Psoriatic uveitis responding to adalimumab therapy

Anti-TNF Drugs for Chronic Uveitis in Adults-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drugs for adult chronic non-infectious uveitis (NIU).

Methods: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, were searched from inception to January 2019. Double-masked randomized placebo-controlled trials, assessing any anti-TNF vs. best medical intervention/standard of care in adults with chronic NIU were considered. The PRISMA and SAMPL guidelines were followed. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Overall quality of the evidence was assessed according to GRADE. PROSPERO registration: #CRD42016039068. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were preservation of visual acuity (VA) and withdrawals due to adverse events, respectively. Meta-analysis of efficacy analysis was not performed due to significant clinical heterogeneity between studies' population and interventions.

Results: A total of 1,157 references were considered and 3 studies were included. The overall risk of bias was moderate. In active NIU, adalimumab group showed an increased likelihood of VA preservation (risk ratio (RR) 1.75, 95%CI 1.32 to 2.32, n = 217), whereas the etanercept group did not (RR 0.81, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.14, n = 20). In inactive NIU, adalimumab was associated with increased likelihood of VA preservation (RR 1.31, 95%CI 1.12 to 1.53, n = 226). The rate of adverse events did not differ between anti-TNF and control arms (RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.13, n = 410).

Conclusions: There is high quality evidence that adalimumab decreases the risk of worsening VA in active and inactive NIU and very low quality evidence that the risk of etanercept worsening VA in inactive NIU is not different from placebo. Moderate quality evidence suggests that anti-TNF agents are not different from placebo on the risk of study withdrawal.

Efficacy and safety of intravitreal anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs in adults with non-infectious uveitis - a systematic review

Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs have been extensively used in non-infectious uveitis (NIU), when corticosteroids or conventional immunosuppressive drugs cannot adequately control inflammation or intolerable side-effects occur. However, systemic anti-TNF therapies are also associated with a myriad of side-effects. Therefore, intravitreal administration of anti-TNF biologics has been employed to minimize patient morbidity and systemic adverse effects, while maintaining therapeutic effectivity. We undertook a systematic review to determine evidence of efficacy and safety of intravitreal administration of anti-TNF drugs in adults with NIU. We conducted this systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016041946). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, from inception to April 2017, as well as clinical trial registries and grey literature. The qualitative analysis included all studies of adult patients with a diagnosis of NIU and who received intravitreal anti-TNF drugs with a 4-week minimum follow-up. A total of 4840 references were considered for title and abstract screening. Seven full texts were screened, and five studies were considered for analysis. All studies were open-label, single-centre, prospective, non-randomized, interventional case series with a follow-up between 4 and 26 weeks, employing either adalimumab in two studies and infliximab in three. Three studies showed a treatment effect of anti-TNF intravitreal injections, while one study revealed short-term improvement and one study revealed no efficacy of anti-TNF intravitreal therapy. None of the studies reported ocular adverse effects but only two studies included electrophysiological assessment in the safety analysis and no study assessed systemic human anti-drug antibodies. The available evidence is not sufficiently robust to conclude about the clinical effectivity of intravitreal anti-TNF in NIU and so no recommendation can be made. In conclusion, intravitreal injection of anti-TNF antibodies remains a possible treatment option to be explored through robust clinical investigation.

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.

The Use of Biologic Therapies in Uveitis

Therapy for autoimmune ophthalmic disease is currently evolving. The improved understanding of the abnormal immune response in the various forms of uveitis has resulted in targeted therapy. The aberrations of the immune system have been characterized by atypical cell populations, cytokine expression, and cell-cell interactions. Different patterns of cytokine expression have now been delineated in the abnormal uveal tract with exaggerated and/or abnormal expression of TNF, IL-1, IL-2, IL-6, and IL-17. The development of therapies for other conditions in which these cytokines play an important role has resulted in the availability of biological agents that have been adopted for use in the therapy for uveitis. Adalimumab and infliximab have been the best studied anti-TNF agents and indeed have now been recommended by an expert panel as first-line treatment of ocular manifestations of Behçet's disease and second-line treatment for other forms of uveitis (Levy-Clarke et al. (Ophthalmology, 2013). Other anti-TNF agents have been studied as well. Daclizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the IL-2 receptor, has also demonstrated utility in treating uveitis as have some of the anti-IL1 agents. Gevokizumab has been granted orphan drug designation for the treatment of resistant forms of uveitis. Therapies affecting IL-6, including tocilizumab are being studied, and available medications that block antigen presenting cell and T cell interaction such as abatacept have been reported to be effective in uveitis. Interferons as well as rituximab have also been evaluated in small studies. Although these biologic therapies have provided a larger armamentarium to treat uveitis, challenges remain. Uveitis is not a single illness; rather, it is a manifestation of many potential systemic diseases that may have very specific individual therapeutic targets. Identifying and characterizing these underlying diseases is not always achieved, and more importantly, the most effective therapies for each entity have not been defined.

Recalcitrant psoriatic uveitis and anti-tumor necrosis factor-α monoclonal antibodies: experience from a psoriasis referral center

BACKGROUND

The incidence of non-infectious uveitis on a background of psoriasis is estimated to be 7-20%. The use of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitors as a treatment for refractory uveitis is emerging.

METHODS

The psoriasis outpatient database at our referral center was searched for patients with concurrent diagnoses of psoriasis and uveitis. The medical records of the patients identified were reviewed for the use of TNF-α inhibitors.

RESULTS

Five patients (three women and two men) were identified. All of them suffered moderate to severe psoriasis and chronic, bilateral uveitis. The patient with the most severe ocular inflammation was the only patient positive for human leukocyte antigen B27 (HLA-B27) and the only one to suffer from psoriatic arthritis. All patients had received treatment with adalimumab and had been evaluated at three and six months. Their psoriasis had responded excellently, and in four patients, uveitis had shown the complete remission of inflammation at six months. The fifth patient (HLA-B27+) exhibited improved uveitis activity but not complete remission at six months.

CONCLUSIONS

Uveitis is an entity that should be considered when evaluating psoriasis patients with ocular complaints, even in the absence of arthritis. Anti-TNF-α monoclonal antibodies and adalimumab in particular seem to represent a promising therapeutic avenue for the treatment of refractory psoriatic uveitis. Larger randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm our conclusions.