TNF inhibitors for uveitis: balancing efficacy and safety

Fluocinolone acetonide 0.2 µg/day intravitreal implant in non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment: EU expert user panel consensus-based clinical recommendations

BACKGROUND

Non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye (NIU-PS) is an inflammatory disease, which can significantly impair visual acuity if not adequately treated. Fluocinolone-acetonide sustained-release-0.2 µg/day intravitreal (FAc) implants are indicated for prevention of relapse in recurrent NIU-PS. The aim here was to provide treating clinicians with some consensus-based-recommendations for the clinical management of patients with NIU-PS with 0.2 µg/day FAc implants.

METHODS

A European-clinical-expert-group agreed to develop a consensus report on different issues related to the use of FAc implants in patients with NIU-PS.

RESULTS

The Clinical-expert-panel provided specific recommendations focusing on clinical presentation (unilateral/bilateral) of the NIU-PS; systemic involvement of NIU-PS and the lens status. Treatment algorithms were developed; one that refers to the management of patients with NIU-PS in clinical practice and another that establishes the best clinical scenarios for the use of FAc implants, both as monotherapy and as adjuvant therapy. Additionally, the Clinical-expert-panel has provided recommendations about the use of the FAc implants in a clinical-setting. The Clinical-expert-panel also considered the safety profile of FAc implants and their possible implications in the daily practice.

CONCLUSIONS

As more clinical experience has been gained using FAc implants, it was necessary to update the clinical recommendations that guide patient management in the clinic. The current consensus document addresses relevant issues related to the use of FAc implants on different types of patients with various etiologies of NIU-PS, and was conducted to standardize approaches to help specialists obtain better clinical outcomes.

Ophthalmological and Neurological Findings in Patients with Idiopathic Uveitis Associated with Retinal Vasculitis and the Relation with the HLA DR15 Allele

PURPOSE

In 15 patients with idiopathic uveitis associated with retinal vasculitis, HLA DRB1 gene testing was performed to detect a possible association. 11 patients tested positive and 4 negative for the HLA DRB1 × 15 allele. The presence of the HLA DRB1 × 15 haplotype might be associated with a higher susceptibility to develop Multiple Sclerosis (MS).

METHODS

In this case series, we describe the ophthalmological and neurological findings in 10 HLA DR15-positive patients and 4 HLA DR15-negative patients that had neurological workup, including Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the brain.

RESULTS

All patients had granulomatous ocular inflammation with either panuveitis or intermediate uveitis. MRI of the brain showed white matter lesions in 13 patients (9/10 and 4/4 respectively) of which 4 patients were eventually diagnosed with MS (3/10 and 1/4 respectively).

CONCLUSION

Although the majority of tested patients was carrying at least one HLA DRB1-15 allele, there was no difference in ophthalmological and neurological findings in both groups.

The Humira in Ocular Inflammations Taper (HOT) Study

PURPOSE

To assess factors that impact the risk of relapse in patients with noninfectious uveitis (NIU) who undergo adalimumab tapering after achieving remission.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, patients with NIU were treated with adalimumab and subsequently tapered. Patient demographics, type of NIU, onset and duration of disease, the period of inactivity before tapering adalimumab, and the tapering schedule were collected. The primary outcome measures were independent predictors of the rate of uveitis recurrence after adalimumab tapering.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-eight patients were included (54.6% female) with a mean age of 34.3 years. The mean time between disease onset and initiation of adalimumab therapy was 35.2 ± 70.1 weeks. Adalimumab tapering was commenced after a mean of 100.8 ± 69.7 weeks of inactivity. Recurrence was observed in 39.6% of patients at a mean of 44.7 ± 61.7 weeks. Patients who experienced recurrence were significantly younger than those without recurrence (mean 29.4 years vs 37.5 years, P = .0005), and the rate of recurrence was significantly higher in younger subjects (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88 per decade of increasing age, P = .01). The lowest rate of recurrence was among Asian subjects. A faster adalimumab taper was associated with an increased recurrence rate (HR = 1.23 per unit increase in speed, P < .0005). Conversely, a more extended period of remission before tapering was associated with a lower rate of recurrence (HR = 0.97 per 10-weeks longer period of inactivity, P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

When tapering adalimumab, factors that should be considered include patient age, race, and duration of disease remission on adalimumab. A slow tapering schedule is advisable.

Rituximab for non-infectious Uveitis and Scleritis

Purpose

To provide a comprehensive review of rituximab use for the treatment of non-infectious uveitis and scleritis.

Methods

Review of literature through December 2020.

Results

Individual data was available for 229 patients with refractory non-infectious uveitis (n = 108) or scleritis (n = 121) who received treatment with rituximab (RTX). Rituximab was generally utilized as third-line or later treatment (uveitis: 67/90, 74.4%; scleritis: 90/96, 93.8%) at a mean of 33.5 months following the diagnosis of uveitis (range = 0 to 168.0 months; median = 24.0 months) and 39.4 months after diagnosis of scleritis (range = 1.0 to 168.0 months; median = 21.0 months). Patients with non-infectious uveitis and scleritis either received prior treatment with corticosteroids only (uveitis: 18/90, 20%; scleritis: 4/94, 4.3%), or with one (uveitis: 19/90, 21.1%; scleritis: 30/94, 31.9%), two (uveitis: 11/90, 12.2%; scleritis 27/94, 28.7%), or three or more (uveitis: 37/90, 41.1%; scleritis: 31/94, 33.0%) corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents with or without corticosteroids before initiation of RTX treatment. The rheumatologic protocol (two infusions of 1 gram of RTX separated by 14 days) was utilized most frequently (uveitis: 45/87, 51.7%; scleritis: 87/114, 76.3%), followed by the Foster protocol (eight weekly infusions of 375 mg/m² RTX; uveitis: 18/87, 20.7%; scleritis: 10/114, 8.8%), and the oncologic protocol (four weekly infusions of 375 mg/m² RTX; uveitis: 5/87, 5.7%; scleritis: 6/114, 5.3%). Various other off-label regimens were used infrequently (uveitis: 19/87, 21.8%; scleritis 11/114, 9.6%). Rituximab treatments resulted in a positive therapeutic response for the majority of patients with non-infectious uveitis (81/97, 83.5%). Commonly treated uveitic diagnoses included non-paraneoplastic autoimmune retinopathy (30/107, 28.0%), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (21/107, 19.6%), Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease (12/107, 11.2%), and Behçet disease (11/107, 10.3%). Cases of non-infectious scleritis were most commonly attributed to granulomatosis with polyangiitis (75/121, 62.0%) and rheumatoid arthritis (15/121, 12.4%), and showed an even greater rate of positive therapeutic response (112/120, 93.3%) following RTX treatment. No side effects were reported in 76.3% (74/97) of uveitis and 85.5% (71/83) scleritis cases. Of those cases associated with RTX-induced adverse events, the most common were infusion reactions of various severity (11/35, 31.4%).

Conclusions

Overall, RTX appeared to be both effective and well-tolerated as second or third-line therapy for patients with non-infectious uveitis and scleritis.

Old and New Challenges in Uveitis Associated with Behçet's Disease

Behçet’s disease (BD) is a systemic vasculitis disease of unknown origin occurring in young people, which can be venous, arterial or both, classically occlusive. Ocular involvement is particularly frequent and severe; vascular occlusion secondary to retinal vasculitis may lead to rapid and severe loss of vision. Biologics have transformed the management of intraocular inflammation. However, the diagnosis of BD is still a major challenge. In the absence of a reliable biological marker, diagnosis is based on clinical diagnostic criteria and may be delayed after the appearance of the onset sign. However, therapeutic management of BD needs to be introduced early in order to control inflammation, to preserve visual function and to limit irreversible structural damage. The aim of this review is to provide current data on how innovations in clinical evaluation, investigations and treatments were able to improve the prognosis of uveitis associated with BD.

Drug-induced Sarcoid Uveitis with Biologics

Purpose/Objectives: to evaluate new onset uveitis or reactivated uveitis by biologic agents and characterize their features.Materials and Methods: This is a multicenter, retrospective case series. Patients under biologic therapy were included if they developed uveitis for the first time or experienced intraocular inflammation which was different in location or laterality to previous inflammation.Results: Sixteen patients were identified. The underlying disorders included ankylosing spondylitis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and Behçet's Disease. The biologic agents associated with a first episode of uveitis (n = 11) or with a new recurrence of uveitis (n = 5) were etanercept, adalimumab, abatacept, infliximab, and golimumab. Sarcoidosis based on bihilar lymphadenopathy, other computer tomography-findings, or biopsy was diagnosed in five patients under therapy with etanercep, adalimumab, and abatacept. Additionally, seven patients developed clinical changes in their uveitis pattern, suggesting sarcoid uveitis.Conclusions: Biologic treatment-induced uveitis often presents as granulomatous disease.

Bilateral uveitis associated with nivolumab therapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

Purpose

To report a case of bilateral uveitis secondary to intravenous nivolumab therapy in a patient with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer.

Observations

A 53-year-old male with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer presented with gradual onset of blurry vision in the left eye for nine days after completion of the first cycle of intravenous nivolumab chemotherapy. At initial presentation, best-corrected visual acuity was 20/25 in the right eye and 20/30 in the left eye. Slit lamp biomicroscopy examination of the left eye showed temporal injection of the conjunctiva and sclera, granulomatous keratic precipitates, and vitreous cells in the posterior segment. Imaging studies, including fundus photography, fluorescein angiography, fundus autofluorescence, optical coherence tomography, iridocyanine green angiography, and B scan ultrasonography, demonstrated acute inflammation in the posterior segment of the right eye and anterior, intermediate and posterior segments of the left eye. Nivolumab was discontinued and the patient received a course of corticosteroids resulting in resolution of visual complaints. The patient subsequently developed elevated and sustained intraocular pressures and decreased visual acuity in the left eye secondary to treatment complications. The patient was then lost to follow-up.

Conclusions and Importance

To our best knowledge, this is a rare case of bilateral uveitis secondary to intravenous nivolumab use and the sixteenth reported case of nivolumab-induced uveitis. Physicians should be aware of possible ocular complications associated with the use of nivolumab and provide prompt treatment when necessary.

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.

Drug-induced uveitis

INTRODUCTION

Drug-induced uveitis is a well described but often overlooked and/or misdiagnosed adverse reaction to medication. There are an increasing number of medications that have been related to the onset of intraocular inflammation. Identification of these inciting agents may decisively help the diagnostic algorithm involving new cases of uveitis.

AREAS COVERED

This review intends to be an updated comprehensive, practical guide for practitioners regarding the main drugs that have been associated with uveitis. A classification proposed by Naranjo et al. in 1981 for establishing potential causality is applied examining possible mechanisms of action. A guide for clinicians about the rationale of these observations when dealing with patients with uveitis is provided.

EXPERT OPINION

Several agents with different routes of administration (systemic, topical and/or intraocular) may cause intraocular inflammation. The mechanism behind ocular inflammation is frequently unknown. Clinicians should be aware of the potential drug effect to optimize diagnosis and management of such patients.

Drug-induced uveitis

A number of medications have been associated with uveitis. This review highlights both well-established and recently reported systemic, topical, intraocular, and vaccine-associated causes of drug-induced uveitis, and assigns a quantitative score to each medication based upon criteria originally described by Naranjo and associates.