LONG-TERM EFFICACY OF SYSTEMIC INFLIXIMAB IN RECALCITRANT RETINAL VASCULITIS

Use of immunomodulators in non-infectious uveitis: lights and shadows

Non-infectious uveitis (NIU) is one of the leading causes of sight impairment worldwide. Corticosteroids are the mainstay treatment for acute NIU, although their known systemic and ocular side effects limit their long-term use. The most common types of immunosuppressants used as steroid-sparing treatment are non-biologic drugs, particularly antimetabolites (methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, and azathioprine) and biologic drugs, mainly TNF-α inhibitors such as Adalimumab or Infliximab. Antimetabolites have shown their effectiveness in the treatment of NIU in individual and comparative studies, being methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil usually preferred over azathioprine. The choice of which antimetabolite to use at first is not well defined, and decisions usually depend on the patient's characteristics and the physician's preferences. Treatment of NIU with biologic drugs, and particularly TNF-α inhibitors, has significantly increased in the last years and is considered an important alternative in patients not responding to first-line immunomodulators such as antimetabolites. However, data regarding how different immunomodulators or biologic drugs perform in different NIU is still limited, and little is known about the optimization of both biologic and non-biologic drugs when used in NIU. Further randomized clinical trials and comparative studies are required to achieve more understanding and better results when addressing complicated NIU. The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the use of non-biologic and biologic drugs in NIU, which may be useful for clinicians in their daily practice, and to address those aspects that are less known about these treatments as well as their weaknesses.

Efficacy and Safety of Tocilizumab in the Management of Non-Infectious Uveitis Failed with Conventional Immunomodulatory and Anti-TNFα Therapies

PURPOSE

To determine the outcomes of intravenous (IV) tocilizumab (TCZ) in patients with non-infectious uveitis who failed with conventional immunomodulatory and anti-TNFα therapies.

METHODS

Records of seven patients with non-infectious uveitis treated with monthly IV TCZ (4-10 mg/kg) or biweekly IV TCZ (8 mg/kg) were reviewed. Outcome measures were changes in visual acuity, anterior chamber cell and flare grade, vitreous haze, central subfield thickness (CST), and fluorescein angiography (FA) score.

RESULTS

Ten eyes of seven patients received TCZ therapy. Median age of patients was 14 (range, 7-24) years. Median duration of TCZ therapy was 15 (range, 5-32) months. Mean CST reduced from 373 ± 101.0 μm to 298.2 ± 40.3 μm. Mean FA score reduced from 12.5 ± 4.3 to 3.6 ± 2.6. One patient developed elevated liver transaminases.

CONCLUSION

IV TCZ is a potentially effective and safe therapeutic option for the management of refractory non-infectious uveitis.

Inflammatory cytokines as mediators of retinal endothelial barrier dysfunction in non-infectious uveitis

Characterised by intraocular inflammation, non-infectious uveitis includes a large group of autoimmune and autoinflammatory diseases that either involve the eye alone or have both ocular and systemic manifestations. When non-infectious uveitis involves the posterior segment of the eye, specifically the retina, there is substantial risk of vision loss, often linked to breakdown of the inner blood-retinal barrier. This barrier is formed by non-fenestrated retinal vascular endothelial cells, reinforced by supporting cells that include pericytes, Müller cells and astrocytes. Across the published literature, a group of inflammatory cytokines stand out as prominent mediators of intraocular inflammation, with effects on the retinal endothelium that may contribute to breakdown of the inner blood-retinal barrier, namely tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-8, IL-17 and chemokine C-C motif ligand (CCL)2. This article reviews the function of each cytokine and discusses the evidence for their involvement in retinal endothelial barrier dysfunction in non-infectious uveitis, including basic laboratory investigations, studies of ocular fluids collected from patients with non-infectious uveitis, and results of clinical treatment trials. The review also outlines gaps in knowledge in this area. Understanding the disease processes at a molecular level can suggest treatment alternatives that are directed against appropriate biological targets to protect the posterior segment of eye and preserve vision in non-infectious uveitis.

Six-month outcomes of infliximab and tocilizumab therapy in non-infectious retinal vasculitis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of infliximab (IFX, 5-10 mg/kg) (Group 1) and tocilizumab (TCZ, 4-8 mg/kg) (Group 2) infusions in non-infectious retinal vasculitis (RV) using Angiographic Scoring for the Uveitis Working Group fluorescein angiography (FA) scoring system.

METHODS

Records of 14 patients (24 eyes) in Group 1 and 8 patients (11 eyes) in Group 2 were retrospectively evaluated to assess visual acuity (VA), anterior chamber cell and flare, vitreous haze, central subfield thickness (CST), and FA scoring at baseline and 6 months of follow-up. The measurements were employed to grade in each group.

RESULTS

In Group 1 and 2, respectively, there was no underlying disease in 9 (60%) and 3 (42.9%) patients. Three (42.9%) patients in Group 2 had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) as the most common identified cause. Mean improvement in VA (log MAR) and CST were 0.04 ± 0.14 and 40.3 ± 78.5 µm in Group 1; 0.04 ± 0.09 and 47.3 ± 82.3 µm in Group 2, respectively. Mean FA scores were significantly reduced from 12.4 ± 5.2 and 11.6 ± 4.4 at baseline to 6.4 ± 5.0 and 5.8 ± 3.9 at 6-month in Group 1 and 2, respectively. In Group 2, 9 eyes of 6 patients (75%) had the history of IFX use prior to TCZ initiation. There was no significant safety concern requiring treatment discontinuation during the follow-up in either group.

CONCLUSION

IFX and TCZ infusions showed statistically significant improvement of non-infectious RV as shown by ASUWOG FA Scoring System. TCZ, as well as IFX, appeared to be effective treatment options for non-infectious RV.

Risk of failing both methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil from the First-line Antimetabolites as Steroid-sparing Treatment (FAST) uveitis trial

BACKGROUND

The antimetabolites methotrexate (MTX) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) are commonly used as initial corticosteroid-sparing treatment for uveitis. There is little data examining risk factors for failing both MTX and MMF. The objective of this study is to determine risk factors for failing both MTX and MMF in patients with non-infectious uveitis.

MAIN BODY

This is a sub-analysis of the First-line Antimetabolites as Steroid-sparing Treatment (FAST) uveitis trial, which was an international, multicenter, block-randomized, observer-masked, comparative effectiveness trial comparing MTX and MMF as initial treatments for non-infectious uveitis. This study was undertaken at multiple referral centers in India, the United States, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Mexico between 2013 and 2017. A total of 137 patients who completed all 12 months of follow-up from the FAST trial, were included in this study. The primary outcome was failing both antimetabolites over the 12 months of the trial. Potential predictors included: age, sex, bilateral involvement, anatomic location of the uveitis, presence of cystoid macular edema (CME) and retinal vasculitis at baseline visit, uveitis duration, and country/study sites as risk factors for failing both MTX and MMF. The presence of retinal vasculitis posterior to the equator on fluorescein angiogram was associated with failing both MTX and MMF.

CONCLUSION

Retinal vasculitis may be a risk factor for failing multiple antimetabolites. Clinicians could consider more quickly advancing these patients to other medication classes, such as biologics.

Treatment of non-infectious retinal vasculitis

Retinal vasculitis (RV) refers to an entity in which the retinal vasculature is inflamed, frequently with indications of inflammation elsewhere in the eye. Non-infectious RV can be idiopathic or associated with systemic disease, ocular conditions, and malignancy. It can also be classified based on the vessel affected: artery, vein, or both. Due to the lack of strong evidence-based treatment trials and algorithms for RV, physicians must often rely on their experience, which creates great variability in treating this entity. This article provides an overview of various treatment modalities used in the management of non-infectious RV, with a focus on immunomodulatory therapies. We outline a potential stepwise approach of starting with steroids to control the acute inflammation and subsequently changing to immunomodulatory therapy (IMT) for long-term treatment.

The evaluation of the efficacy of adalimumab in refractory non-infectious uveitis with ultra-widefield fundus fluorescein angiography

AIM

To investigate the efficacy of adalimumab in the cases with refractory non-infectious uveitis and evaluate retinal vascular leakage changes on ultra-widefield fundus fluorescein angiography.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with refractory uveitis were included in study.

RESULTS

Forty-four eyes of 23 patients with non-infectious uveitiswere evaluated. Clinically active inflammation was present in 19 eyes (43.18%), while 25 (56.8%) were inactive. The mean drug burden was a 9.91 ± 3.78 (5-21) in baseline, 7.3 ± 4.25 at third and 8.0 ± 4.71 at sixth month (p = 0.022). The mean choroidal thickness was 256.65 ± 43.63 μm in baseline, 240.49 ± 36.73 μm at third and 224.81 ± 34.91 μm at sixth month (p ≤ 0.05). In terms of leakage extend, leakage was initially present in a mean of 2.95 ± 4.55 clock hours, 2.41 ± 3.91 at third and 1.76 ± 3.44 at sixth month (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Adalimumab was found to be effective in establishing inflammation control by reducing drug burden, controlling retinal vascular leakage and choroidal inflammation in refractory uveitis.

Erdheim-Chester disease: a comprehensive review from the ophthalmologic perspective

Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) is a rare clonal histiocytic neoplasm with less than 1200 documented cases to date. The disease is life-threatening and difficult to recognize, although increasing awareness as well as the integration of clinical, imaging, pathology information , and genetic studies have led to a recent exponential increase in new reported cases. ECD affects multiple organs and systems, including skeletal, neurologic, and cardiovascular. Pulmonary, retroperitoneal, and cutaneous lesions have also been reported in various combinations. Until the discovery that more than half of ECD patients harbor the BRAF-V600E mutation or other mutations in the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and RAS pathways, Interferon-a was the first-line treatment. Nowadays BRAF and MEK-inhibitors targeted therapies are the mainstay of treatment. Ophthalmologic involvement occurs in 25% -30% of ECD cases, usually in the form of orbital involvement presenting with exophthalmos and ophthalmoplegia. Other ophthalmologic manifestations include palpebral xanthelasmas, anterior uveitis and vitritis, optic disk edema, choroidal infiltration, recurrent serous retinal detachment, retinal drusen-like deposits and retinal pigment epithelial changes. ECD patients can also present with ocular symptoms as a result of adverse effects of the treatment regimens. In some cases with smoldering or protean symptoms, the emergence of eye manifestations triggered the diagnosis. Ophthalmologists have to be aware of the disease, recognize the constellation of ECD symptoms, and contribute to the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of ECD patients.

Treatment of Noninfectious Retinal Vasculitis Using Subcutaneous Repository Corticotropin Injection

PURPOSE

To show whether subcutaneous repository corticotropin injection (RCI, Acthar® Gel, a repository corticotropin injection, can be an effective potential therapeutic agent for noninfectious retinal vasculitis.

METHODS

Patients with active retinal vasculitis were followed with serial ultra-wide-field fluorescein angiograms and treated with 80 units of subcutaneous repository corticotropin injection twice weekly.

RESULTS

Primary outcome of ≥ 50% improvement in response level (RL) for retinal vasculitis and percent improvement in retinal vasculitis severity scoring (RVSS) by more than one quartile ( ≥ 25%) at week 12 was met in 15 and 16 of the 30 total eyes, respectively, including 1 eye with severe retinal vasculitis in each group. Complete resolution of retinal vasculitis was seen in seven eyes with a mean time of 17.1 weeks. Intraocular pressure elevation requiring therapy and cataract progression were noted in two and three eyes, respectively. One patient stopped medication due to side effects (injection site reaction).

CONCLUSION

Repository corticotropin injection was well-tolerated overall. Repository corticotropin injection may be an effective therapeutic agent in the treatment of noninfectious retinal vasculitis.

Effectiveness of SB5, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, in Patients With Noninfectious Uveitis: A Real-Life Monocentric Experience

PURPOSE

Several concerns have arisen with biosimilars in terms of immunogenicity, safety issues, loss of efficacy, and extrapolation to other indications. The study aim was to evaluate the efficacy of SB5, an adalimumab biosimilar, in noninfectious uveitis (NIU).

DESIGN

Retrospective nonrandomized study.

METHODS

Data from patients with refractory NIU treated with SB5 (Imraldi, Biogen) were analyzed at baseline, 3 months after SB5 initiation and at the last follow-up in terms of uveitis relapses, occurrence of retinal vasculitis, resolution of uveitic macular edema (UME), best-corrected visual acuity, glucocorticoids (GCs)-sparing effect and drug survival.

RESULTS

Uveitis relapses decreased from 121 relapses/100 patients/year in the 12 months before SB5 initiation to 4 relapses/100 patients/year during the first 12 months of treatment (P = 0.0004). Uveitis was inactive in 46/47 eyes at the end of the study period. The number of eyes with active retinal vasculitis decreased during the study period (P < 0.0001). At baseline, 6 eyes presented UME, whereas no eye had UME at the last follow-up. Mean best-corrected visual acuity increased from 7.7 ± 3.41 at baseline to 8.9 ± 2.46 at the last follow-up (P = 0.0045). Mean GCs daily dosage decreased from 18.33 ± 10.33 mg at baseline to 5.75 ± 2.29 mg at the last follow-up (P = 0.018). The cumulative SB5 retention rate was 91.8% at both 12- and 20-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

SB5 biosimilar is effective in NIU by drastically reducing uveitis relapses and the occurrence of retinal vasculitis. Moreover, SB5 biosimilar improved visual acuity, allowed a significant GCs-sparing effect and showed an excellent drug retention rate.

Response to the Second TNF-α Inhibitor (Adalimumab or Infliximab) after Failing the First One in Refractory Idiopathic Inflammatory Retinal Vascular Leakage

Purpose: To determine the response to the second TNF-α inhibitor (adalimumab and infliximab) after failing the first agent in idiopathic inflammatory retinal vascular leakage.Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective observational case series. Patients with the diagnosis of idiopathic inflammatory retinal vascular leakage who had received both infliximab and adalimumab were included in the study.Results: Twelve and 15 patients received adalimumab (Group one) and infliximab (Group two) as the first treatment, respectively. The remission rates between Group one (58.3%) and Group two (66.7%) were not statistically significant. (P = .4) As the second agent, adalimumab was more effective in younger patients (27.5 ± 20.6) compared to older patients (48.75 ± 10.2). (P = .03). Moreover, patients with lower vision responded marginally better to infliximab as the second treatment (P = .06).Conclusion: Either TNF-α inhibitor, adalimumab and infliximab, can be employed in the treatment of the patients with idiopathic inflammatory retinal vascular leakage who fail one of these agents.

Biologic Drugs for the Treatment of Noninfectious Uveitis

ABSTRACT

The management of noninfectious uveitis is constantly evolving. A new "biologic era" in treatment began after the effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor-alpha blocking drugs was demonstrated in rheumatologic inflammatory diseases. The goal of specific immunomodulation with a biologic drug is to target inflammation at the molecular level with a low rate of serious adverse events. The purpose of this review is to summarize current knowledge of biologic drugs in the treatment of noninfectious uveitis by describing clinical studies and recent pharmacological developments.

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 of adalimumab and infliximab in recalcitrant retinal vasculitis inadequately responsive to other immunomodulatory therapies

The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α blockers adalimumab (ADA) and infliximab (IFX) in refractory sight-threatening retinal vasculitis (RV) during a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary aims were to evaluate (i) any impact of concomitant conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) and different lines of biologic therapy; (ii) any difference in terms of efficacy between ADA and IFX; (iii) consequences of biotherapies on the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA); (iv) corticosteroid-sparing effect; and (vi) ocular complications during anti-TNF-α treatment. Demographic, clinical, and therapeutic data were retrospectively collected from the medical records and statistically analyzed. Forty-eight patients (82 eyes) were recruited, 22 (45.8%) of which received IFX and 26 (54.2%) ADA. The percentages of patients achieving RV remission within 3 and 12 months were 54 and 86%, respectively. A significant decrease in RV detection was identified from baseline to 3-month (p < 0.0001) and 12-month (p < 0.0001) assessments and between 3-month and 12-month visits (p = 0.004). No differences were identified in terms of RV resolution between (i) patients undergoing monotherapy and those co-administered with cDMARDs at 3-month (p = 0.560) and 12-month (p = 0.611) follow-up; (ii) biologic-naïve patients and those already exposed to other biologics at 3-month (p = 0.497) and 12-month (p > 0.99) visits; and (iii) patients treated with ADA and those treated with IFX (p = 0.357). During the study period, a statistically significant corticosteroid-sparing effect was observed (p = 0.0002), while BCVA values did not significantly change (p = 0.950). Anti-TNF-α monoclonal antibodies have proved excellent results in patients with recalcitrant sight-threatening RV.

[Retinal vasculitis and systemic diseases]

Retinal vasculitis (RV) is an inflammation of retinal blood vessels that can be associated with uveitis or be isolated, and can induce vascular occlusion and retinal ischemia. Visual acuity can be severely affected in case of macular involvement or neovessel formation. The diagnosis relies on fundoscopy and fluorescein angiography. Systemic diseases may be associated with RV, the most frequently encountered are Behçet's disease, sarcoidosis or multiple sclerosis, all predominantly associated with venous involvement, whereas systemic lupus erythematosus and necrotizing vasculitis are less frequently observed and predominantly associated with arterial or mixed vasculitis. Treatments are usually aggressive in order to preserve a good visual acuity and to reduce retinal inflammation and chronic ischemia. Steroids, immunosuppressive drugs, retinal laser photocoagulation, intravitreal anti-VEGF injections are usual treatments and more recently, anti-TNFalpha monoclonal therapeutic antibodies have been shown to be very successful.

Retinal vasculitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ophthalmologists and rheumatologists frequently have a miscommunication among themselves, and as a result differ in their opinion for patients consulting them with retinal vasculitis. This report seeks to establish a common understanding of the term, retinal vasculitis, and to review recent studies on this diagnosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

The genetic basis of some rare forms of retinal vascular disease has recently been described. Identified genes include CAPN5, TREX1, and TNFAIP3; Behçet's disease is a systemic illness that is very commonly associated with occlusive retinal vasculitis; retinal imaging, including fluorescein angiography and other newer imaging modalities, has proven crucial to the identification and characterization of retinal vasculitis and its complications; although monoclonal antibodies to interleukin-17A or interleukin-1 beta failed in trials for Behçet's disease, antibodies to TNF-alpha, either infliximab or adalimumab, have demonstrated consistent benefit in managing this disease. Interferon treatment and B-cell depletion therapy via rituximab may be beneficial in certain types of retinal vasculitis.

SUMMARY

Retinal vasculitis is an important entity for rheumatologists to understand. Retinal vasculitis associated with Behçet's disease responds to monoclonal antibodies that neutralize TNF, but the many other forms of noninfectious retinal vasculitis may require alternate therapeutic management.

Anti-TNFα Treatment for HLA-B27-Positive Ankylosing Spondylitis-Related Uveitis

PURPOSE

To assess the long-term efficacy of the most widely used anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) agents for treatment of HLA-B27-positive ankylosing spondylitis (AS)-related uveitis.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

The medical records of 143 patients with HLA-B27-positive AS who visited Seoul St. Mary's Hospital and were taking an anti-TNFα agent for at least 1 year were studied. Subjects were divided into 3 groups according to anti-TNFα treatment: Group 1 (infliximab, 66), Group 2 (adalimumab, 45), and Group 3 (etanercept, 32).

RESULTS

Mean age was 41.0 ± 13.0 years, and 97 patients (67.8%) were male. Mean follow-up period was 70.6 ± 37.9 months. In cases of active ocular inflammation at the onset of anti-TNFα treatment, patients showed improved activity of uveitis after 24.0 ± 15.0 days (Group 1), 17.9 ± 6.0 days (Group 2), and 25.9 ± 18.0 days (Group 3). After the anti-TNFα treatment, 71 of 94 patients (32 [76.2%] in Group 1, 26 [78.8%] in Group 2, and 13 [68.4%] in Group 3) remained without uveitis relapse. A reduction in the number of systemic medications was achieved in 129 patients (90.2%). Twenty-eight cases of minor side effects were observed, and 4 cases were tuberculosis leading to discontinuation of anti-TNFα treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept were effective for treating and reducing the number of uveitis relapses in HLA-B27-positive AS. However, the risk of serious infections was noted, so ophthalmologists should consider the possibility that prolonged use of biologic agents may result in systemic side effects.

Off-label use of tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors and anakinra at an Australian tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND

Tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (anti-TNFα) and anakinra are monoclonal antibodies against pro-inflammatory cytokines overexpressed in many systemic inflammatory diseases. In Australia, they are registered for the treatment of several rheumatological, gastroenterological and dermatological indications. Despite increasing observational evidence for their use in off-label indications, there is a paucity of outcome research from the Australian hospital sector.

AIMS

To describe the off-label use of anti-TNFα and anakinra at a tertiary referral hospital in Queensland, Australia and consideration of a drug register to inform future clinical decision-making.

METHODS

We performed an in-depth retrospective chart audit of off-label treatment with anti-TNFα or anakinra at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital from mid-2010 to mid-2014, linking demographic, phenotypic, pathology and outcome data with these drugs.

RESULTS

Off-label use was identified in 10 patients. The most frequent indications were sarcoidosis and dermatological conditions. Three patients required sequential therapy with a second anti-TNFα (total responses = 13). Complete response occurred in 46%, partial response in 38% and primary non-response in 8%. Response was unable to be determined in 8%. We recorded 14 adverse events (infections most common).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that anti-TNFα may be beneficial for some off-label indications (e.g. sarcoidosis). However, the observational design of this study (and pre-existing research) limits the ability to infer causality and generalise results. We propose the creation of a mandatory drug register to monitor off-label use. Whilst comparative efficacy cannot be established without a matched placebo arm, a register would enable some reporting on effectiveness in rare diseases and identify infrequent but serious adverse events.