Clinical and Experimental Medicine

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 1–12 | Cite as

Behçet syndrome: from pathogenesis to novel therapies

Review Article


Behçet syndrome is a chronic disease hallmarked by inflammation of the blood vessels that is related to an autoimmune reaction caused by inherited susceptibility due to specific genes and environmental factors, probably components of infectious microorganisms, which turn on or get going the disease in genetically susceptible subjects. The more common clinical expression of the disease is represented by a triple-symptom complex of recurrent oral aphthous ulcers, genital ulcers, and uveitis, sometimes associated with inflammatory arthritis, phlebitis, iritis, as well as inflammation of the digestive tract, brain, and spinal cord. The treatment strategies used to manage the manifestations of Behçet syndrome have gradually progressed, and a number of new therapeutic resources have been implemented in recent years, allowing better control of pathogenic mechanisms, reducing symptoms and suffering, and ameliorating patient’s outcome.


Behçet Vasculitis Arthritis Aphthae Uveitis Immunosuppression 


Behçet’s disease (BD) is a vasculitis that affects the arteries and veins of all sizes, resulting in an alteration of the endothelial function [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], which comes out from the clinical point of view in the appearance of organic lesions at various levels [6]. There are no real diagnostic criteria for BD; nevertheless, the International Team for the Revision of the International Criteria for Behçet’s Disease (ITR-ICBD) established purely classifying criteria, frequently used as clinical guidance from doctors who suspect the pathology (Table 1) [7, 8]. BD has a higher incidence in the countries located along the ancient Silk Road, stretching from Asia to the Mediterranean countries. It is therefore very common in Turkey (80–370 cases per 100,000 inhabitants), but also in Japan, Korea, and China [9]. The prevalence in the USA and in Europe ranges from 0.12 to 7.5 patients per 100,000 inhabitants [10]. BD affects young patients aged between 20 and 40 years, generally of female gender in countries of northern Europe, and of male gender in the eastern Mediterranean region [9].
Table 1

International criteria for Behçet’s disease diagnosis



Ocular lesions


Oral aphthae


Genital aphthae


Cutaneous lesions


Neurological manifestations


Vascular events


Positive pathergy test



The pathogenesis of BD is still not well known, and there are many possible mechanisms implicated. Among the more important are the association with HLA genotype of the patients, bacterial cross-reactivity with human peptides, cellular secretion of some clusters of cytokines, presence of autoantibodies and circulating immune complexes, hypercoagulability, and activation of the vascular endothelium [11]. Although some studies seem to show an influence equal to only 20 % on the pathogenesis of the disease [12], the increased risk of developing BD is associated with the presence of a particular HLA antigen pattern. In this regard, a recent meta-analysis showed that subjects with HLA-B51/B5 have an increased risk of developing BD compared to non-carriers of HLA-B51/B5 [13]. Other studies also show the prevalence of HLA-B51 in Italy, Germany, and Asia, HLA-B52 in Israel and HLA-B57 in England, HLA-B5101 and HLA-B5108 in the countries along the ancient Silk Road [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. Other evidences also seem to show the existence of a correlation between the presence of HLA-B51 and the severity of BD [20, 21, 22]. Although most of the cases of BD are sporadic, examples of increased incidence of BD have been reported within some families, in which the presence of the disease in a first-degree relative increased the risk of developing the disease. This figure also would agree with the increased presence of HLA-B51 in patients with familial forms compared to patients with sporadic forms [23, 24]. In addition to HLA genotype, according to some studies, in the pathogenesis of BD, the cross-reactivity between bacterial antigens and self-antigens of the host could have an important role, by virtue of their structural homology. Among the antigens in question, for example, have been implicated the so-called heat shock proteins (HSPs), proteins produced by many organisms in response to stress. T cells and/or B cells would recognize exposed bacterial and human epitopes, determining the start or perpetuation of the disease. In confirmation, in patients with BD were isolated high levels of IgG and IgA antibodies directed against HSPs of mycobacteria, which showed significant sequence homology with human mitochondrial HSPs [25], while another study also mentions the involvement of T cells in response to exposure to HSPs of mycobacteria [26]. The increase in circulating levels of autoantibodies could then match the exacerbation of the uveitis manifestations typical of BD [27]. Mycobacteria, however, were not the only bacteria implicated in the pathogenesis of BD. Several evidences would show a possible pathogenic role of Streptococci: increased salivary bacterial colonization by the Streptococcus mutans in patients with BD compared with healthy controls [28], a higher antibody titer directed toward the Streptococcus sanguinis in patients with BD compared with healthy controls [29, 30], and the prevalence of antibodies against streptococcal HSPs in patients with mucocutaneous manifestations [31]. Streptococcal antigens in the infected organism seem to increase the production by T lymphocytes of IL-6 and INFγ, as well as the concentrations of IL-8 and TNFα [32, 33, 34]. These findings are confirmed by another study, in which the improvement in mucocutaneous lesions was analyzed in two groups of patients, one of which consisted of 94 patients with BD treated with colchicine and benzathine penicillin, the other group composed of 60 patients with BD who underwent only colchicine therapy. This study showed a significantly higher improvement in the mucocutaneous lesions in the first group when compared to that obtained in the group of patients treated only with colchicine [35]. Another study instead calls into question antibodies directed against a cytotoxin of Helicobacter pylori, responsible for the vascular damage typical of BD through a mechanism of cross-reaction on endothelins. Such evidence seems demonstrated by the decrease in disease activity upon eradication of the bacterium [36]. Lastly, some studies suggest a virus-related etiopathogenesis of BD. The trigger role of the herpes simplex type 1 virus, found in the nuclei of the cells of some patients with BD, but according to other studies, not present in the saliva of patients with BD tested with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method, remains controversial. Besides, the effectiveness of the therapy with acyclovir in a randomized trial conducted in patients with BD was not evidenced [37]. A different role would play the parvovirus B19, found in patients with BD but without ulcerative lesions of the skin in greater amounts than in healthy controls or patients with BD and with ulcerative cutaneous lesions [38]. In the pathogenesis of BD, a reduced function of innate immunity has been called into question, since in patients with BD have been found low levels of mannose binding lectin (MBL), a protein capable of activating the complement cascade upon binding to the mannose of the bacterial surface. Such low concentrations not only would correlate with the appearance of BD after infections and with the severity of disease, but would also be present in other autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus erythematosus systemicus [39, 40]. As part of innate immunity, an alteration in the expression of Toll-like receptors on lymphocytes of patients suffering from BD was recently evidenced [41, 42, 43], as well as an increased expression of Toll-like receptors 2 and 4 on monocytes of patients with the active form of BD [44, 45]. In BD, there is an alteration in the number and activation of T cells [46], as demonstrated for example by the aforementioned HSPs [26] or by activation of adenosine deaminase, an enzyme involved in the proliferation and differentiation of T cells [47, 48, 49]. In BD, there seems to be an involvement of both T-helper 1 (Th1) and Th2 cells [50, 51, 52]. In many studies of patients with BD, in fact there were high levels of Th1 lymphocytes [53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59], normally responsible for the secretion of cytokines such as IL2, IL6, IL8, IL12, IL18, TNFα, and IFNγ. Other studies seem to show a correlation between high levels of IL8, IL12, and TNFα and disease activity [60, 61, 62, 63, 64], for example in terms of exacerbation of ocular involvement [65] or new onset of posterior uveitis [66], as well as the presence of high levels of IL6 in patients with neurological involvement in the course of active disease [67]. In BD, however, have been demonstrated not only changes in the Th1 subpopulation, but also of Th2 lymphocytes, as demonstrated by the increase in the soluble portion of CD30, released by Th2 cells as effect of their activation and activity of BD itself. An important role is also played by the Th17 subpopulation, normally secreting IL-17, which seems to be increased and activated in active BD [68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73]. Also the soluble fraction of CD28, an important regulator of the activation of T lymphocytes, seems to be increased in patients with active BD, correlating also with the activity of disease [74, 75, 76]. Elevated levels of IL2, IL6, and TNFα were found in patients with active uveitis in the course of BD subsequently treated with benefit with infliximab [77] and, although at lower concentrations than in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, even in the synovial fluid of patients with BD have been reported increased concentrations of IL2 and IL8, but lower concentrations of TNFα [78]. B lymphocytes also appear to play a prominent role in the pathogenesis of BD, considering that an increased level of antigen-driven circulating B lymphocytes have been demonstrated in patients with BD [79, 80]. Autoantibodies to numerous self-antigens were in fact described [81, 82], such as mucosal proteins, endothelial cells, and oxidized LDL, and as regards uveitis, autoantibodies directed against the α-tropomyosin antigen [83, 84], localized in the endoplasmic reticulum, which, after immunization induced in the laboratory, induced the appearance of cutaneous and uveitic lesions in rats very similar to those of patients suffering from BD, were also described. A number of factors play a role in the pathogenesis of vascular damage in patients with BD. The thrombotic risk is certainly increased for the vascular damage induced by vascular inflammation [85]; nevertheless, the presence of endothelial dysfunction has been demonstrated in these patients, in terms of endothelial activation with increased levels of nitric oxide (NO) and its metabolites in the plasma, synovial fluid and humor aqueous [86, 87, 88, 89, 90]. Some studies also show an increase in plasma concentrations of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in patients with elevated activity of BD [91] and in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with neuro-Behçet [92]. A generalized state of hypercoagulability is also demonstrated by the finding in patients with BD of high levels of thrombin with reduction in physiological fibrinolysis, low concentrations of activated protein C [93, 94], increase in platelet activation [95], and lower plasma levels of tissue plasminogen activator tPA [96]. In BD patients, activation of polymorphonuclear (PMN) leukocytes, or neutrophil granulocytes also seems to be present, as a result of increased plasma concentrations of cytokines, such as IL8 and TNFα [97, 98]. Such PMN cells present increased motility and adhesion to endothelial cells in vitro, also in virtue of the increased expression of cell surface receptors, including CD11, CD18, ICAM1, and E-selectin [99]. This fact favors the migration and adhesion of neutrophils to inflamed vessel walls [100], as well as an increase in granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), leukocyte growth factor, and increased apoptosis of neutrophil granulocytes [101]. In patients with neurological involvement, a pathogenic role of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9 was also demonstrated in leukocyte invasion of the central nervous system (CNS) and cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF) of patients with BD compared to healthy controls [102]. In summary, therefore, the pathogenesis of BD could roughly be traced back to the intervention of an infectious antigen (viral or bacterial?), able to determine the activation and exposure of HLA class II antigens on antigen-presenting cells (APC), such as Langerhans cells, dendritic cells, B lymphocytes, and macrophages. Such cells, assisted by the presence of numerous circulating cytokines, such as IL6 and IL1, would present antigen to CD4+ T lymphocytes (Th1), determining proliferation and activation, with consequent release into the circulation of IFNγ, IL-2, and TNFβ, cytokines that are able to determine in turn the activation of B lymphocytes, which, by secreting antibodies, determine the formation of circulating immune complexes and subsequent activation of complement and neutrophil granulocytes [103]. Among other cytokines, IFNγ also impinges on macrophages, stimulating the production of IL1, TNF, IL8, and IL12 [104]. IL8 instead leads to the expression of adhesion molecules on endothelial cells and the subsequent chemotaxis and hyperactivation of neutrophils [105].

Clinical manifestations

The most common and frequent clinical feature of BD is certainly the presence of unsightly and painful oral aphthae and mucocutaneous ulcers, usually of magnitude more severe in male patients. More than two-thirds of the patients also present ocular involvement, more than a third vascular pathologies and finally roughly 10–20 % of patients present with involvement of the central nervous system. Less common instead is the involvement of joints, kidney, and peripheral nervous system [106]. The majority of BD patients at onset of disease present recurrent oral aphthae, histologically similar to the aphthae present in recurrent oral stomatitis, but more extensive, multiple, painful, round-bottomed, yellowish-white, with well-recognized border and surrounded by an erythematous halo. These ulcers are often the first clinical manifestations to appear and the last to disappear during the course of the disease. They are defined minor ulcers when the size is less than 1 cm, and major when the size is more than 1 cm. The latter can sometimes cause residual scars. The ulcers are usually recurrent and typically heal spontaneously in a period ranging from 7 to 20 days, becoming less common after 20 years or so of disease [107]. Genital ulcers affect approximately three-quarters of patients with BD. They are usually localized to the scrotum in males and the vulva in women. They are painful, sometimes evolving in scars and are less recurrent than oral ulcers, of which, however, retain the same morphological characteristics. Epididymitis and salpingitis, although rare, can occur in patients with BD [108, 109]. Also skin lesions are often present and recurrent in patients with BD. They consist of acneiform lesions, erythema nodosum, papulopustular lesions, nodules, pseudofolliculitis, and pyoderma gangrenosum-like lesions. They are present in more than 75 % of patients. Acneiform lesions are similar to the lesions of acne vulgaris, are often associated with articular involvement of arthritic type [110, 111], and are not sterile, since they are often colonized by Staphylococcus aureus and Prevotella [112]. Typical of BD is also the erythematous-papular or pustular reaction approximately 2 mm in diameter at pathergy test, i.e., 24–48 h after inoculation intradermally for at least 5 mm deep with a 20-gauge needle [113]. The ocular involvement in BD affects from 25 to 75 % of patients and, if not adequately treated, can lead to blindness. A typical expression of the disease is uveitis. It is characteristically episodic and bilateral and may affect the entire uvea (panuveitis). The hypopyon is instead a purulent anterior uveitis of severe entity that affects approximately 20 % of patients. Other ocular manifestations in patients with BD include posterior uveitis, retinal vasculitis, retinal vein thrombosis, and optic neuritis. These diseases are to be treated with immunosuppressive therapy quickly to avoid an irreversible reduction in visual acuity up to blindness. It can also cause the appearance of secondary cataract, glaucoma, conjunctival ulcers [114, 115], episcleritis, and sicca syndrome, which fortunately seem to be less common manifestations. Many clinical manifestations of BD are the obvious consequence of the involvement of the vessels (arterial and venous) of all calibers and are more common in male patients. The involvement of the arteries is more common at the level of small vessels; nevertheless, the involvement of medium and large caliber vessels is not uncommon. In fact, in one-third of patients, there is involvement of the carotid artery, pulmonary artery, iliac arteries, aorta, and femoral and popliteal arteries [116], while less frequent is the involvement of the cerebral and renal arteries [117, 118]. The histological feature is the presence of a peri- and intra-vascular inflammatory infiltrate provoking stenosis, bleeding, blood clots, and aneurysms. From a clinical point of view, these histological changes translate into increased risk of acute myocardial infarction due to the involvement of the coronary arteries (however, a rare event) and carotid atherosclerosis [111]. The involvement of the pulmonary artery clinically leads to the onset of hemoptysis, accompanied by fever, cough, pleuritic chest pain, and dyspnea [119, 120]. There may be the onset of pulmonary artery aneurysms, usually involving the larger branches of the artery, and pulmonary embolism with possible fatal outcome if treated only with anticoagulants, not recognizing and quickly addressing the underlying inflammatory vascular etiology [121]. Pulmonary infarction seems to be less common. In contrast, the involvement of the venous vessels is more frequent, resulting clinically in the presence of occlusion of the superior and inferior vena cava, Budd–Chiari syndrome, thrombosis of the dural venous sinuses, superficial and deep venous thrombosis of the legs, often early in the course of disease [122]. In a study conducted on 493 patients with BD, about fifty-three patients had venous thrombosis, fourteen of which thrombosis of the portal vein, eight patients thrombosis of the inferior vena cava, and two patients thrombosis of the portal vein, and the inferior vena cava concomitantly [123]. BD can also show joint involvement, histologically apparent for inflammation evidenced by synovial biopsies [124], and clinically characterized by asymmetric arthritis, non-deforming and non-erosive, which particularly affects the medium and large joints (knees, elbows, and hips) of variable duration from 7 to 20 days, but causing aches and functional limitation similar to those that affect patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, as demonstrated by a study that evaluated by means of the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ) the functional limitation of patients with BD and arthritic involvement [125]. Renal involvement in BD is less common and severe than in other types of vasculitis and may present with proteinuria, hematuria and renal failure usually mild. In a study conducted on 159 BD patients with renal involvement, 51 of them had glomerulonephritis, 4 interstitial nephritis, 35 renal artery aneurysm, and 69 patients secondary amyloidosis [126]. Also the cardiac involvement is uncommon in BD patients and is characterized by the appearance of pericarditis, endocarditis, myocarditis, coronary arteritis, and aneurysms, with or without acute myocardial infarction, mitral valve prolapse, valvular insufficiency [127, 128, 129, 130]. Regarding the involvement of the gastrointestinal tract, BD patients may have anorexia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and oral and bowel ulcerations, particularly at the level of the terminal ileum and the ascending colon. These ulcers are often indistinguishable from those that affect patients with Crohn’s disease, which therefore should be considered in the differential diagnosis of BD.


The autoimmune pathogenesis of BD advocates the consequent use of immunosuppressive drugs. The glucocorticoids are used for BD of medium–high severity and in particular are used at initial high dosage in the acute forms and subsequently reduced to maintenance dose or discontinuation of the administration, in relation to the clinical needs of the patient [131, 132]. Generally, the intravenous bolus of methylprednisolone (1 g) administered for 3 days is reserved for patients with severe and progressive organ disease. Although trials that have studied colchicine use have shown contradictory results [133, 134, 135, 136, 137], this drug is widely used in the treatment of BD, in particular in the treatment of the signs and symptoms of skin and mucosa, such as genital ulcers and erythema nodosum, but also in the reduction in arthritic symptoms sometimes associated with BD [134]. Also azathioprine is among the immunosuppressive drugs mainly evaluated over time in several studies of patients with BD. Among them, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared in the two arms BD patients treated with glucocorticoids and azathioprine versus patients treated with placebo and glucocorticoids [138]. This study showed that patients without initial ocular involvement in therapy with azathioprine showed a low incidence of new onset of ocular pathology, as well as patients with initial ocular involvement treated with azathioprine showed lower incidence of occurrence of hypopyon compared to patients in therapy with glucocorticoid and placebo. Patients treated with azathioprine also had a lower incidence of occurrence of oral and genital ulcers and arthritic manifestations [138]. Azathioprine has been shown to be effective even in 157 patients with posterior uveitis, and panuveitis associated with BD. After azathioprine treatment, 52 % of them showed complete remission of ocular disease and 41 % of them responded partially [139]. Cyclophosphamide, on the contrary, has shown in the few studies carried out a good control of neurological and vascular involvement, but not of the ocular pathology [140]. In the only trial comparing cyclophosphamide and cyclosporine in 23 patients with uveitis, the latter improved visual acuity in contrast to what happened in patients treated with cyclophosphamide [141]. The effectiveness of cyclosporine has been demonstrated instead in many trials, in particular in the therapeutic management of patients with BD and ocular mucocutaneous and articular involvement [141, 142, 143]. It is usually used in combination with glucocorticoids [144] and, in more severe cases, in combination with other immunosuppressants, such as azathioprine [135]. The effectiveness of the drug is confirmed by reports of reactivation of the disease after the temporary suspension of the administration of cyclosporine [144]. Although it is very effective in the treatment of ocular involvement of BD, even compared to chlorambucil in a randomized trial of 40 patients [145], cyclosporine should be used with caution in the treatment of neuro-Behçet, as also highlighted in a retrospective study of 117 patients in which cyclosporine showed a lower efficacy compared with other immunosuppressive drugs [146], in spite of an increased risk of occurrence of side effects, such as hypertension, increased serum creatinine [147], and neurotoxicity, sometimes indistinguishable from the one linked to the primary disease [148]. Also anti-TNFα biological drugs have shown to be effective in the treatment of patients with BD, in particular infliximab and etanercept [149, 150]. As for infliximab, in a prospective study the drug was administered at a dose of 5 mg/kg i.v., in addition to the usual therapy, in BD patients with relapses of ocular pathology. The majority of patients improved rapidly, and all of them improved anyway within 28 days of the administration. In particular, 100 % of patients attained resolution of reduced visual acuity, as well as vitritis and retinitis, and 94 % of patients attained resolution of retinal vasculitis [151]. In a retrospective study of 28 patients, infliximab has been shown to be effective even in BD patients with intestinal involvement, maintaining the efficiency even during a median patients’ follow-up of 30 months [152]. Among the anti-TNFα agents, also etanercept has been studied in a randomized trial conducted for 4 weeks in 40 BD patients with mucocutaneous lesions and/or arthritis. In this study, etanercept has been shown to be more effective than placebo in maintaining the patient free from skin lesions and oral ulcers, but not from genital ulcers [153]. Similarly, in a trial study, also adalimumab was effective in improving the ocular involvement of patients suffering from BD [154]. Interferon (IFN)-α2a and IFN-α2b showed also in several trials [155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165] a good therapeutic efficacy in the control of neurological, mucocutaneous, and arthritic and ocular manifestations of BD. IFN was effective in the treatment of uveitis and mucocutaneous manifestations unresponsive to other immunosuppressive drugs, with the appearance of reactivation of disease after discontinuation of the therapy [166]. Mycophenolate, despite some case reports of effectiveness [167], has not been shown to be beneficial in BD patients with mucocutaneous involvement [168]. Thalidomide monotherapy instead showed, in a randomized placebo-controlled trial, discreet effectiveness after 4 weeks of treatment of oral ulcers and after 8 weeks of therapy of genital ulcers and cutaneous lesions [169]. Besides, in a randomized trial in which patients treated with rituximab in combination with methotrexate and prednisolone were compared to patients treated with cyclophosphamide in combination with azathioprine and prednisolone, the first group showed greater efficacy in the treatment of retinal vasculitis [170]. There are instead limited studies regarding the use of tocilizumab, pentoxifylline, plasmapheresis, and intravenous immunoglobulin in the treatment of BD [171, 172].

Neuro-Behçet: anatomical pathology, neuroimmunology, and therapy

The neurological involvement, when present, usually appears after an average of about 5 years after diagnosis of the disease and affects 5 % of patients with BD [173, 174, 175], although prospective studies evaluating neuro-Behçet patients with follow-up of about 20 years reported a frequency of cerebral involvement of 13 % in male patients and 5.6 % in female patients [176]. A similar gender-related difference has also been reported in some vascular complications of BD [176]. The most common form of neurological involvement in BD affects the brain parenchyma, is due to vasculitis of small vessels (intra-axial form), or can be linked to the presence of venous sinus thrombosis and, therefore, defined by some authors as “vascular-Behçet”(extra-axial form) [177, 178]. In recent years, the number of clinical cases of patients suffering from silent neuro-Behçet, characterized by the presence of alterations in neuroimaging, which does not correspond to a clear clinical manifestation, is also increased. These cases are defined subclinical neurological involvement [179]. The parenchymal involvement of the intra-axial form is most frequently characterized by the presence of focal or multifocal abnormalities, accompanied or not by headache, and consisting in pyramidal, cerebellar and cognitive deficits, including memory deficit [180] and behavioral disorders [179]. Less common are seizures and signs of involvement of the spinal cord, as well as isolated optic neuritis, aseptic meningitis, and extrapyramidal syndrome [179, 181, 182]. Some patients may also experience a form of psycho-neuro-Behçet characterized by the presence of emotional lability, euphoria, disinhibition, agitation, and obsessive behavior, not attributable to treatment with glucocorticoids or other drugs [183]. Headache is one of the most common symptoms of BD, is typically migrant, and is not associated closely with brain intraparenchymal alteration [176, 184], but rather to the systemic inflammation that accompanies exacerbations of BD [184]. The neuromuscular involvement instead is considered rare and includes multiple mononeuritis, distal sensorimotor neuropathy, and myositis with focal or generalized involvement [175, 178, 181, 185, 186, 187, 188]. Neuromuscular involvement may be coincidental or secondary to certain drugs used in the treatment of BD [7], such as thalidomide and colchicine, and is sometimes diagnosed only by electroneuromyography in patients with silent clinical symptomatology [178, 188]. The clinical course of neuro-Behçet can be acute in many cases [173, 174, 175] or be characterized by periods of relapse or subtly progress toward a chronic phase, leading to progressive and untreatable changes in behavior and ataxia, in anticipation of a neurological deterioration resulting in a significant disability [173, 174, 175]. In some cases, it may appear as a quite progressive form from the beginning [189, 190, 191]. The extra-axial form affects approximately 10–20 % of patients with neuro-Behçet [173, 175, 181, 192, 193] and, often being secondary to venous sinus thrombosis, can determine intracranial hypertension with papilledema and paresis of the cranial nerves (especially trochlear nerve), although fortunately for the majority of patients the main symptom is constituted by a slight intensity headache [173, 175, 181, 192, 193]. The arterial involvement in neuro-Behçet is generally rather rare and can determine occlusion of the carotid arteries, vertebral artery dissection or thrombosis, aneurysm, and intracranial arteritis [182, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199]. The evolution of the extra-axial form is generally slow, although there are cases reported in the scientific literature of acute onset epilepsy and focal neurological signs [177]. From a neuropathological point of view, the intra-axial form of neuro-Behçet in the acute phase is characterized by the presence of perivascular infiltration of T lymphocytes and monocytes, and few B cells, resulting in apoptosis of some neurons [200]. This figure would lead, according to some authors, to consider neuro-Behçet as a “perivasculitis” [200, 201, 202]. From the purely neuroimmunological point of view in the intra-axial form instead, analysis of cerebrospinal fluid, when performed, showed the presence of leukocytosis and proteinorrachia [173, 174, 175], as well as high concentrations of IL6, that many studies have shown to have a central role in determining the neuronal damage, up to apoptosis of the cell [203, 204, 205]. In neuro-Behçet patients with intra-axial pattern, brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is usually diagnostic and shows lesions most often localized to diencephalon, basal ganglia, and, less frequently, at the level of the periventricular area and subcortical white matter [206]. As mentioned, much less common is the involvement of the spinal cord and, if this occurs, MRI shows a particular involvement in the cervical area [6]. Besides, in the extra-axial pattern, the more frequent involvement of the post-capillary venules makes arteriography a little useful imaging technique to finalize the diagnosis [6]. The neurological involvement in BD is considered a major cause of disability, since about 50 % of patients experience moderate-to-severe disability during the 10 years following the diagnosis [175]. The cerebellar involvement, the chronic rather than acute course and pleocytosis accompanied by proteinorrachia are considered unfavorable prognostic factors [173, 179], whereas patients with headache, acute onset, and extra-axial form are considered to be at lower risk [179]. The treatment of the intra-axial form is different depending on whether it is acute episodical or chronic progressive. In the first case, glucocorticoids are preferentially used, although their use does not prevent the possible progression of the pathology. Generally, oral prednisolone (1 mg/kg for at least 4 weeks or until clinical improvement) or high-dose intravenous methylprednisolone (1 g/day for at least 5 days) is used and then scaled appropriately and kept in the next 2–3 months in order to prevent early flares [207, 208]. For the chronic progressive form, several immunosuppressive agents (colchicine, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, IFN) have been used, and although each of them has led patients to a clinical benefit, none of them have been part of a study design adequately powered [207, 208, 209, 210]. Typically, such patients are treated with the addition of an immunosuppressant (azathioprine or cyclophosphamide) to corticosteroids. We advise against the use of cyclosporine because of its possible neurotoxicity [211, 212, 213], while there are reports of clinical efficacy in patients treated with methotrexate (5–15 mg/week) [214] and, recently, also in patients treated with anti-TNFα biological drugs, such as infliximab [215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220]. The pattern of extra-axial neuro-Behçet, as already mentioned, is treated with the use of anticoagulants and glucocorticoids [177, 192, 207], although some authors prefer to use only glucocorticoids [193].


The chronic vasculitis underlying the clinical manifestations that characterize Behçet syndrome is provoked by environmental triggers, in all probability bacterial or viral, which set out or stimulate an autoimmune response in genetically susceptible subjects. Oral aphthous ulcers, genital ulcers, and uveitis typically wax and wane, occasionally occurring with inflammatory arthritis, phlebitis, iritis, as well as inflammation of the digestive tract, brain, and spinal cord. In recent times, innovative therapeutic strategies have advanced management of pathogenic mechanisms, enhanced control of clinical manifestations, and improved patient’s outcome and life expectancy.



The study was supported by the “5 × 1,000” voluntary contribution and by a Grant (GM) from the Italian Ministry of Health (RC1201ME04, RC1203ME46, RC1302ME31, and RC1403ME50) through Department of Medical Sciences, Division of Internal Medicine and Chronobiology Unit, IRCCS Scientific Institute and Regional General Hospital “Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza”, Opera di Padre Pio da Pietrelcina, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG), Italy.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.


  1. 1.
    Yazici H, Yazici Y. Criteria for Behçet’s disease with reflections on all disease criteria. J Autoimmun. 2014;48–49:104–7. doi:10.1016/j.jaut.2014.01.014.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lehner T. Immunopathogenesis of Behcet’s disease. Ann Med Interne (Paris). 1999;150(6):483–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ambrose NL, Haskard DO. Differential diagnosis and management of Behçet syndrome. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2013;9(2):79–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chambers JC, Haskard DO, Kooner JS. Vascular endothelial function and oxidative stress mechanism in patients with Behcet’s syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;37:517–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mehta P, Laffan M, Haskard DO. Thrombosis and Behçet’s syndrome in non-endemic regions. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010;49(11):2003–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yazici Y, Yazici H. Behcet’s syndrome. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2010;12(6):429–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Team for the Revision of the International. Criteria for Behçet’s Disease (ITR-ICBD). The International Criteria for Behçet’s Disease (ICBD): a collaborative study of 27 countries on the sensitivity and specificity of the new criteria. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2014;28(3):338–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faezi ST, Paragomi P, Shahram F, et al. Clinical features of Behcet’s disease in patients without oral aphthosis. Mod Rheumatol. 2014;24(4):637–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Neill TW, Rigby AS, Silman AJ, Barnes C. Validation of the International Study Group criteria for Behçet’s disease. Br J Rheumatol. 1994;33(2):115–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calamia KT, Wilson FC, Icen M, Crowson CS, Gabriel SE, Kremers HM. Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of Behçet’s disease in the US: a population-based study. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61:600–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Direskeneli H. Behçet’s disease: infectious aetiology, new autoantigens, and HLA-B51. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001;60:996–1002.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gül A, Hajeer AH, Worthington J, Barrett JH, Ollier WE, Silman AJ. Evidence for linkage of the HLA-B locus in Behçet’s disease, obtained using the transmission disequilibrium test. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44:239–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Menthon M, Lavalley MP, Maldini C, Guillevin L, Mahr A. HLA-B51/B5 and the risk of Behçet’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control genetic association studies. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61:1287–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arber N, Klein T, Meiner Z, Pras E, Weinberger A. Close association of HLA-B51 and B52 in Israeli patients with Behçet’s syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis. 1991;50:351–3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salvarani C, Boiardi L, Mantovani V, et al. Association of MICA alleles and HLA-B51 in Italian patients with Behçet’s disease. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:1867–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kötter I, Günaydin I, Stübiger N, et al. Comparative analysis of the association of HLA-B*51 suballeles with Behçet’s disease in patients of German and Turkish origin. Tissue Antigens. 2001;58:166–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ahmad T, Wallace GR, James T, et al. Mapping the HLA association in Behçet’s disease: a role for tumor necrosis factor polymorphisms? Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48:807–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baskan EB, Yilmaz E, Saricaoglu H, et al. Detection of parvovirus B19 DNA in the lesional skin of patients with Behçet’s disease. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2007;32:186–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mizuki N, Meguro A, Tohnai I, Gül A, Ohno S, Mizuki N. Association of major histocompatibility complex class I chain-related gene A and HLA-B alleles with Behçet’s disease in Turkey. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2007;51:431–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ermakova NA, Alekberova ZS, Prokaeva TB, Poljanskaja IB. Frequency of HLA in patients with Behçet’s disease and association with occlusive retinal vasculitis. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2003;528:231–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Choukri F, Chakib A, Himmich H, Marih L, Caillat-Zucman S. HLA-B phenotype modifies the course of Behçet’s disease in Moroccan patients. Tissue Antigens. 2003;61:92–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gül A, Uyar FA, Inanc M, et al. Lack of association of HLA-B*51 with a severe disease course in Behçet’s disease. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2001;40:668–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Akpolat T, Koç Y, Yeniay I, et al. Familial Behçet’s disease. Eur J Med. 1992;1:391–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koné-Paut I, Geisler I, Wechsler B, et al. Familial aggregation in Behçet’s disease: high frequency in siblings and parents of pediatric probands. J Pediatr. 1999;135:89–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Direskeneli H, Hasan A, Shinnick T, et al. Recognition of B-cell epitopes of the 65 kDa HSP in Behçet’s disease. Scand J Immunol. 1996;43:464–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Suzuki Y, Hoshi K, Matsuda T, Mizushima Y. Increased peripheral blood gamma delta + T cells and natural killer cells in Behçet’s disease. J Rheumatol. 1992;19:588–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    de Smet MD, Ramadan A. Circulating antibodies to inducible heat shock protein 70 in patients with uveitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2001;9:85–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mumcu G, Inanc N, Aydin SZ, Ergun T, Direskeneli H. Association of salivary S. mutans colonisation and mannose-binding lectin deficiency with gender in Behçet’s disease. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2009;27:S32–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yokota K, Hayashi S, Fujii N, et al. Antibody response to oral streptococci in Behçet’s disease. Microbiol Immunol. 1992;36:815–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Isogai E, Ohno S, Kotake S, et al. Chemiluminescence of neutrophils from patients with Behçet’s disease and its correlation with an increased proportion of uncommon serotypes of Streptococcus sanguis in the oral flora. Arch Oral Biol. 1990;35:43–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Calgüneri M, Ertenli I, Kiraz S, Erman M, Celik I. Effect of prophylactic benzathine penicillin on mucocutaneous symptoms of Behçet’s disease. Dermatology. 1996;192:125–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hirohata S, Oka H, Mizushima Y. Streptococcal-related antigens stimulate production of IL6 and interferon-gamma by T cells from patients with Behcet’s disease. Cell Immunol. 1992;140:410–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mochizuki M, Suzuki N, Takeno M, Nagafuchi H, Harada T, Kaneoka H. Fine antigen specificity of human gamma delta T cell lines (V gamma 9 +) established by repetitive stimulation with a serotype (KTH-1) of a gram-positive bacterium, Streptococcus sanguis. Eur J Immunol. 1994;24:1536–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Evereklioglu C, Er H, Türköz Y, Cekmen M. Serum levels of TNF-alpha, sIL-2R, IL-6, and IL-8 are increased and associated with elevated lipid peroxidation in patients with Behçet’s disease. Mediat Inflamm. 2002;11:87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tanaka T, Yamakawa N, Koike N, Suzuki J, Mizuno F, Usui M. Behçet’s disease and antibody titers to various heatshock protein 60s. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 1999;7:69–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Apan TZ, Gürsel R, Dolgun A. Increased seropositivity of Helicobacter pylori cytotoxin associated gene-A in Behçet’s disease. Clin Rheumatol. 2007;26:885–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Evereklioglu C. Current concepts in the etiology and treatment of Behçet disease. Surv Ophthalmol. 2005;50:297–350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Baskan EB, Yilmaz E, Saricaoglu H, et al. Detection of parvovirus B19 DNA in the lesional skin of patients with Behçet’s disease. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2007;32:186–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mumcu G, Inanc N, Aydin SZ, Ergun T, Direskeneli H. Association of salivary S. mutans colonisation and mannose-binding lectin deficiency with gender in Behçet’s disease. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2009;27:S32–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Inanc N, Mumcu G, Birtas E, et al. Serum mannose-binding lectin levels are decreased in behcet’s disease and associated with disease severity. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:287–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yavuz S, Elbir Y, Tulunay A, Eksioglu-Demiralp E, Direskeneli H. Differential expression of toll-like receptor 6 on granulocytes and monocytes implicates the role of microorganisms in Behcet’s disease etiopathogenesis. Rheumatol Int. 2008;28:401–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Seoudi N, Bergmeier LA, Hagi-Pavli E, Bibby D, Curtis MA, Fortune F. The role of TLR2 and 4 in Behcet’s disease pathogenesis. Innate Immun. 2014;20(4):412–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Liu X, Wang C, Ye Z, Kijlstra A, Yang P. Higher expression of toll-like receptors 2, 3, 4, and 8 in ocular Behcet’s disease. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:6012–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Do JE, Kwon SY, Park S, Lee ES. Effects of vitamin D on expression of toll-like receptors of monocytes from patients with Behcet’s disease. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2008;47:840–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Liang L, Tan X, Zhou Q, et al. IL-1β triggered by peptidoglycan and lipopolysaccharide through TLR2/4 and ROS-NLRP3 inflammasome-dependent pathways is involved in ocular Behçet’s disease. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:402–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Direskeneli H. Behçet’s disease: infectious aetiology, new autoantigens, and HLA-B51. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001;60:996–1002.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Erkiliç K, Evereklioglu C, Cekmen M, Ozkiris A, Duygulu F, Dogan H. Adenosine deaminase enzyme activity is increased and negatively correlates with catalase, superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase in patients with Behçet’s disease: original contributions/clinical and laboratory investigations. Mediat Inflamm. 2003;12:107–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Calis M, Ates F, Yazici C, et al. Adenosine deaminase enzyme levels, their relation with disease activity, and the effect of colchicine on adenosine deaminase levels in patients with Behçet’s disease. Rheumatol Int. 2005;25:452–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Canpolat F, Unver M, Eskioğlu F, Kösebalaban S, Durmazlar SP. Serum and erythrocyte adenosine deaminase activities in patients with Behçet’s disease. Int J Dermatol. 2006;45:1053–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hamzaoui K, Hamzaoui A, Guemira F, Bessioud M, Hamza M, Ayed K. Cytokine profile in Behçet’s disease patients. Relationship with disease activity. Scand J Rheumatol. 2002;31:205–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Raziuddin S, Al-Dalaan A, Bahabri S, Siraj AK, Al-Sedairy S. Divergent cytokine production profile in Behçet’s disease. Altered Th1/Th2 cell cytokine pattern. J Rheumatol. 1998;25:329–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dalghous AM, Freysdottir J, Fortune F. Expression of cytokines, chemokines, and chemokine receptors in oral ulcers of patients with Behcet’s disease (BD) and recurrent aphthous stomatitis is Th1-associated, although Th2-association is also observed in patients with BD. Scand J Rheumatol. 2006;35:472–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sugi-Ikai N, Nakazawa M, Nakamura S, Ohno S, Minami M. Increased frequencies of interleukin-2- and interferon-gamma-producing T cells in patients with active Behçet’s disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39:996–1004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Frassanito MA, Dammacco R, Cafforio P, Dammacco F. Th1 polarization of the immune response in Behçet’s disease: a putative pathogenetic role of interleukin-12. Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42:1967–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Boiardi L, Salvarani C, Casali B, et al. Intercellular adhesion molecule-1 gene polymorphisms in Behçet’s disease. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:1283–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ben Ahmed M, Houman H, Miled M, et al. Involvement of chemokines and Th1 cytokines in the pathogenesis of mucocutaneous lesions of Behçet’s disease. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50:2291–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bardak Y, Aridogan BC. The demonstration of serum interleukin 6-8, tumor necrosis factor alpha, complement, and immunoglobulin levels in Behçet’s disease with ocular involvement. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2004;12:53–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Suzuki N, Nara K, Suzuki T. Skewed Th1 responses caused by excessive expression of Txk, a member of the Tec family of tyrosine kinases, in patients with Behcet’s disease. Clin Med Res. 2006;4:147–51.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Imamura Y, Kurokawa MS, Yoshikawa H, et al. Involvement of Th1 cells and heat shock protein 60 in the pathogenesis of intestinal Behcet’s disease. Clin Exp Immunol. 2005;139:371–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Turan B, Gallati H, Erdi H, Gürler A, Michel BA, Villiger PM. Systemic levels of the T cell regulatory cytokines IL-10 and IL-12 in Bechçet’s disease; soluble TNFR-75 as a biological marker of disease activity. J Rheumatol. 1997;24:128–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Katsantonis J, Adler Y, Orfanos CE, Zouboulis CC. Adamantiades-Behçet’s disease: serum IL-8 is a more reliable marker for disease activity than C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Dermatology. 2000;201:37–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Musabak U, Pay S, Erdem H, et al. Serum interleukin-18 levels in patients with Behçet’s disease. Is its expression associated with disease activity or clinical presentations? Rheumatol Int. 2006;26:545–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Turan B, Pfister K, Diener PA, et al. Soluble tumour necrosis factor receptors sTNFR1 and sTNFR2 are produced at sites of inflammation and are markers of arthritis activity in Behçet’s disease. Scand J Rheumatol. 2008;37:135–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Durmazlar SP, Ulkar GB, Eskioglu F, Tatlican S, Mert A, Akgul A. Significance of serum interleukin-8 levels in patients with Behcet’s disease: high levels may indicate vascular involvement. Int J Dermatol. 2009;48:259–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Bardak Y, Aridogan BC. The demonstration of serum interleukin 6-8, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, complement, and immunoglobulin levels in Behçet’s disease with ocular involvement. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2004;12:53–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ozdamar Y, Berker N, Bahar G, et al. Inflammatory mediators and posterior segment involvement in ocular Behcet disease. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009;19:998–1003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Akman-Demir G, Tüzün E, Içöz S, Yeşilot N, et al. Interleukin-6 in neuro-Behçet’s disease: association with disease subsets and long-term outcome. Cytokine. 2008;44:373–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sugita S, Kawazoe Y, Imai A, Yamada Y, Horie S, Mochizuki M. Inhibition of Th17 differentiation by anti-TNF-alpha therapy in uveitis patients with Behçet’s disease. Arthritis Res Ther. 2012;14:R99.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Shimizu J, Takai K, Fujiwara N, et al. Excessive CD4 + T cells co-expressing interleukin-17 and interferon-γ in patients with Behçet’s disease. Clin Exp Immunol. 2012;168:68–74.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hamzaoui K. Th17 cells in Behçet’s disease: a new immunoregulatory axis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2011;29:S71–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Geri G, Terrier B, Rosenzwajg M, et al. Critical role of IL-21 in modulating TH17 and regulatory T cells in Behçet disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;128:655–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Liang L, Wang H, Peng XY, Zhao M. The changes of Th lymphocyte subsets in patients with Behcet disease. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 2011;47:393–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Lee YJ, Horie Y, Wallace GR, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies GIMAP as a novel susceptibility locus for Behcet’s disease. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:1510–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Gunesacar R, Erken E, Bozkurt B, et al. Analysis of CD28 and CTLA-4 gene polymorphisms in Turkish patients with Behcet’s disease. Int J Immunogenet. 2007;34:45–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Park KS, Baek JA, Do JE, Bang D, Lee ES. CTLA4 gene polymorphisms and soluble CTLA4 protein in Behcet’s disease. Tissue Antigens. 2009;74:222–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ben Dhifallah I, Chelbi H, Braham A, Hamzaoui K, Houman MH. CTLA-4 +49A/G polymorphism is associated with Behçet’s disease in a Tunisian population. Tissue Antigens. 2009;73:213–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sugita S, Kawazoe Y, Imai A, Yamada Y, Horie S, Mochizuki M. Inhibition of Th17 differentiation by anti-TNF-alpha therapy in uveitis patients with Behçet’s disease. Arthritis Res Ther. 2012;14:R99.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Pay S, Erdem H, Pekel A, et al. Synovial proinflammatory cytokines and their correlation with matrix metalloproteinase-3 expression in Behçet’s disease. Does interleukin-1beta play a major role in Behçet’s synovitis? Rheumatol Int. 2006;26:608–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Suh CH, Park YB, Song J, Lee CH, Lee SK. Oligoclonal B lymphocyte expansion in the synovium of a patient with Behçet’s disease. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44:1707–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Eksioglu-Demiralp E, Kibaroglu A, Direskeneli H, et al. Phenotypic characteristics of B cells in Behçet’s disease: increased activity in B cell subsets. J Rheumatol. 1999;26:826–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Aydìntug AO, Tokgöz G, D’Cruz DP, et al. Antibodies to endothelial cells in patients with Behçet’s disease. Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1993;67:157–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Direskeneli H, Keser G, D’Cruz D, et al. Anti-endothelial cell antibodies, endothelial proliferation and von Willebrand factor antigen in Behçet’s disease. Clin Rheumatol. 1995;14:55–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Mahesh SP, Li Z, Buggage R, et al. Alpha tropomyosin as a self-antigen in patients with Behçet’s disease. Clin Exp Immunol. 2005;140:368–75.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Mor F, Weinberger A, Cohen IR. Identification of alpha-tropomyosin as a target self-antigen in Behçet’s syndrome. Eur J Immunol. 2002;32:356–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Espinosa G, Font J, Tàssies D, Vidaller A, et al. Vascular involvement in Behçet’s disease: relation with thrombophilic factors, coagulation activation, and thrombomodulin. Am J Med. 2002;112:37–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Evereklioglu C, Turkoz Y, Er H, Inaloz HS, Ozbek E, Cekmen M. Increased nitric oxide production in patients with Behçet’s disease: is it a new activity marker? J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;46:50–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Evereklioglu C, Cekmen M, Ozkiriş A, Karabaş L, Caliş M. The pathophysiological significance of red blood cell nitric oxide concentrations in inflammatory Behçet’s disease. Mediat Inflamm. 2003;12:255–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Yilmaz G, Sizmaz S, Yilmaz ED, Duman S, Aydin P. Aqueous humor nitric oxide levels in patients with Behçet disease. Retina. 2002;22:330–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Buldanlioglu S, Turkmen S, Ayabakan HB, et al. Nitric oxide, lipid peroxidation and antioxidant defence system in patients with active or inactive Behçet’s disease. Br J Dermatol. 2005;153:526–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Duygulu F, Evereklioglu C, Calis M, Borlu M, Cekmen M, Ascioglu O. Synovial nitric oxide concentrations are increased and correlated with serum levels in patients with active Behçet’s disease: a pilot study. Clin Rheumatol. 2005;24:324–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Cekmen M, Evereklioglu C, Er H, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor levels are increased and associated with disease activity in patients with Behçet’s syndrome. Int J Dermatol. 2003;42:870–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Hamzaoui K, Ayed K, Hamza M, Hamzaoui A. VEGF and mRNA VEGF expression in CSF from Behçet’s disease with neurological involvement. J Neuroimmunol. 2009;213:148–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Espinosa G, Font J, Tàssies D, et al. Vascular involvement in Behçet’s disease: relation with thrombophilic factors, coagulation activation, and thrombomodulin. Am J Med. 2002;112:37–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Haznedaroglu IC, Ozcebe O, Celik I, Dündar SV, Kirazhi S. Haemostatic markers of procoagulant imbalance in Behçet’s disease. Eur J Haematol. 1996;57:107–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Akar S, Ozcan MA, Ateş H, et al. Circulated activated platelets and increased platelet reactivity in patients with Behçet’s disease. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2006;12:451–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Yurdakul S, Hekim N, Soysal T, et al. Fibrinolytic activity and d-dimer levels in Behçet’s syndrome. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23:S53–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Itoh R, Takenaka T, Okitsu-Negishi S, Matsushima K, Mizoguchi M. Interleukin 8 in Behçet’s disease. J Dermatol. 1994;21:397–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Al-Dalaan A, Al-Sedairy S, Al-Balaa S, et al. Enhanced interleukin 8 secretion in circulation of patients with Behçet’s disease. J Rheumatol. 1995;22:904–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Sahin S, Akoğlu T, Direskeneli H, Sen LS, Lawrence R. Neutrophil adhesion to endothelial cells and factors affecting adhesion in patients with Behçet’s disease. Ann Rheum Dis. 1996;55:128–33.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Triolo G, Accardo-Palumbo A, Triolo G, Carbone MC, Ferrante A, Giardina E. Enhancement of endothelial cell E-selectin expression by sera from patients with active Behçet’s disease: moderate correlation with antiendothelial cell antibodies and serum myeloperoxidase levels. Clin Immunol. 1999;91:330–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Kawakami T, Ohashi S, Kawa Y, et al. Elevated serum granulocyte colony-stimulating factor levels in patients with active phase of sweet syndrome and patients with active behcet disease: implication in neutrophil apoptosis dysfunction. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140:570–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Hamzaoui K, Maître B, Hamzaoui A. Elevated levels of MMP-9 and TIMP-1 in the cerebrospinal fluid of neuro-Behçet’s disease. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2009;27:S52–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Hatemi G, Yazici Y, Yazici H. Behçet’s syndrome. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2013;39(2):245–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Yamashita N, Kaneoka H, Kaneko S, Takeno M, et al. Role of gammadelta T lymphocytein the development of Behcet’s disease. Clin Exp Rheum. 1997;107:241–7.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Hasan A, Fortune F, Wilson A, et al. Role of T-cells in pathogenesis and diagnosis of Behcet’s Dis. Lancet. 1996;347:789–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Zouboulis CC, Vaiopoulos G, Marcomichelakis N, et al. Onset signs, clinical course, prognosis, treatment and outcome of adult patients with Adamantiades-Behçet’s disease in Greece. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2003;21:S19–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    O’Duffy JD. Behcet’s syndrome. In: Primer on the rheumatic diseases, 10th, Arthritis Foundation, Atlanta 1993. vol. 29, p. 206.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Kaklamani VG, Vaiopoulos G, Markomichelakis N, Kaklamanis P. Recurrent epididymo-orchitis in patients with Behçet’s disease. J Urol. 2000;163:487–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Cho YH, Jung J, Lee KH, Bang D, Lee ES, Lee S. Clinical features of patients with Behçet’s disease and epididymitis. J Urol. 2003;170:1231–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Diri E, Mat C, Hamuryudan V, Yurdakul S, Hizli N, Yazici H. Papulopustular skin lesions are seen more frequently in patients with Behçet’s syndrome who have arthritis: a controlled and masked study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001;60:1074–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Tunc R, Keyman E, Melikoglu M, Fresko I, Yazici H. Target organ associations in Turkish patients with Behçet’s disease: a cross sectional study by exploratory factor analysis. J Rheumatol. 2002;29:2393–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Hatemi G, Bahar H, Uysal S, et al. The pustular skin lesions in Behcet’s syndrome are not sterile. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63:1450–2.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Jorizzo JL, Solomon AR, Zanolli MD, Leshin B. Neutrophilic vascular reactions. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1988;19:983–1005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Matsuo T, Itami M, Nakagawa H, Nagayama M. The incidence and pathology of conjunctival ulceration in Behçet’s syndrome. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:140–3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Zamir E, Bodaghi B, Tugal-Tutkun I, et al. Conjunctival ulcers in Behçet’s disease. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1137–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Koç Y, Güllü I, Akpek G, et al. Vascular involvement in Behçet’s disease. J Rheumatol. 1992;19:402–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Seyahi E, Melikoglu M, Yazici H. Clinical features and diagnosis of Behcet’s syndrome. Int J Adv Rheumatol. 2007;5:8.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Kural-Seyahi E, Fresko I, Seyahi N, et al. The long-term mortality and morbidity of Behçet syndrome: a 2-decade outcome survey of 387 patients followed at a dedicated center. Medicine (Baltimore). 2003;82:60–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Uzun O, Akpolat T, Erkan L. Pulmonary vasculitis in behcet disease: a cumulative analysis. Chest. 2005;127:2243–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Seyahi E, Melikoglu M, Akman C, et al. Pulmonary artery involvement and associated lung disease in Behçet disease: a series of 47 patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2012;91:35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Uzun O, Akpolat T, Erkan L. Pulmonary vasculitis in behcet disease: a cumulative analysis. Chest. 2005;127:2243–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Sibley C, Yazici Y, Tascilar K, et al. Behçet syndrome manifestations and activity in the United States versus Turkey: a cross-sectional cohort comparison. J Rheumatol. 2014;41(7):1379–84.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Bayraktar Y, Balkanci F, Bayraktar M, Calguneri M. Budd–Chiari syndrome: a common complication of Behçet’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997;92:858–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Kim HA, Choi KW, Song YW. Arthropathy in Behçet’s disease. Scand J Rheumatol. 1997;26:125–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Moses Alder N, Fisher M, Yazici Y. Behçet’s syndrome patients have high levels of functional disability, fatigue and pain as measured by a Multi-dimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ). Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2008;26:S110–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Akpolat T, Akkoyunlu M, Akpolat I, Dilek M, Odabas AR, Ozen S. Renal Behçet’s disease: a cumulative analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2002;31:317–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Goldeli O, Ural D, Komsuoğlu B, Ağaçdiken A, Dursun E, Cetinarslan B. Abnormal QT dispersion in Behçet’s disease. Int J Cardiol. 1997;61:55–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Huong DL, Wechsler B, Papo T, et al. Endomyocardial fibrosis in Behçet’s disease. Ann Rheum Dis. 1997;56:205–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Gürgün C, Ercan E, Ceyhan C, et al. Cardiovascular involvement in Behçet’s disease. Jpn HeartJ. 2002;43:389–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Geri G, Wechsler B, Thi Huong du L, et al. Spectrum of cardiac lesions in Behçet disease: a series of 52 patients and review of the literature. Medicine (Baltimore). 2012;91:25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Barnes CG. Treatment of Behcet’s syndrome. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006;6(45):245–7.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Mat C, Yurdakul S, Uysal S, et al. A double-blind trial of depot corticosteroids in Behçet’s syndrome. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006;45:348–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Saenz A, Ausejo M, Shea B, Wells G, Welch V, Tugwell P. Pharmacotherapy for Behcet’s syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000. (doppia nota 140).Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Yurdakul S, Mat C, Mat C, et al. A double-blind trial of colchicine in Behçet’s syndrome. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44:2686–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Kaklamani VG, Kaklamanis PG. Treatment of Behçet’s disease–an update. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2001;30:299–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Aktulga E, Altaç M, Müftüoglu A, et al. A double blind study of colchicine in Behçet’s disease. Haematologica. 1980;65:399–402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Kazokoglu H, Saatçi O, Cuhadaroglu H, Eldem B. Long-term effects of cyclophosphamide and colchicine treatment in Behçet’s disease. Ann Ophthalmol. 1991;23:148–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Yazici H, Pazarli H, Barnes CG, et al. A controlled trial of azathioprine in Behçet’s syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:281–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Saadoun D, Wechsler B, Terrada C, et al. Azathioprine in severe uveitis of Behçet’s disease. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62:1733–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Saenz A, Ausejo M, Shea B, Wells G, Welch V, Tugwell P. Pharmacotherapy for Behcet’s syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000. (doppia nota 133).Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Ozyazgan Y, Yurdakul S, Yazici H, et al. Low dose cyclosporin A versus pulsed cyclophosphamide in Behçet’s syndrome: a single masked trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 1992;76:241–3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Atmaca LS, Batioglu F. The efficacy of cyclosporin-a in the treatment of Behçet’s disease. Ophthalmic Surg. 1994;25:321–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Sajjadi H, Soheilian M, Ahmadieh H, et al. Low dose cyclosporin-A therapy in Behçet’s disease. J Ocul Pharmacol. 1994;10:553–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Whitcup SM, Salvo EC Jr, Nussenblatt RB. Combined cyclosporine and corticosteroid therapy for sight-threatening uveitis in Behçet’s disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 1994;118:39–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    BenEzra D, Cohen E, Chajek T, et al. Evaluation of conventional therapy versus cyclosporine A in Behçet’s syndrome. Transpl Proc. 1988;20:136–43.Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Kötter I, Günaydin I, Batra M, et al. CNS involvement occurs more frequently in patients with Behçet’s disease under cyclosporin A (CSA) than under other medications–results of a retrospective analysis of 117 cases. Clin Rheumatol. 2006;25:482–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Sajjadi H, Soheilian M, Ahmadieh H, et al. Low dose cyclosporin-A therapy in Behçet’s disease. J Ocul Pharmacol. 1994;10:553–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Sakane T, Takeno M. Novel approaches to Behçet’s disease. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2000;9:1993–2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Pipitone N, Olivieri I, Cantini F, Triolo G, Salvarani C. New approaches in the treatment of Adamantiades-Behçet’s disease. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2006;18:3–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Sfikakis PP, Markomichelakis N, Alpsoy E, et al. Anti-TNF therapy in the management of Behcet’s disease—review and basis for recommendations. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007;46:736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Sfikakis PP, Kaklamanis PH, Elezoglou A, et al. Infliximab for recurrent, sight-threatening ocular inflammation in Adamantiades-Behçet disease. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:404–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Lee JH, Cheon JH, Jeon SW, et al. Efficacy of infliximab in intestinal Behçet’s disease: a Korean multicenter retrospective study. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013;19:1833–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Melikoglu M, Fresko I, Mat C, et al. Short-term trial of etanercept in Behçet’s disease: a double blind, placebo controlled study. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:98–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Bawazeer A, Raffa LH, Nizamuddin SH. Clinical experience with adalimumab in the treatment of ocular Behçet disease. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2010;18:226–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Pivetti-Pezzi P, Accorinti M, Pirraglia MP, Priori R, Valesini G. Interferon alpha for ocular Behçet’s disease. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1997;75:720–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Nichols JC, Ince A, Akduman L, Mann ES. Interferon-alpha 2a treatment of neuro-Behcet disease. J Neuroophthalmol. 2001;21:109–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Zouboulis CC, Orfanos CE. Treatment of Adamantiades-Behçet disease with systemic interferon alfa. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1010–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Hamuryudan V, Moral F, Yurdakul S, et al. Systemic interferon alpha 2b treatment in Behçet’s syndrome. J Rheumatol. 1994;21:1098–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Alpsoy E, Durusoy C, Yilmaz E, et al. Interferon alfa-2a in the treatment of Behçet disease: a randomized placebo-controlled and double-blind study. Arch Dermatol. 2002;138:467–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Deuter CM, Kötter I, Kötter I, Günaydin I, Zierhut M, Stübiger N. Ocular involvement in Behçet’s disease: first 5-year results for visual development after treatment with interferon alfa-2a. Ophthalmologe. 2004;101:129–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Kötter I, Zierhut M, Eckstein AK, et al. Human recombinant interferon alfa-2a for the treatment of Behçet’s disease with sight threatening posterior or panuveitis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:423–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Alpsoy E, Yilmaz E, Basaran E. Interferon therapy for Behçet’s disease. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1994;31:617–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    O’Duffy JD, Calamia K, Cohen S, et al. Interferon-alpha treatment of Behçet’s disease. J Rheumatol. 1998;25:1938–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Kuemmerle-Deschner JB, Tzaribachev N, Deuter C, Zierhut M, Batra M, Koetter I. Interferon-alpha-a new therapeutic option in refractory juvenile Behçet’s disease with CNS involvement. Rheumatology. 2008;47:1051.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Yalçindag FN, Uzun A. Results of interferon alpha-2a therapy in patients with Behcet’s disease. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2012;28:439.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Kötter I, Günaydin I, Zierhut M, Stübiger N. The use of interferon alpha in Behçet disease: review of the literature. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2004;33:320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Shugaiv E, Tüzün E, Mutlu M, Kiyat-Atamer A, Kurtuncu M, Akman-Demir G. Mycophenolate mofetil as a novel immunosuppressant in the treatment of neuro-Behçet’s disease with parenchymal involvement: presentation of four cases. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2011;29:S64–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Adler YD, Mansmann U, Zouboulis CC. Mycophenolate mofetil is ineffective in the treatment of mucocutaneous Adamantiades-Behçet’s disease. Dermatology. 2001;203:322–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Hamuryudan V, Mat C, Saip S, et al. Thalidomide in the treatment of the mucocutaneous lesions of the Behçet syndrome. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:443–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Davatchi F, Shams H, Rezaipoor M, et al. Rituximab in intractable ocular lesions of Behcet’s disease; randomized single-blind control study (pilot study). Int J Rheum Dis. 2010;13:246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Seider N, Beiran I, Scharf J, Miller B. Intravenous immunoglobulin therapy for resistant ocular Behçet’s disease. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:1287.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Tellier Z. Intravenous immunoglobulin in eye involvement. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2005;29:295–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Akman-Demir G, Serdaroglu P, Tasçi B. Clinical patterns of neurological involvement in Behçet’s disease: evaluation of 200 patients. The Neuro-Behçet Study Group. Brain. 1999;122(Pt 11):2171–82.Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Kidd D, Steuer A, Denman AM, Rudge P. Neurological complications in Behcet’s syndrome. Brain. 1999;122:2183–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Siva A, Kantarci OH, Saip S, et al. Behcet’s disease: diagnostic and prognostic aspects of neurological involvement. J Neurol. 2001;248:95–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Kural-Seyahi E, Fresko I, Seyahi N, et al. The long-term mortality and morbidity of Behcet’s syndrome: a 2-decade outcome survey of 387 patients followed at dedicated center. Medicine. 2003;82:60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Wechsler B, Vidailhet M, Piette JC, et al. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in Behcet’s disease: long term follow up of 25 cases. Neurology. 1992;42:614–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Serdaroglou P. Behcet’s disease and the nervous system. J Neurol. 1998;245:197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Siva A, Altintas A, Saip S. Behcet’s disease and the nervous system. Curr Opin Neurol. 2004;17:347–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    Oktem-Tanor O, Baykan-Kurt B, Gürvit IH, Akman-Demir G, Serdaroğlu P. Neuropsychological follow up of 12 patients with neuro-Behcet’s disease. J Neurol. 1999;246:113–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Al-Araji A, Kidd DP. Neuro-Behcet’s disease: epidemiology, clinical characteristics and management. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:192–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Siva A, Saip S. The spectrum of the nervous system in Neurobehcet’s syndrome and its differential diagnosis. J Neurol. 2009;256:513–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    Saip S, Akman-Demir G, Siva A. Neuro-Behçet syndrome. Handb Clin Neurol. 2014;121:1703–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Saip S, Siva A, Altintas A, et al. Headache in Behcet’s syndrome. Headache 2005;45:911–9.Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    Namer IJ, Karabudak R, Zileli T, Ruacan S, Küçükali T, Kansu E. Peripheral nervous system involvement in Behcet’s disease. Eur Neurol. 1987;26:235–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Lannuzel A, Lamaury I, Charpentier D, Caparros-Lefebvre D. Neurological manifestation in Behcet’s disease in Carribean population: clinical and imaging findings. J Neurol. 2002;249:410–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    Sarui H, Maruyama T, Ito I, et al. Necrotising miositi in Behcet’s disease: characteristics on magnetic resonance imaging and a review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis. 2002;61:751–2.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    Atasoy HT, Tunc TO, Unal AE, et al. Peripheral nervous system involvement in Behcet’s disease in patients with Behcet’s disease. Neurologist. 2007;13:225–30.Google Scholar
  189. 189.
    Siva A, Altintas A, Saip S. Behcet’s syndrome and the nervous system. Curr Opin Neurol. 2004;17:347–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Hirohata S, Isshi K, Oguchi H, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid IL6 in progressive neuro-behcet’s syndrome. Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1997;82:12–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    Kawai M, Hirohata S. Cerebrospinal fluid beta(2)-microglobulin in neuro-Behcet’s syndrome. J Neurol Sci. 2000;179:132–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. 192.
    Saadoun D, Wechsler B, Resche-Rigon M, et al. Cerebral venous thrombosis in Behcet’s disease. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61:518–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. 193.
    Yesilot N, Bahar S, Yilmazer S, et al. Cerebral venous thrombosis in Behcet’s disease compared to those associated to other etiologies. J Neurol. 2009;256:1134–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. 194.
    Houman MH, Hamzaoui-B’Chir S, Ben GI, et al. Neurologic manifestations of Behcet’s disease: analysis of a series of 27 patients. Rev Med Interne. 2002;23:592–606.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. 195.
    Bahar S, Coban O, Gürvit IH, Akman-Demir G, Gökyiğit A. Spontaneous dissection of the extracranial vertebral artery with spinal subarachnoid hemorrhage in a patient with Behcet’s disease. Neuroradiology. 1993;35:352–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. 196.
    Krespi Y, Akman-Demir G, Poyraz M, et al. Cerebral vasculitis and ischaemic stroke in Behcet’s disease: report of one case and review of the literature. Eur J Neurol. 2001;8:719–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. 197.
    Sagduyu A, Sirin H, Oksel F, Turk T, Ozenc D. An unusual case of Behcet disease presenting with bilateral internal carotid artery occlusion. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;73:343.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. 198.
    Kizilkilic O, Albayram S, Adaletli I, Ak H, Islak C, Kocer N. Endovascular treatment of Behcet’s disease associated intracranial aneurysm: report of 2 cases and review of the literature. Neuroradiology. 2003;45:328–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  199. 199.
    Aktas EG, Kaplan M, Ozveren MF. Basilar artery aneurysm associated with Behcet’s disease: a case report. Turk Neurosurg. 2008;18:35–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  200. 200.
    Hirohata S. Hystopathology of central nervous system lesions in Behcet’s disease. J Neurol Sci. 2008;267:41–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. 201.
    Hadfield MG, Aydin F, Lippman HR, Kubal WS, Sanders KM. Neurobehcet’s disease. Clin Neuropathol. 1996;15:249–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  202. 202.
    Arai Y, Kohno S, Takahashi Y, Miyajima Y, Tsutusi Y. Autopsy case of neuro-Behcet’s disease with multifocal neutrophilic perivascular inflammation. Neuropathology. 2006;26:579–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. 203.
    Kessler JA, Ludlam WH, Freidin MM, et al. Cytokine-induced programmed death of cultured sympathetic neurons. Neuron. 1993;11:1123–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. 204.
    Heyser CJ, Masliah E, Samimi A, Campbell IL, Gold LH. Progressive decline in avoidance learning paralleled by inflammatory neurodegeneration in transgenic mice expressing IL6 in the brain. Proct Natl Acad Sci. 1997;94:1500–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. 205.
    Gruol DL, Nelson TE. Purkinje neuron physiology is altered by the inflammatory factor IL6. Cerebellum. 2005;4:198–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. 206.
    Kocer N, Islak C, Siva A, et al. CNS involvement in neurobehcet’s syndrome: an MR study. AJNR. 1999;20:1015–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  207. 207.
    Siva A, Fresko I. Behcet’s disease. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2000;2:435–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. 208.
    Siva A, Kantarci OH, Saip S, et al. Behçet’s disease: diagnostic and prognostic aspects of neurological involvement. J Neurol. 2001;248(2):95–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. 209.
    Sakane T, Takeno M, Suzuki N, Inaba G. Behcet’s disease. N Engl Med. 1999;341:1284–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. 210.
    Hirohata S. Is the long-term use of systemic corticosteroids beneficial in the management of Behçet’s syndrome? Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2006;2(7):358–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. 211.
    Kotake S, Higashi K, Yoshikawa K, Sasamoto Y, Okamoto T, Matsuda H. Central nervous system symptoms in patients with Bechet’s disease receiving cyclosporine therapy. Opthalmology. 1999;106:586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. 212.
    Mitsui Y, Mitsui M, Urakami R, Kihara M, Takahashi M, Kusunoki S. Behcet’s disease presenting with neurological complication immediately after convention from conventional cyclosporine A to microemulsion formulation. Intern Med. 2005;44:149–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. 213.
    Kotter I, Günaydin I, Batra M, et al. CNS involvement occurs more frequently in patients with Behcet’s disease under cyclosporin A than under other medications results of a retrospective analysis of 117 cases. Clin Rheumatol. 2006;25:482–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. 214.
    Kikuchi H, Aramaki K, Hirohata S. Low dose of MTX for progressive neuro-Behcet’s disease. A follow up study for 4 years. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2003;528:575–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. 215.
    Licata G, Pinto A, Tuttolomondo A, et al. Anti-TNF alpha monoclonal antibody therapy for recalcitrant cerebral vasculitis in a patient with Behcet’s syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62:280–1.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. 216.
    Ribi C, Sztajzel R, Delavelle J, Chizzolini C. Efficacy of TNF alpha blockade in cyclophosphamide resistant neuro-behcet’s disease. Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76:1733–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. 217.
    Sarwar H, McGrath H Jr, Espinoza LR. Successful treatment of long-standing neurobehcet’s disease with infliximab in patients with refractory disease. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:181–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  218. 218.
    Fujikawa K, Aratake K, Kawakami A, et al. Successful treatment of refractory neurobehcet’s disease with infliximab: a case report to show its efficacy by MR imaging, transcranial magnetic stimulation and CK profile. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66:136–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. 219.
    Pipitone N, Olivieri I, Padula A, et al. Infliximab for the treatment of neuro-Behcet’s disease: a case series and review of the literature. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:285–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. 220.
    Kikuchi H, Aramaki K, Hirohata S. Effect of Infliximab in progressive Neuro-Behcet’s syndrome. J Neurol Sci. 2008;272:99–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Internal Medicine and Chronobiology Unit, Department of Medical SciencesIRCCS Scientific Institute and Regional General Hospital “Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza”San Giovanni RotondoItaly
  2. 2.Division of Internal Medicine and Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medical SciencesIRCCS Scientific Institute and Regional General Hospital “Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza”San Giovanni RotondoItaly

Personalised recommendations