.001). Our study suggests that MTX is effective in controlling ocular inflammation for Japanese patients with non-infectious uveitis. Relatively high incidence of MTX-related adverse effects in the Japanese population indicates that careful monitoring and dose adjustments are crucial for the long-term use of this therapy.

Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor α versus Tocilizumab in the Treatment of Refractory Uveitic Macular Edema: A Multicenter Study from the French Uveitis Network

PURPOSE

To analyze the factors associated with response (control of ocular inflammation and corticosteroid-sparing effect) to biologics (anti-tumor necrosis factor [TNF]-α agents and tocilizumab) in patients with refractory uveitic macular edema (ME).

DESIGN

Multicenter, retrospective, observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with uveitic ME refractory to systemic corticosteroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or both.

METHODS

Patients received anti-TNF-α agents (infliximab 5 mg/kg at week 0, 2, 6, and every 4-6 weeks [n = 69] and adalimumab 40 mg/2 weeks [n = 80]) and tocilizumab (8 mg/kg every 4 weeks intravenously [n = 39] and 162 mg/week subcutaneously [n = 16]).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Analysis of complete and partial response rates, relapse rate, low vision (visual acuity in at least 1 eye of ≥ 1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution), corticosteroid-sparing effect, and adverse events at 6 months.

RESULTS

Two hundred four patients (median age, 40 years [interquartile range, 28-58 years]; 42.2% men) were included. Main causes of uveitis included Behçet's disease (17.2%), birdshot chorioretinopathy (11.3%), and sarcoidosis (7.4%). The overall response rate at 6 months was 46.2% (21.8% of complete response) with anti-TNF-α agents and 58.5% (35.8% of complete response) with tocilizumab. In multivariate analysis, treatment with tocilizumab (odds ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-4.06; P = 0.03) was associated independently with complete response of uveitic ME compared with anti-TNF-α agents. Anti-TNF-α agents and tocilizumab did not differ significantly in terms of relapse rate (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.31-3.18; P = 0.99) or occurrence of low vision (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.51-2.07; P = 0.95) or corticosteroid-sparing effect (P = 0.29). Adverse events were reported in 20.6% of patients, including serious adverse events reported in 10.8% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Tocilizumab seems to improve complete response of uveitic ME compared with anti-TNF-α agents.

Ocular Manifestations of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is characterized by intestinal inflammation; however, it is also known to have extraintestinal manifestations. Ocular manifestations of IBD include keratopathy, episcleritis, scleritis, and uveitis and are among the most common extraintestinal manifestations. These diseases can lead to significant ocular morbidity if unrecognized and left untreated. A review of the literature was performed on PubMed and is summarized and critically appraised in this article with the aim being to describe the varying ocular manifestations of IBD and outlining their treatments. Ultimately, a framework is provided to investigate ocular symptoms in patients with IBD. An ocular review of systems is also provided as a tool to equip gastroenterologists and internal medicine physicians to be able to recognize and triage ocular complaints appropriately.

Adalimumab in patients with vision-threatening uveitis: real-world clinical experience

Objectives

Biologics are rapidly emerging as an effective vision saving addition to systemic uveitis therapy. The aim of this multicentre retrospective study is to review the outcomes of a large group of patients treated with adalimumab.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of patients with refractory non-infectious, active uveitis treated with adalimumab was conducted. The main outcome measures were ability to reduce prednisolone dose, ability to control uveitis, final visual acuity and time to treatment failure.

Results

Forty-six patients with uveitis, treated with adalimumab were included in the study. The most common anatomical uveitis phenotype was panuveitis (n=17, 37.0%). The most common diagnosis was idiopathic uveitis (n=19, 41.3%). At their latest review (mean: 4.46 years; median 4.40 years), 35 (76.1%) patients were able to discontinue corticosteroids, 11 (23.9%) patients were able to taper to <7.5 mg/day and only 1 (2.2%) patient required 10 mg of prednisone. The mean visual acuity at the latest follow-up of the worse eye was logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) 0.42 (SD 0.72), while the mean visual acuity of the better eye was logMAR 0.19 (SD 0.34). Of the 89 eyes, 21 (23.6%) eyes improved by at least 2 lines, 5 eyes (5.6%) deteriorated by ≥2 lines while vision was unchanged in the remaining 63 (70.8%) eyes. The time to recurrence was 1 in 12.47 person-years for adalimumab, with a 17.4% (8 patient) relapse rate. There were no serious adverse events.

Conclusions

This study highlights the efficacy of adalimumab in patients with vision-threatening non-infectious uveitis, preserving vision and allowing reduction of corticosteroid dose.

Systemic Immunosuppression in Cornea and Ocular Surface Disorders: A Ready Reckoner for Ophthalmologists

Purpose: Many diseases of the cornea and ocular surface are manifestations of an underlying autoimmune process and require systemic immunosuppression for their management. These cases often present to a general ophthalmologist before being referred to an ocular immunologist or rheumatologist. However, the patients do need to be followed by the ophthalmologist to assess disease progression or for management of ocular co-morbidities and for taking care of ocular complications of the disease. Undeniably, there is a certain hesitance to promptly initiate them on systemic therapy because the literature regarding the indications, dosages, and side effects of this group of drugs is vast and dispersed.The aim of this review is to provide a source of ready reference for the general ophthalmologist as well as trainees and residents, on systemic immunosuppression for corneal and ocular surface disease. Methods: This review included 153 studies which were published as randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or as nonrandomized comparative studies (cohort or case-control series) on the topic of systemic immunosuppression in cornea and ocular surface disorders.Results: This review provides a concise summary of both the types of drugs and the common indications where they would be indicated, along with treatment and monitoring algorithms for each specific disease condition. The most used group of drugs are corticosteroids, which have significant side effects, particularly when administered systemically or for longer periods of time. To overcome this, steroid-sparing immunosuppressants are recommended. The four main classes of immunosuppressants used today are antimetabolites, T-cell inhibitors, alkylating agents and biologic agents. This review details the use of these drugs in ocular surface inflammation, including the dosing schedule, side effects and monitoring in allergic conjunctivitis, mucous membrane pemphigoid, peripheral ulcerative keratitis, immunological rejection against corneal allografts, anterior scleritis and aqueous deficiency dry eyes. Conclusions: This review provides an uncluttered and wholesome understanding of systemic immunosuppression in cornea and ocular surface diseases, with the hope that this will serve as a ready reckoner and help bridge the gap between ophthalmology and rheumatology for the betterment of our patients.

Perspectives for immunotherapy in noninfectious immune mediated uveitis

Introduction: Noninfectious uveitis (NIU) is one of the leading causes of blindness worldwide. In adult patients, anterior NIU is usually managed with topical corticosteroids. In intermediate, posterior uveitis. and panuveitis, systemic corticosteroids are used especially in case of bilaterality or association with systemic disease. Biotherapies are recommended in case of inefficacy or intolerance to corticosteroids or conventional immunosuppressive drugs. Anti-TNF-α agents are by far the most widely used biotherapies. In case of failure or poor tolerance to anti-TNF-α, new targeted therapies can be proposed.Areas covered: We present and discuss an updated overview on biologics and biotherapies in NIU.Expert opinion: In case of dependency to systemic or intravitreal steroids, sight-threatening disease, and/or failure of conventional immunosuppressive drugs, anti-TNF-α are used as first-line biologics to achieve quiescence of inflammation. Anti-interleukin-6 is another option that may be proposed as first-line biologic or in case of poor efficacy of anti-TNF-α. Interferon can be directly proposed in specific indications (e.g. refractory macular edema, sight-threatening Behçet's uveitis). In the rare cases that remain unresponsive to traditional biotherapies, novel molecules, such as Janus-associated-kinase and anti-phosphodiesterase-4-inhibitors can be used. Therapeutic response must always be evaluated by clinical and appropriate ancillary investigations.

Uveitis for the non-ophthalmologist

The uveitides are a heterogeneous group of diseases characterized by inflammation inside the eye. The uveitides are classified as infectious or non-infectious. The non-infectious uveitides, which are presumed to be immune mediated, can be further divided into those that are associated with a known systemic disease and those that are eye limited,-ie, not associated with a systemic disease. The ophthalmologist identifies the specific uveitic entity by medical history, clinical examination, and ocular imaging, as well as supplemental laboratory testing, if indicated. Treatment of the infectious uveitides is tailored to the particular infectious organism and may include regional and/or systemic medication. First line treatment for non-infectious uveitides is corticosteroids that can be administered topically, as regional injections or surgical implants, or systemically. Systemic immunosuppressive therapy is used in patients with severe disease who cannot tolerate corticosteroids, require chronic corticosteroids at >7.5 mg/day prednisone, or in whom the disease is known to respond better to immunosuppression. Management of many of these diseases is optimized by coordination between the ophthalmologist and rheumatologist or internist.

Recommendations statement on the immunosuppressive treatment of non-infectious, non-neoplastic, non-anterior uveitis

OBJECTIVE

To generate recommendations on the use of immunomodulators in patients with non-infectious, non-neoplastic intermediate uveitis (IU), posterior uveitis (PU) and panuveitis (PanU) based on best evidence and experience.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of 5 experts was established, who defined the scope, users, and sections of the document. A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory drugs in patients with non-infectious, non-neoplastic, non-anterior uveitis. The results of the SLR were presented and discussed during an expert meeting in which 34 recommendations were generated. The level of agreement with the recommendations was also tested in 25 additional experts following a Delphi process. Recommendations were voted from 1 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement). We defined agreement if at least 70% of the experts voted ≥7. The level of evidence and grade or recommendation were assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence.

RESULTS

The SLR included 33 articles. The 34 recommendations were accepted after 2 Delphi rounds (3 of them were modified after the first round). They include specific recommendations on patients with non-infectious, non-neoplastic, PU and PanU, as well as different treatment guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with non-infectious, non-neoplastic, non-anterior uveitis these recommendations might help treatment decision making, due to the lack of robust evidence or other globally accepted algorithms.

Efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory drugs in patients with non-infectious intermediate and posterior uveitis, panuveitis and macular edema: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Non-infectious non-anterior uveitis (NINA) is a sight-threatening condition that often requires immunomodulatory drugs (IMDs) for its management.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the published evidence regarding the use of IMDs in adult patients with NINA uveitis including intermediate (IU) and posterior uveitis (PU), panuveitis (PanU) and macular edema (ME).

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review. Search strategies were designed for Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Libraries for articles up to 2019 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the IMDs. A quality assessment was performed using the Jadad Scale.

RESULTS

Nineteen randomized clinical trials were selected from the 1,103 articles retrieved. Characteristics of patients, treatment dosages and outcome measures were heterogeneous. The outcomes most frequently analyzed were visual acuity (VA), macular thickness and vitreous haze (VH). Different IMDs were used at their usual dosages. Methotrexate (MTX), micophenolate mofetil, cyclosporine A (CsA), tacrolimus, adalimumab and sarilumab were effective in NINA uveitis. Rituximab combined with MTX was effective in PU. Interferon-β was superior to MTX, albeit with more adverse events in IU with ME. CsA was similar to cyclophosphamide (Cyc) in Behçet uveitis. Tacrolimus was safer and similar to CsA. Cyc was effective in serpiginoid choroiditis, but when combined with azathioprine in PU, but did not improve VA. Secukinumab did not prevent NINA uveitis recurrences, although intravenously it showed a higher response rate than when used subcutaneously. Daclizumab did not show any benefits in Behçet NINA uveitis.

CONCLUSION

Several IMDs and their combinations can be useful in treating NINA uveitis. The available studies were heterogeneous regarding patient characteristics and outcomes.

A Review of Clinical Applications and Side Effects of Methotrexate in Ophthalmology

Methotrexate (MTX) is a folate analog widely used against a range of diseases including malignancies and autoimmune disorders. Its high effectiveness-price ratio also won extensive application in ophthalmology. On the other hand, although MTX has an excellent pharmacological efficacy, MTX associated side effects in clinical use, which vary from patient to patient, are nonnegligible. There is no comparatively systematic review on MTX associated side effects and its risk factors. This review aimed to reveal novel clinical approaches of MTX and its adverse effects in order to provide a reference for ophthalmic scholars in clinical application of MTX.

Ocular sarcoidosis: clinical experience and recent pathogenetic and therapeutic advancements

Purpose

To describe the ocular manifestations in a cohort of patients with systemic sarcoidosis (SS). Recent advances in the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and therapy of SS are also discussed.

Methods

Data from 115 Italian patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. All but the first 17 patients underwent a comprehensive ophthalmologic examination. The diagnosis was based on clinical features, the demonstration of non-caseating granulomas in biopsies from involved organs, and multiple imaging techniques. Data on broncho-alveolar lavage fluid analysis, calcemia, calciuria, serum angiotensin-converting enzyme levels and soluble interleukin-2 receptor levels were retrieved when available.

Results

Ocular involvement, detected in 33 patients (28.7%), was bilateral in 29 (87.9%) and the presenting feature in 13 (39.4%). Anterior uveitis was diagnosed in 12 patients (36.4%), Löfgren syndrome and uveoparotid fever in one patient each (3%), intermediate uveitis in 3 patients (9.1%), posterior uveitis in 7 (21.2%), and panuveitis in 9 (27.3%). First-line therapy consisted of corticosteroids, administered as eyedrops (10 patients), sub-Tenon’s injections (1 patient), intravitreal implants (9 patients), or systemically (23 patients). Second-line therapy consisted of steroid-sparing immunosuppressants, including methotrexate (10 patients) and azathioprine (10 patients). Based on pathogenetic indications that tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α is a central mediator of granuloma formation, adalimumab, targeting TNF-α, was employed in 6 patients as a third-line agent for severe/refractory chronic sarcoidosis.

Conclusion

Uveitis of protean type, onset, duration, and course remains the most frequent ocular manifestation of SS. Diagnostic and therapeutic advancements have remarkably improved the overall visual prognosis. An ophthalmologist should be a constant component in the multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of this often challenging but intriguing disease.

Comparison of conventional immunosuppressive drugs versus anti-TNF-α agents in non-infectious non-anterior uveitis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and anti-TNF-α agents in patients with non-infectious non-anterior uveitis.

METHODS

Single center retrospective study including adult patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or pan-uveitis. Outcomes were compared between patients treated with DMARDs or anti-TNF-α agents. The primary outcome was treatment failure or occurrence of serious adverse events. Treatment failure was determined by ophthalmologic criteria.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients were included, mostly female (52%). Among them, 39 were treated with DMARDs and 34 with anti-TNF-α agents. The main uveitis causes were idiopathic (30%), birdshot chorio-retinopathy (25%), sarcoidosis (16%) and Behçet's disease (14%). The primary outcome was observed in 56% of patients treated with anti-TNF-α agents versus 59% of patients treated with DMARDs (p = 0.82). Median time to observe the primary outcome was 16 months (anti-TNF-α group) versus 21 months (p = 0.52). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of treatment failure, corticosteroid sparing effect, visual acuity improvement or adverse events. Earlier control of ocular inflammation was achieved with anti-TNF-α agents than with DMARDs (p = 0.006). In relapsing patients, anti-TNF-α agents allowed better corticosteroid sparing (p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

DMARDs could still be used as first-line therapy for non-infectious non-anterior uveitis after corticosteroid therapy. However, anti-TNF-α agents could be proposed as an alternative in cases of severe inflammation or initial high level of steroid dependency.

Systemic safety analysis of mycophenolate in Graves' orbitopathy

PURPOSE

The dual antiproliferative mechanism of mycophenolate appears to be beneficial in Graves' orbitopathy (GO).

METHODS

Safety data from the two published mycophenolate trials and the original database of the European Group on Graves' Orbitopathy (EUGOGO) trial were systematically analyzed. Treatment efficacy stratified by individual visual parameters of activity and severity were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 129 adverse events (AE) involving 50 patients (29.4%) were noted among all mycophenolate-treated patients. Mycophenolate sodium plus intravenous glucocorticoid (MPS + GC) group of the EUGOGO trial recorded significantly more AE (55.4% versus 4.6% of patients affected) and serious adverse events (SAE) (12.5% versus 0%) than mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) group of the Chinese trial. None of those SAE was side effect (SE). Most SE in MPS + GC group were mild. Gastrointestinal disorders, infection and liver dysfunction affected 8.8%, 7.1% and 1.2% of all mycophenolate-treated patients (versus 5.4%, 5.4% and 1.2% of all patients on GC monotherapy, respectively). MPS + GC did not significantly increase the risk of infection or liver dysfunction when compared to GC monotherapy. No cytopenia, serious infection or treatment-related mortality was reported. The much higher AE rates of mycophenolate trials in other autoimmune diseases or transplantations suggested that major mycophenolate toxicities were mostly dose- and duration dependent. Mycophenolate, either as monotherapy or as combination, achieved better overall response than GC monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The risk-benefit ratio of low-dose mycophenolate treatment in active moderate-to-severe GO is highly favorable given its reassuring safety profile with low rate of mild-to-moderate SE and promising efficacy.

New therapies in development for the management of non-infectious uveitis: A review

Uveitis is a spectrum of inflammatory disorders characterized by ocular inflammation and is one of the leading causes of preventable visual loss. The main aim of the treatment of uveitis is to control the inflammation, prevent recurrences of the disease and preserve vision while minimizing the adverse effects associated with the therapeutic agents. Initial management of uveitis relies heavily on the use of corticosteroids. However, monotherapy with high-dose corticosteroids is associated with side effects and cannot be maintained long term. Therefore, steroid-sparing agents are needed to decrease the burden of steroid therapy. Currently, the therapeutic approach for non-infectious uveitis (NIU) consists of a step-ladder strategy with the first-line option being corticosteroids in various formulations followed by the use of first-, second- and third-line agents in cases with suboptimal steroid response. Unfortunately, the agents currently at our disposal have limitations such as having a narrow therapeutic window along with their own individual potential side-effect profiles. Therefore, research has been targeted to identify newer drugs as well as new uses for older drugs that target specific pathways in the inflammatory response. Such efforts are made in order to provide targeted and safer therapy with reduced side effects and greater efficacy. Several specially designed molecular antibodies are currently in various phases of investigations that can potentially halt the inflammation in patients with NIU. In the review, we have provided a comprehensive overview of the current and upcoming therapeutic options for patients with NIU.

Safety of systemic therapy for noninfectious uveitis

Introduction: The treatment strategies for noninfectious uveitis (NIU) aim to achieve disease remission, prevention of recurrences, and preserving vision, while minimizing the side effects associated with the therapies used.Areas covered: The index review aims to provide a detailed overview of the adverse events and safety parameters associated with the systemic therapies for the management of the NIU.Expert opinion: Despite being the cornerstone of management of acute cases of NIU, long-term corticosteroid use is associated with multi-system side effects, requiring the use of steroid-sparing agents. Adalimumab was recently approved by the FDA for the management of NIU based on the results of VISUAL studies. Similarly, newer drugs targeting various aspects of the inflammatory cascade are being developed. However, until we completely understand the molecular pathways of the inflammatory diseases, the therapeutic profile of these newer agents needs to be broad enough to suppress inflammatory cascade and narrow enough to spare normal cellular processes. Another strategy that has shown some potential in decreasing the systemic side effects is to provide local drug delivery. Therefore, the future of management of NIU is very bright with many novel therapeutic agents and strategies of drug delivery on the horizon.

Comparison Between Methotrexate and Mycophenolate Mofetil Monotherapy for the Control of Noninfectious Ocular Inflammatory Diseases

PURPOSE

To compare mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to methotrexate (MTX) as corticosteroid-sparing therapy for ocular inflammatory diseases.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of cohort study data.

METHODS

Participants were identified from the Systemic Immunosuppressive Therapy for Eye Diseases Cohort Study. Demographic and clinical characteristics were obtained via medical record review. The study included 352 patients who were taking single-agent immunosuppression with MTX or MMF at 4 tertiary uveitis clinics. Marginal structural models (MSM)-derived statistical weighting created a virtual population with covariates and censoring patterns balanced across alternative treatments. With this methodological approach, the results estimate what would have happened had none of the patients stopped their treatment. Survival analysis with stabilized MSM-derived weights simulated a clinical trial comparing MMF vs MTX for noninfectious inflammatory eye disorders. The primary outcome was complete control of inflammation on prednisone ≤10 mg/day, sustained for ≥30 days.

RESULTS

The time to success was shorter (more favorable) for MMF than MTX (hazard ratio = 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.99). Adjusting for covariates, the proportion achieving success was higher at every point in time for MMF than MTX from 2 to 8 months, then converges at 9 months. The onset of corticosteroid-sparing success took more than 3 months for most patients in both groups. Outcomes of treatment (MMF vs MTX) were similar across all anatomic sites of inflammation. The incidence of stopping therapy for toxicity was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that, on average, MMF may be faster than MTX in achieving corticosteroid-sparing success in ocular inflammatory diseases.

Association Between Noninfectious Uveitis and Psychological Stress

Importance

Uveitis involves dysregulation of the ocular immune system. Stress has been shown to affect immune function, but it is unclear whether there is an association between stress and uveitis.

Objective

To determine whether having uveitis is associated with psychological stress.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cross-sectional, case-control study including a self-administered survey, medical records review, and diurnal salivary cortisol test was conducted at a university-based uveitis clinic and comprehensive eye clinic. Participants included 146 consecutive adults with noninfectious uveitis and age-matched controls with no eye disease. The study was conducted from December 1, 2017, to March 14, 2018.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Participants completed the self-administered, Cohen 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), a demographics questionnaire. Responses to each question were categorized on a 5-point Likert scale, with total scores ranging from 0 (no stress) to 40 (high stress). In addition, participants submitted 3 salivary cortisol samples. Those with uveitis were classified as having recently active or controlled disease through medical records review. The prespecified primary analysis was a linear regression of PSS-10 score and uveitis correcting for age, sex, educational level, employment, and median income. Secondary analyses included comparing PSS-10 scores in patients with recently active and controlled uveitis, determining predictors of stress, and comparing diurnal salivary cortisol between uveitis and control groups.

Results

Of 146 eligible patients, 17 declined participation and 9 consented but were excluded because they did not complete both questionnaires, resulting in 120 patients (80 uveitis; 40 controls) in the final analysis. Eighty participants (66.7%) were women, and 70 (58.3%) were white. Median age was 40 years (interquartile range, 29-59 years). Having uveitis was associated with a 4.3-point increase in PSS-10 score (95% CI, 1.8 to 6.9; P = .002). There was no significant difference in PSS-10 scores between patients with recently active and controlled uveitis (1.0 point greater for patients with active uveitis; 95% CI, -2.0 to 3.9; P = .52). Factors associated with increased PSS-10 score in patients with uveitis included female sex (coefficient, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.6 to 6.5; P = .002), current immunomodulatory therapy (coefficient, 2.5; 95% CI, -0.3 to 5.2; P = .08), history of depression (coefficient, 3.8; 95% CI, 0.8 to 6.8; P = .02), and having posterior or panuveitis (coefficient, 2.6; 95% CI, 0.8 to 4.4; P = .006). Of the 70 participants (58.3%) who had testable samples for cortisol analysis, diurnal salivary cortisol levels did not significantly differ between uveitis and nonuveitis groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that patients with uveitis have higher levels of psychological stress compared with controls, yet no significant difference was identified in the stress of patients with active vs controlled uveitis. Consequently, comprehensive treatment for noninfectious uveitis may be able to address the psychological results of this disease.

Emerging drugs for the treatment of noninfectious uveitis

Introduction: Uveitis is a leading cause of visual impairment and a significant burden of blindness. Although corticosteroids and conventional immunosuppressive agents have been successfully used, these are non-specific, and their long-term use may induce significant adverse effects. Areas covered: This article discusses existing local and systemic applied treatments for ocular inflammation including corticosteroids, non-biologic, and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD). Potential drugs being studied in clinical trials are introduced for both local and systemic use. Expert opinion: Treatment options for uveitis continue to expand. Still, more efforts and research are needed to better understand the mechanisms potentially leading to clinical trials.

Effect of Corticosteroid-Sparing Treatment With Mycophenolate Mofetil vs Methotrexate on Inflammation in Patients With Uveitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil are commonly used immunomodulatory therapies for achieving corticosteroid-sparing control of noninfectious uveitis, but there is uncertainty about which drug is more effective.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of methotrexate and mycophenolate for achieving corticosteroid-sparing control of noninfectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, and panuveitis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The First-line Antimetabolites as Steroid-sparing Treatment (FAST) uveitis trial screened 265 adults with noninfectious uveitis requiring corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy from 9 referral eye centers in India, the United States, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico between August 22, 2013, and August 16, 2017. Follow-up ended on August 20, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive oral methotrexate, 25 mg weekly (n = 107), or oral mycophenolate mofetil, 3 g daily (n = 109).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was treatment success at 6 months, which was defined as having control of inflammation in both eyes, no more than 7.5 mg prednisone daily and less than or equal to 2 drops of prednisolone acetate 1%, and no treatment failure due to safety or intolerability. Patients underwent follow-up to 12 months while receiving the same treatment or switched to the other antimetabolite, depending on their 6-month outcome.

RESULTS

Among 216 patients who were randomized (median age, 38 years; 135 (62.5%) women), 194 (89.8%) completed follow-up through 6 months. Treatment success occurred in 64 (66.7%) patients in the methotrexate group vs 56 (57.1%) in the mycophenolate group (difference, 9.5% [95% CI, -5.3% to 21.8%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.50 [95% CI, 0.81 to 2.81]; P = .20). Among patients with posterior uveitis or panuveitis, treatment success was achieved in 58 (74.4%) in the methotrexate group vs 42 (55.3%) in the mycophenolate group (difference, 19.1% [95% CI, 3.6% to 30.6%]; OR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.16 to 4.90]; P = .02); whereas among patients with intermediate uveitis treatment success occurred in 6 (33.3%) in the methotrexate group vs 14 (63.6%) in the mycophenolate group (difference, -30.3% [95% CI, -51.6% to 1.1%]; OR, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.08 to 1.05]; P = .07; P for interaction = .004). Elevated liver enzymes were the most common nonserious laboratory adverse event, occurring in 14 patients (13.0%) in the methotrexate group and 8 patients (7.4%) in the mycophenolate group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults with noninfectious uveitis, the use of mycophenolate mofetil compared with methotrexate as first-line corticosteroid-sparing treatment did not result in superior control of inflammation. Further research is needed to determine if either drug is more effective based on the anatomical subtype of uveitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01829295.

Expert opinion on the use of biological therapy in non-infectious uveitis

INTRODUCTION

Conventional immunosuppressive drugs, anti-TNF alpha treatments and biotherapies are increasingly being used in non-infectious uveitis.

AREAS COVERED

The present work was led by a multidisciplinary panel of experts, including internal medicine specialists, rheumatologists and ophthalmologists, and proposes an extensive review on the use of biological agents in non-infectious uveitis.

EXPERT OPINION

In case of dependency to steroids or sight-threatening disease, conventional immunosuppressive drugs (methotrexate, azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil) and/or biological therapies such as anti-TNF alpha treatments (adalimumab, infliximab) can be used to achieve and maintain disease quiescence. Interferon is an efficient immunomodulatory drug that can be proposed as second-line therapy in specific indications (eg. refractory macular edema, sight-threatening Behçet's uveitis). Other biologics, especially tocilizumab, are showing promising results. Local treatments (steroids, sirolimus etc.) can be used as adjuvant therapies in case of unilateral relapse. Therapeutic response must always be evaluated by clinical examination and appropriate ancillary investigations.

The Effectiveness of Pharmacological Agents for the Treatment of Uveitic Macular Edema (UMO): A Systematic Review

Purpose: To conduct a systematic review of effectiveness of pharmacological therapies for treatment of Uveitic Macular Edema (UMO). Method/Design: Comparative studies of pharmacological therapies in patients with UMO were identified in Cochrane CENTRAL/MEDLINE/EMBASE/CINAHL/trials registers (February 2017). PROSPERO registration: CRD42015019170. Results: Thirty-one studies were included. Corticosteroids were the most frequently studied (n = 20). Corticosteroids (all forms) were consistently of greater/equal efficacy to active comparators; for anti-VEGF (n = 4) improvement, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were mostly less than local corticosteroid injection; for interferon (n = 1) improvement BCVA and CMT were greater than the comparator of methotrexate; for topical indomethacin (n = 1) improvement, BCVA and CMT were greater than placebo. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, and vitamin E (n = 5) were not effective for these outcomes. Conclusion: The review highlights areas where the evidence base is still lacking, and appropriately focused trials are needed to inform best treatment to tackle this sight-threatening condition.

The burden of non-infectious intraocular inflammatory eye diseases: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

Non-infectious inflammatory eye diseases (IEDs), although rare, are complex and varied and may result in detrimental effects. A systematic literature review was conducted on the clinical outcome and economic burden of IED.

METHODS

The Ovid search platform (Wolters Kluwer) was used to access scientific literature databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane libraries, Health Technology Assessment and the NHS Economic Evaluation database. The search strategy targeted clinical and economic outcomes research in 2009-2016. Titles and abstracts resulting from inclusion criteria were screened, and two reviewers independently extracted relevant information from the selected full-text articles.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine papers met the inclusion criteria - 21 clinical trials, 7 database analyses, 6 non-systematic literature reviews with expert commentary, 3 chart reviews, and 2 surveys - which assessed steroids, immunosuppressants, implants and biologics. Patients experienced considerable morbidity, much of which was associated with corticosteroid use. The average annual healthcare costs of patients with IED were $13,728 to $32,268 in 2009 US dollars, which amounted to 3.1 to 8.3 times that of patients without IED. Steroid-releasing intraocular implants were associated with higher up-front costs, close monitoring requirements, potential for implant removal and increased rates of adverse ocular events than systemic steroids.

CONCLUSIONS

IEDs are rare and complex conditions that threaten eyesight and impose considerable morbidity as well as a substantial economic burden. This review confirms that further research is needed to more fully explore the burden of IED and treatment-related adverse events, as well as appropriate means for clinicians to intensify treatment.

The effect of methotrexate and sulfasalazine on the course of HLA-B27-positive anterior uveitis: results from a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of methotrexate (MTX) or sulfasalazine (SSZ) on the course of HLA-B27-positive, remitting acute anterior uveitis (AAU).

METHODS

Forty-six patients with HLA-B27-positive AAU with or without associated systemic rheumatic disease either receiving MTX (n = 20), SSZ (n = 13), or no systemic immunomodulating treatment (Ctrl; n = 13) were studied retrospectively. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), AAU relapse rate, and occurrence of uveitis-related ocular complications were analyzed at baseline (BL) and at 12-month follow-up (FU).

RESULTS

Groups did not differ regarding age, gender, and presence of associated systemic diseases. BCVA at baseline was significantly worse in patients receiving MTX (logMAR 0.39 ± 0.4) than in those treated with SSZ (0.17 ± 0.2; P = 0.05) or in controls (Ctrl; 0.14 ± 0.2; P = 0.009). At the 12-month endpoint, MTX treatment was associated with significantly improved BCVA (0.18 ± 0.4 logMAR; P = 0.004). In contrast, BCVA did not significantly change in patients treated with SSZ (0.17 ± 0.3 logMAR) or in the controls (0.11 ± 0.2 logMAR). The annual uveitis relapse rate significantly decreased with MTX (BL 3.6 ± 2.4 relapses to FU 0.7 ± 0.8; P = 0.0001) and SSZ (BL 3.6 ± 1.9 to FU 1.8 ± 2.4, P < 0.01), but not in the controls (BL 1.9 ± 1.4 vs 1.9 ± 1.7 FU). The complication rate was slightly reduced with MTX (BL 1.75 ± 1.2 complications present versus FU 1.3 ± 1.2, P = 0.09) but not with SSZ (BL 0.9 ± 0.8 to FU 1.3 ± 1.4; P = 0.4) or in the controls (BL and FU 1.0 ± 0.95; P = 0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

MTX and SSZ reduced the uveitis relapse rate in HLA-B27-positive AAU patients, with MTX showing a beneficial effect on AAU-related macular edema.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis in adults

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; p < 0.001] in the VISUAL I trial and 0.57 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; p = 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; p = 0.010) but not the VISUAL II trial (mean difference 2.12; p = 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 (p < 0.014), the mean best corrected visual acuity improvement (p ≤ 0.002) and the percentage of patients with a ≥ 5-point improvement in VFQ-25 score (p < 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.

[Therapeutic strategy for the treatment of non-infectious uveitis proposed by an expert panel]

Conventional immunosuppressive drugs, anti-TNF alpha and other biotherapies used in clinical practice are capable of controlling non-infectious anterior uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis. The present work has been led by a multidisciplinary panel of experts, internists, rheumatologists and ophthalmologists and is based on a review of the literature. In case of corticodependency or sight-threatening disease, conventional immunosuppressive drugs (methotrexate, azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil) and/or anti-TNF alpha (adalimumab, infliximab) are used to achieve and maintain remission. Interferon is an efficient immunomodulatory treatment, as a second-line therapy, for some therapeutic indications (refractory macular edema, Behçet's vascularitis). Other biologics, especially tocilizumab, are showing promising results. Local treatments (corticosteroids, sirolimus etc.) are adjuvant therapies in case of unilateral inflammatory relapse. Therapeutic response must be evaluated precisely by clinical examination and repeated complementary investigations (laser flare photometry, multimodal imaging, perimetry, electroretinography measures).

Management of chronic ocular sarcoidosis: challenges and solutions

Background

Sarcoidosis constitutes one of the leading causes of ocular inflammation. Chronic ocular sarcoidosis can affect any segment of the eye and its adnexa, producing a wide range of clinical manifestations and severity. If left untreated, permanent visual impairment or even blindness may ensue. Treatment approaches vary from topical therapy to systemic agents that induce immunosuppression to different levels according to disease severity.

Objective

To review the published literature on the management options for chronic ocular sarcoidosis and provide a comprehensive list of available treatment strategies, including the newer biologics.

Summary

Ocular disease remains a challenging aspect of sarcoidosis and may even be the presenting sign of the disease. Prompt and effective therapy may reverse visual damage and prevent permanent loss of vision. Because of the complexity of the disease, a multidisciplinary approach is often required, with a view to addressing both the ocular and other systemic manifestations of sarcoidosis. Recent data suggest that achieving overall optimal systemic control is of paramount importance in controlling eye inflammation as well. Cytotoxic immunosuppressive agents for refractory chronic ocular disease, as well as biologic anti-TNFα therapies, have advanced the management of chronic disease and should be considered corticosteroid-sparing strategies before the onset of significant steroid-induced morbidity.

Immunosuppression for the Uveitides

The uveitides are a collection of more than 30 diseases characterized by intraocular inflammation. Many cases of juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis, many cases of intermediate uveitis, and most cases of posterior and panuveitides requiring treatment are treated with corticosteroids and immunosuppression. Disease-specific, time-updated modeling of clinical data for several uveitides suggests superior prevention of ocular complications and visual outcomes with immunosuppression. These studies also suggest that oral corticosteroids at doses low enough for safe long-term therapy (i.e., <7.5 mg/day) are ineffective, implying that immunosuppression should be part of the initial regimen. The Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment (MUST) Trial and Follow-up Study was a randomized comparative effectiveness trial comparing systemic therapy with oral corticosteroids and immunosuppression with regional corticosteroid treatment. It demonstrated that, when used properly, oral corticosteroids and immunosuppression can be given safely for up to 7 years with no evident increased risk of systemic side effects compared with regional corticosteroid therapy, except for greater antibiotic use for infections. The Systemic Treatment for Eye Diseases (SITE) Cohort Study suggested long-term safety for this approach, when the immunosuppressive agents were antimetabolites or calcineurin inhibitors. Thus, oral corticosteroids and immunosuppression may be a preferred initial therapy for many noninfectious, intermediate, posterior, and panuveitides. Nonalkylating-agent immunosuppression has a low rate of sustained, drug-free remissions, <10%/year. Nonalkylating-agent immunosuppression for >3 years with control of the inflammation for >2 years is associated with a decreased risk of relapse after discontinuing immunosuppression. Alkylating agents can induce sustained drug-free remissions but likely increase the lifetime risk of cancer. Biologics, which target specific cytokines and pathways, hold promise for the future. Monoclonal antibodies directed against tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α have been studied most often, and one, adalimumab, is U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of noninfectious, intermediate, posterior, and panuveitides.

Guidance on Noncorticosteroid Systemic Immunomodulatory Therapy in Noninfectious Uveitis: Fundamentals Of Care for UveitiS (FOCUS) Initiative

TOPIC

An international, expert-led consensus initiative to develop systematic, evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of noninfectious uveitis in the era of biologics.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The availability of biologic agents for the treatment of human eye disease has altered practice patterns for the management of noninfectious uveitis. Current guidelines are insufficient to assure optimal use of noncorticosteroid systemic immunomodulatory agents.

METHODS

An international expert steering committee comprising 9 uveitis specialists (including both ophthalmologists and rheumatologists) identified clinical questions and, together with 6 bibliographic fellows trained in uveitis, conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol systematic review of the literature (English language studies from January 1996 through June 2016; Medline [OVID], the Central Cochrane library, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, BIOSIS, and Web of Science). Publications included randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective studies with sufficient follow-up, case series with 15 cases or more, peer-reviewed articles, and hand-searched conference abstracts from key conferences. The proposed statements were circulated among 130 international uveitis experts for review. A total of 44 globally representative group members met in late 2016 to refine these guidelines using a modified Delphi technique and assigned Oxford levels of evidence.

RESULTS

In total, 10 questions were addressed resulting in 21 evidence-based guidance statements covering the following topics: when to start noncorticosteroid immunomodulatory therapy, including both biologic and nonbiologic agents; what data to collect before treatment; when to modify or withdraw treatment; how to select agents based on individual efficacy and safety profiles; and evidence in specific uveitic conditions. Shared decision-making, communication among providers and safety monitoring also were addressed as part of the recommendations. Pharmacoeconomic considerations were not addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus guidelines were developed based on published literature, expert opinion, and practical experience to bridge the gap between clinical needs and medical evidence to support the treatment of patients with noninfectious uveitis with noncorticosteroid immunomodulatory agents.