Abstract
Non-infectious uveitis (NIU) is a disorder with various etiologies and is characterized by eye inflammation, mainly affecting people of working age. An accurate diagnosis of NIU is crucial for appropriate therapy. The aim of therapy is to improve vision, relieve ocular inflammation, prevent relapse, and avoid treatment side effects. At present, corticosteroids are the mainstay of topical or systemic therapy. However, repeated injections are required for the treatment of chronic NIU. Recently, new drug delivery systems that may ensure intraocular delivery of therapeutic drug levels have been highlighted. Furthermore, with the development of immunosuppressants and biologics, specific therapies can be selected based on the needs of each patient. Immunosuppressants used in the treatment of NIU include calcineurin inhibitors and antimetabolites. However, systemic immunosuppressive therapy itself is associated with adverse effects due to the inhibition of immune function. In patients with refractory NIU or those who cannot tolerate corticosteroids and immunosuppressors, biologics have emerged as alternative treatments. Thus, to improve the prognosis of patients with NIU, NIU should be managed with different drugs according to the response to treatment and possible side effects.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Uveitis is a common type of ocular inflammation with various etiologies [1] that mainly affects people of working age, and uveitis results in visual impairment in up to 10% of patients of the working-age population [2]. Uveitis can be broadly classified as NIU and infectious uveitis [3]. According to the anatomical site of inflammation, NIU is further identified as anterior NIU, intermediate NIU, posterior NIU and panuveitis (Fig. 1) [3, 4]. Anterior uveitis is an inflammatory disease of the ciliary body and iris that can be diagnosed and managed early. Intermediate uveitis is associated with vitreous inflammation. Posterior uveitis involves the retina and choroid [4], and it is more sight-threatening and challenging to treat than other types of uveitis. In addition, the inflammatory lesion of NIU without specific cause and systemic diseases can only involve the eye, or it can be related to systemic autoimmune disorders, including Behcet’s disease, rheumatic diseases, and sarcoidosis [5].
The complications of uveitis include cataracts and cystic macular edema, which result from inflammation and contribute to vision loss [6,7,8]. Thus, NIU therapy requires the stepwise administration of anti-inflammatory drugs to relieve intraocular inflammation. Corticosteroids are reported to restrict inflammation and are considered the first-line therapy for NIU [9]. However, systemic corticosteroids are associated with dose- and duration-related adverse effects, such as secondary infections, myopathy, and hyperglycemia [10]. Furthermore, most drugs cannot be delivered directly to inflammatory lesions because of the blood–retinal barrier [11]. Therefore, intraocular injection of therapeutic drugs has been suggested to bypass this problem and reduce the adverse effects of systemic corticosteroids [11,12,13]. However, repeated intravitreal injections may result in endophthalmitis, hemorrhage, and retinal detachment [14]. Recently, new drug delivery systems that may ensure the intraocular delivery of therapeutic drug levels have been highlighted. With the progress in the development of drug delivery systems, therapy of NIU, especially non-infectious posterior uveitis (NIPU), has already been significantly improved over the past decade [10]. In addition, immunomodulatory agents and biologic response modifiers can be used in NIU therapy [15]. This review summarizes the potential etiologies of NIU, the preclinical findings from animal models, and the current and future treatments available to clinicians to manage NIU.
Pathogenesis and experimental models of NIU
Pathogenesis of NIU
Although the prevalence differs in region and ethnicity, NIU is one of the main reasons for vision loss [16]. In addition, the etiology of NIU is still not fully understood. Therefore, a better exploration of the potential inflammatory mechanisms of NIU is needed to reduce ocular inflammation and administer effective treatments. Environmental factors, molecular mimicry and hereditary susceptibility are all thought to be important factors in the pathogenesis of many forms of NIU and are associated with inflammatory cytokines and T lymphocyte subsets, which can be related to both the therapy and the clinical course of NIU [17]. Recently, the pathogenesis of NIU has been greatly developed.
The blood–ocular barrier is an anatomical barrier that anatomically prevents pathogens from peripheral bloodstream into the eye and protects ocular cells and tissues that are associated with vision. Previous reports have illustrated that cells located on the inner surface of blood–ocular barrier, including retinal pigment epithelial cells, ciliary body pigment epithelial cells, iris pigment epithelial cells, and corneal endothelial cells, participate in ocular immune system [18]. Once the blood–ocular barrier is damaged, ocular immune function can protect eye by inhibiting pathogenic T cells. Furthermore, retinal pigment epithelial cells and corneal endothelial cells can convert both CD8 + T cells and CD4 + T cells into regulatory T cells (Treg cells), while iris pigment epithelial cells can convert CD8 + T cells into Treg cells [18]. Notably, Treg cells contributed to the immune-privileged status of eye [17]. Treg cells generate transforming growth factor β, the anti-inflammatory cytokine interleukin (IL)-35, and IL-10 [19,20,21,22]. Therefore, immune response that causes pathogenic autoimmunity is prevented or suppressed by Treg cells that secrete immunosuppressive cytokines [23]. Furthermore, the cells in the eye can express special proteins (CD59, CD46, FAS/FAS ligand, and TGF-β) to restrain ocular inflammation by inactivating pathogenic lymphocytes [24,25,26].
Despite ocular safeguards, persistent and intense inflammation can also overcome the protection mechanisms and multilayered barriers [27]. Th17 cells are involved in early activities in the pathogenesis of inflammatory disorders [28,29,30]. The pathogenic molecules, such as inflammatory cytokines secreted by uveitogenic Th17 cells, promote the disruption of the blood–ocular barrier, leading to accumulation of other inflammatory cells through cytokine-receptor-JAK/STAT interactions, including monocytes, Th2, and Th1 cells that exacerbate uveitis [27, 30, 31]. Furthermore, the differences in the clinical features of NIU can be associated with the diversity of antigens that trigger the inflammatory cascade. The inflammatory cascade may also be triggered by the molecular mimicry of both antigens on invading microorganisms and self-antigens [32]. In terms of polygenic and environmental influences, the imbalance between inflammatory and regulatory mechanisms of immune system is associated with the etiology of NIU [17].
Experimental models of NIU
Among the animal models of NIU, experimental autoimmune uveitis (EAU) is the most popular NIU animal model, contributing to a better exploration of the inflammatory origin of NIU [33]. Soluble antigen (S-Ag) and interphotoreceptor retinoid-binding protein (IRBP) are the most widely used retinal autoantigens to induce animal EAU [34]. However, the effectiveness of these autoantigens in inducing EAU differs depending on the specific species of animal used. EAU may be established in various animals, such as mice, rats and primates [35]. Both S-Ag and IRBP induce EAU in rats, whereas guinea pigs develop uveitis after immunization with S-Ag but do not respond to IRBP. In contrast, mice develop EAU upon IRBP immunization but not S-Ag immunization [36, 37]. Rats are the most widely used species for EAU due to their favorable immunogenic properties and sufficient size to provide a better model for therapeutic and surgical procedures [38].
While EAU provides a good model of the inflammatory origins of uveitis, animal models cannot totally represent human NIU [39]. There are inevitably some differences between human NIU and animal EAU. For instance, NIU in humans may be associated with distinct T-cell populations, whereas T cells in EAU involve merely one kind of retinal antigen [40]. In addition, the B cells of mice are significantly different in terms of their development, phenotypes, and immunoglobulin production when compared with those of humans [41]. Furthermore, the choroid of the human eye is much thicker than that of the mouse; thus, it forms different lymphoid-like structures and facilitates the production of different antibody levels [40]. These findings suggest that EAU cannot fully represent human NIU, and further exploration is needed.
Clinical features and differential diagnosis of NIU
The diagnosis and differential diagnosis of NIU are challenging. Patients with NIU are at risk of retinal detachment, vision loss, cataracts and glaucoma [42]. Various factors, such as environmental, geographical, and population factors, can be involved in the differential diagnosis of NIU. NIU is also thought to be a part of some systemic diseases, which should be taken into consideration in the differential diagnosis [43, 44]. The predominant site of anterior uveitis is the anterior chamber, and anterior uveitis includes anterior cyclitis, iridocyclitis and iritis (Table 1) [4]. Clinical signs and symptoms of anterior uveitis include redness, pain, blurred vision, sensitivity to light, corneal manifestations, pupil changes, synechiae of the anterior and posterior iris, and floaters [45]. Anterior uveitis-associated systemic disorders involve sarcoidosis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), ankylosing spondylitis, Behcet’s disease, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) [46]. The vitreous is the predominant site of intermediate uveitis [4]. Clinical symptoms of intermediate uveitis include sensitivity to light, floaters, and blurry vision. In addition, intermediate uveitis includes hyalitis, posterior cyclitis, and pars planitis. Furthermore, multiple sclerosis and sarcoidosis are systemic inflammatory disorders associated with intermediate uveitis [47]. The retina and choroid are the main sites of posterior uveitis, which includes retinitis, neuroretinitis, retinochoroiditis, choroiditis, and chorioretinitis [4]. Clinical signs of posterior uveitis involve floaters, usually without redness or pain. Behcet’s disease, sarcoidosis, and autoimmune disorders are systemic inflammatory disorders related to posterior uveitis [46]. Panuveitis involves the retina and/or choroid, vitreous, and anterior chamber [4]. Clinical manifestations of panuveitis include redness, pain, floaters, and sensitivity to light. Vogt‒Koyanagi‒Harada (VKH) disease, sarcoidosis, Behcet’s disease and autoimmune diseases are systemic inflammatory disorders associated with panuveitis [48].
In addition to clinical manifestations, laboratory tests can be used in the differential diagnosis of NIU [49]. The endpoints to evaluate therapeutic effects are required to be different for the different kinds of uveitis and may be unequally applicable to all diagnoses. For example, patients with JIA-related uveitis versus those with pars planitis require different endpoints [32]. Therefore, especially close cooperation between rheumatologists and ophthalmologists in the differential diagnosis is crucial for administering appropriate therapies for patients with systemic disorders, which may benefit the long-term outcomes of these patients [45].
Disease management
In general, the therapeutic advances in the treatment of patients with NIU include (1) systemic therapy in patients with severe NIU, (2) sustained-release corticosteroid implants, (3) systemic immunomodulators, and (4) biologic agents [50, 51]. The specific therapy administered depends on the clinical course of NIU. Short-term treatment is more aggressive for patients with acute uveitis, and a high dose of corticosteroids is needed. In addition, for patients with chronic or recurrent uveitis, a therapeutic plan to control inflammation by using a lower drug dose to reduce adverse events needs to be established [52].
Systemic corticosteroids
Systemic therapy includes both oral and intravenous administration. Before initiating systemic corticosteroids, infectious causes must be ruled out. In addition, it is necessary to assess patients for systemic contraindications for the usage of corticosteroids before initiating therapy. Oral prednisone or prednisolone therapy is initiated at a dosage of approximately 1 mg/kg/day, which is tapered off as inflammation resolves (Table 2) [53]. The dosage of prednisone is recommended to be decreased to no more than 10 mg/day (otherwise the equivalent of other corticosteroids) [4]. Furthermore, the maximum adult dose is approximately 60–80 mg/day. No dose reduction is required if the patient has received systemic therapy with corticosteroids for less than 1–2 weeks [54]. In addition, the exact amount of prednisone reduction depends on the initial dosage: when the initial dosage is increased by 2 times, the prednisone adjustment should be reduced by approximately 2 times every 7–14 days (Table 2) [53, 55]. For rapid control of severe inflammation, including optic neuritis, serpiginous choroiditis, sympathetic ophthalmia, VKH disease, Behcet’s disease and necrotizing scleritis, pulsed intravenous treatment is recommended [54]. For vision-threatening NIU, intravenous pulse therapy of 250–1000 mg/day methylprednisolone for three consecutive days is recommended [56]. Although some adverse effects may be reversible or controllable, systemic corticosteroid treatment may be related to a risk of side effects, including adrenal suppression, osteoporosis, cushingoid changes and diabetes mellitus [55, 57].
New corticosteroid drug delivery systems
Recently, the following intraocular implants have been shown to decrease the frequency of injections and suppress intraocular inflammation (Table 3) [58]: (1) 0.7 mg dexamethasone implants (Ozurdex, Allergan, Irvine, California); (2) 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implants (Iluvien, Alimera Sciences, Alpharetta, Georgia); (3) 0.59 mg FA implants (Retisert, Bausch and Lomb, Rochester, New York); and (4) 0.18 mg FA implants (Yutiq, EyePoint, Watertown, Massachusetts) [59]. These implants minimize the frequency of treatment and prevent the relapse of NIU involving the posterior segment. Herein, we summarize the current clinical knowledge about these implants.
Ozurdex
Ozurdex is a type of intravitreal implant used for NIU patients in whom it can improve visual acuity for up to 6 months and decrease intraocular inflammation [60]. Ozurdex, a biodegradable sustained-release implant, gradually releases drug into the vitreous cavity for approximately half a year, after which the polymer can be degraded into water and carbon dioxide [61]. Ozurdex is transconjunctivally inserted via the pars plana by a 23-gauge needle [61, 62]. Animal experiments demonstrated that the dexamethasone concentration in the vitreous cavity peaked at day 60 and began to decrease between day 60 and day 90. The dexamethasone concentration is maintained at a lower and steady level for up to 6 months [62, 63]. In September 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Ozurdex for NIPU therapy [64]. One multicenter, longitudinal study (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02951975) investigated the efficacy of dexamethasone implant on NIU [65]. The results demonstrated that there was significant improvement in mean central retinal thickness and visual acuity after therapy with Ozurdex. Although Ozurdex avoids the adverse effects of administering second-line immunosuppressants or systemic corticosteroids, it is related to a risk of cataract development and increased intraocular pressure (IOP) [66].
Iluvien
Most recently, a novel intraocular sustained-release corticosteroid implant, Iluvien, has been used for the clinical therapy of uveitis. Iluvien can release FA for approximately 36 months [67] and play a vital role in decreasing intraocular inflammation. Iluvien is a small nonbiodegradable implant [62]. Iluvien is transconjunctivally inserted via the pars plana in the same manner as intravitreal injection through a 25-gauge needle, and the wound can be self-healing [61]. Iluvien maintained low concentrations of FA for at least 3 years [62, 68]. Iluvien was approved in several European countries, and the 0.19 mg injectable FA implant became an alternative to dexamethasone implants for the prevention of NIU recurrence [69,70,71]. One retrospective study evaluating the efficacy of Iluvien for non-infectious uveitic macular edema illustrated that systemic anti-inflammatory treatment was reduced or discontinued in most patients following Iluvien therapy [72]. Although it is difficult to directly compare Iluvien with Ozurdex implants regarding their safety and efficacy, both of them control inflammation well within the eye, and both have a favorable safety profile [3]. The major adverse events following Iluvien are steroid-related side effects, such as elevated IOP and cataracts [73,74,75].
Retisert
Retisert, a nonbiodegradable FA implant, is administered by a 20-gauge microvitreoretinal blade [61, 62]. In 2005, Retisert was approved by FDA for therapy of chronic NIPU [76]. Retisert is a novel therapeutic method for chronic NIU, as it allows prolonged local release of steroids into the eye [77]. When compared with systemic therapy, Retisert can significantly decrease the recurrence of NIU, stabilize or improve visual acuity, and restrict eye inflammation [78, 79]. In the first month, FA was released by each Retisert implant at a rate of 0.6 μg/day. Subsequently, this rate was reduced to a stable rate of 0.3–0.4 μg/day for approximately 2.5 years [80]. In addition, pharmacokinetics of Retisert varies according to multiple factors, such as the permeability of polymers and the solubility of the drug [61]. In one randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00132691), the inflammation of NIU was controlled better with 0.59 mg FA implant than systemic treatment at 24 months [81]. However, the side effects related to Retisert also include cataracts and glaucoma [78, 79, 82]. Less common side effects are retinal detachment, vitreous hemorrhage, and scleral thinning over the implant [83,84,85,86,87]. The number of IOP-lowering drops required is much greater due to the higher dose of fluocinolone steroid released by the Retisert implant than the Iluvien implant [88].
Yutiq
Yutiq is a nonbiodegradable insert with 0.18 mg FA, and the FDA also approved Yutiq for therapy of chronic NIPU [89]. Yutiq is inserted via the pars plana by a preloaded sterile applicator with a 25-gauge needle [90]. In addition, Yutiq can release FA over a period of approximately 3 years, potentially reducing the therapeutic burden in patients with NIU [91]. In one retrospective cohort study, the inflammation of NIU was controlled in 14 eyes (74%) after Yutiq treatment [91]. In addition, 0.18 mg YUTIQ is almost equal to Iluvien, which contains 0.19 mg FA, and both of them can release FA for approximately 3 years and are nonbiodegradable [92]. Unlike Retisert, Yutiq appears to have a more favorable profile and is administered in the outpatient room [90, 93]. While the most common adverse reactions of Yutiq also include cataract and increased IOP [89], Yutiq can deliver corticosteroids to the retina at a lower dose with fewer adverse events than Retisert [92].
Immunosuppressive agents for NIU
Except for corticosteroid therapy, other therapeutic drugs to treat NIU include traditional immunosuppressants, such as cyclosporine, tacrolimus and antimetabolites. Furthermore, antimetabolites include methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) (Table 4) [56].
Cyclosporine
Cyclosporine is used as a second-line immunosuppressant. The immunosuppressive effects of cyclosporine occur through reversible inhibition of calcineurin and the prevention of inflammatory function of T cells in the peripheral circulation [94]. In 1983, cyclosporine was first used for therapy of uveitis by Nussenblatt et al. In addition, different research groups have investigated the effects of cyclosporine on serpiginous choroiditis, Behcet’s disease-associated uveitis, VKH disease, birdshot retinochoroiditis and idiopathic uveitis [95]. In the Systemic Immunosuppressive Therapy for Eye Diseases (SITE) study, cyclosporine monotherapy achieved 33.4% inflammation control at 6 months and 51.9% at 12 months among 373 patients with non-infectious ocular inflammation [96]. The recommended dosage of cyclosporine is 2.5–5 mg/kg/day [54]. Nevertheless, the usage of cyclosporine is related to adverse effects, such as neurotoxicity, hirsutism, gingivitis, hypertension and metabolic abnormalities [96, 97]. The most severe side effect of cyclosporine is nephrotoxicity [54]. However, nephrotoxicity is more likely to occur when cyclosporine is used in large doses.
Tacrolimus
Tacrolimus, also known as FK506, is an immunosuppressive drug generated by Streptomyces tsukubaensis [54]. The mechanism by which tacrolimus inhibits T lymphocyte activation is similar to that of cyclosporine [54], and both tacrolimus and cyclosporine can inhibit calcineurin [55]. However, the immunosuppressive effect of tacrolimus is significantly better than that of cyclosporine [98, 99]. Tacrolimus can be administered intravenously or orally. The recommended dosage of tacrolimus is 2–3 mg twice a day [54]. Hogan et al. demonstrated the favorable cardiovascular risk and long-term efficacy of tacrolimus in therapy of uveitis [99]. Besides, Sloper et al. also illustrated the anti-inflammation efficacy of tacrolimus in the clinical study involving 6 patients with uveitis refractory to cyclosporine [100]. In addition, compared with cyclosporine, the duration of the efficacy of tacrolimus is longer; therefore, tacrolimus is the preferred calcineurin inhibitor for uveitis. Furthermore, tacrolimus is associated with fewer cardiovascular side effects than cyclosporine [56]. Several nonrandomized clinical studies illustrated the efficacy of tacrolimus in cyclosporine-refractory uveitis, including Behcet’s disease-associated uveitis [101, 102]. However, the side effect profile of tacrolimus is significantly better than that of cyclosporine, including hypertension, hypomagnesemia, hyperkalemia, neurologic symptoms, diabetes, tremor, and chronic kidney disease [103,104,105].
Methotrexate
Methotrexate, a folic acid analog, can inhibit the enzyme that converts dihydrofolate to tetrahydrofolate [106]. Therefore, methotrexate can inhibit pyrimidine and purine synthesis by suppressing dihydrofolate reductase and thus restrain DNA production, by which methotrexate can play an essential anti-inflammatory role by inhibiting rapidly dividing cells, such as leukocytes [54]. The dosage of methotrexate can range from 25 mg subcutaneously to 7.5 mg orally once weekly [107]. The inflammation of 76% of patients was controlled by methotrexate [106]. In addition, the therapeutic effect of methotrexate in non-infectious ocular inflammation was investigated in the SITE cohort by Gangaputra et al. The results showed that eye inflammation was reduced in 66% of patients at 1 year and that methotrexate was effective for ocular inflammation [108]. For ocular inflammatory diseases, methotrexate is mainly applied in NIU related to sarcoidosis, JIA and Behcet’s disease [54]. The transient side effects of methotrexate treatment include debilitating nausea, stomatitis, and fatigue. In addition, the most severe effects of methotrexate include interstitial pneumonitis, cytopenia and hepatotoxicity [106, 108,109,110].
Mycophenolate mofetil
MMF plays a vital role in the de novo synthesis of guanosine as a rate-limiting enzyme by suppressing inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase [111]. In addition, MMF has a high affinity for the activated lymphocyte subtype because lymphocytes are more dependent on this pathway, which leads to the inhibition of lymphocytes and reduction in inflammation [55]. For uveitis, MMF is recommended at a dose of 1 g twice daily [54, 112]. Based on the ability of MMF to inhibit inflammation, an 82% success rate of MMF in the treatment of inflammatory eye disease was reported by Thorne et al., and the usage of prednisolone was reduced to 10 mg per day, suggesting that MMF was an effective corticosteroid-sparing medication with controllable side effects, especially for scleritis, posterior, and panuveitis [110, 113]. Besides, Sobrin et al. also illustrated the efficacy of MMF in approximately half of patients who had previously failed or were unable to tolerate methotrexate therapy [114]. Gastrointestinal symptoms are the most common adverse events, including vomiting, abdominal pain, nausea, and diarrhea [54]. The less common adverse effects include elevated liver enzymes, lymphocytopenia, and leukopenia [54].
Azathioprine
AZA is a precursor of 6-mercaptopurine and a purine analog [54]. AZA is incorporated into replicating DNA and thus interferes with the DNA replication process. AZA blocks the incorporation of purines into DNA in T cells and suppresses protein synthesis. The recommended usage of AZA for inhibiting ocular inflammation is a low dose of 1–3 mg/kg/day orally [115]. In one retrospective study, 62% of cases that were treated with AZA showed complete control of inflammation and 47% of subjects maintained corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation at 1 year in ocular inflammatory diseases [116]. In addition, one randomized controlled trial illustrated that AZA efficiently controlled the eye disease associated with Behcet’s syndrome [117]. Besides, AZA inhibited inflammation in corticosteroid-resistant uveitis, although 42.8% of patients experienced side effects after AZA therapy and approximately 23.8% of patients discontinued the treatment [118]. Common side effects that lead to discontinuation include allergic reactions, infection, elevated liver enzymes, bone marrow suppression, and gastrointestinal reactions [55]. In addition, myelosuppression is the most severe adverse event [54].
Anti-TNFα biologics
Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) inhibitors play a vital role in inflammatory diseases (Table 5). Various TNFα monoclonal antibodies are used for the treatment of inflammatory diseases. The anti-TNFα monoclonal antibody adalimumab can be injected subcutaneously. Other anti-TNFα monoclonal antibodies include infliximab, etanercept and golimumab. Therapy with biologics effectively reduces inflammation, especially in patients with inflammatory eye diseases who cannot tolerate corticosteroids [119].
Adalimumab
Adalimumab can target TNFα as a human monoclonal antibody [55]. Although the pharmacokinetics of this biologic varies widely among patients, it has the significant advantages that it can be self-administered subcutaneously and is less immunogenic than infliximab [120]. In general, the dosage of adalimumab is 40 mg every 14 days [121]. Adalimumab was approved for subcutaneous injection to treat intermediate NIU, NIPU, and panuveitis in Europe in 2017, but only in patients who cannot tolerate corticosteroids and patients for whom corticosteroid treatment is contraindicated. In addition, adalimumab can be more effective than either etanercept or infliximab due to its better affinity for binding to TNFα [122]. VISUAL III (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01148225), a multicenter clinical trial of 371 patients with active or inactive eye disease, demonstrated the efficacy of adalimumab in NIU [123]. In this study, most patients achieved quiescence and remained quiescent throughout the follow-up period. In addition, 66% of subjects were corticosteroid-free. Besides, adalimumab therapy was reported to reduce inflammation efficiently and was related to less frequency of treatment failure than placebo in uveitis related to active JIA with methotrexate therapy. Adalimumab in combination with methotrexate has been illustrated to be an efficient therapy in JIA-associated uveitis [124]. Furthermore, the FDA approved the usage of adalimumab for therapy of intermediate NIU, NIPU, and panuveitis [121]. Recently, adalimumab can be administered as a first-line treatment for Behcet’s disease-related panuveitis [125]. Serious adverse events, such as serious infections, myocardial infarctions, malignancies, and hematologic reactions, have also been reported [54].
Infliximab
Infliximab can target TNFα as a chimeric monoclonal antibody [126]. Infliximab was the first TNFα inhibitor used to treat uveitis and is administered intravenously [126]. In addition, infliximab is also recommended as the first-line treatment for ocular Behcet’s disease [125]. Infliximab is effective for therapy of uveitis related to JIA at a dosage of 3–10 mg/kg [127]. In addition, infliximab is also beneficial to sarcoidosis, IBD and birdshot retinochoroiditis-associated uveitis [128,129,130]. In one retrospective study, Takeuchi et al. investigated the efficacy of infliximab in the Behcet’s disease-related uveitis. The results demonstrated that there was significant improvement in visual acuity in 55% of eyes following infliximab treatment [131]. However, infliximab might result in a higher incidence of adverse events than other TNFα inhibitors, mainly because of the immunogenicity of the mouse component of infliximab [126]. Common adverse events are infusion-site reactions [132]. Opportunistic infection is the most severe side effect. Furthermore, intravitreal infliximab has previously been reported to have potential immunogenic and retinotoxic effects [133]. Therefore, intravitreal injection of infliximab should be considered only when systemic administration of infliximab is contraindicated due to severe side effects [134].
Etanercept
Etanercept, a recombinant fusion protein of the humanized TNFα receptor and IgG1 Fc region, acts as a decoy receptor to suppress TNFα [126, 135, 136]. The recommended dosage of etanercept is 25 mg twice weekly [6]. There are many reports of etanercept in therapy of refractory NIU, and etanercept has been extensively studied in JIA, Behcet's disease and pediatric NIPU [136,137,138]. Numerous studies using TNFα inhibitors for uveitis therapy demonstrated that etanercept was less effective in inducing remission and preventing relapses than infliximab [138,139,140]. In a meta-analysis, both infliximab and adalimumab showed better efficacy than etanercept [141]. According to available information, etanercept has been suggested as a second-line treatment (second to infliximab and adalimumab) for ocular inflammation [125, 139]. Besides, the most common adverse events are injection-site reactions [132].
However, the role of etanercept in NIU remains controversial [142]. Nowadays many studies have also demonstrated no benefit from this therapy [143, 144]. Baughman et al. investigated the efficacy of etanercept in cases with persistent ocular sarcoidosis despite methotrexate therapy. In this study, patients were administered with placebo or etanercept. However, the results illustrated that etanercept treatment was not related to significant improvement for most patients [145]. In addition, Foster et al. investigated the effect of etanercept on reducing recurrence of uveitis in patients with methotrexate therapy. The results showed no significant difference in relapse rate and final visual acuity between etanercept and placebo groups [146]. Paradoxically, there are also reports of occurrences of uveitis after etanercept administration. Some cases of uveitis are related to the administration of TNF inhibitors, particularly etanercept [147, 148]. In addition, Susanna et al. also found multiple data with new onset of uveitis after anti-TNF therapy, mainly after etanercept treatment [149].
Golimumab
Golimumab is a novel fully human monoclonal antibody that targets TNFα [55]. Currently, the number of published studies using golimumab in NIU is small, and the sample sizes of these studies are relatively small [150,151,152,153]. The recommended dosage of golimumab is 50 mg monthly by subcutaneous injection [154]. Along with other biologics, this agent has recently been used in uveitis related to JIA [120]. Furthermore, golimumab is a viable drug candidate in patients refractory to treatment with other biologics [155]. In one multicenter study, 87% of refractory spondyloarthritis-related uveitis had complete remission after golimumab treatment [156]. Besides, Fabiani et al. found complete control of intraocular inflammation in the treatment of Behcet’s disease-associated uveitis after 12 months of follow-up [157]. The most common adverse events are injection-site reactions, and other side effects include infection, abnormal laboratory values, malignancy and congestive heart failure [158].
Other biological therapies
IL-6 inhibitor
Tocilizumab (Actemra, Genentech Inc) is one kind of recombinant anti-IL-6 receptor monoclonal antibody [159, 160]. The effect of tocilizumab in the treatment of NIU was evaluated in one multicenter clinical trial [161]. In this study, 37 patients were administered with either 8 or 4 mg/kg of tocilizumab. The authors found that both doses significantly improved vision and reduced both central macular thickness and vitreous haze. The efficacy of tocilizumab in refractory JIA-related uveitis was also demonstrated in one retrospective study [162]. In this study, the anterior chamber cell improved in 79.2% of patients after half a year of therapy, and 76% of patients achieved complete remission after a median follow-up of one year. The efficacy of tocilizumab has also been explored in Behcet’s disease-associated uveitis [163, 164], birdshot chorioretinopathy [165, 166], and Blau syndrome [167]. The adverse events of tocilizumab include allergic reactions, nausea, dizziness, gastrointestinal disorders, increase in serum aminotransferases, autoimmune cytopenia, and increased risk of infections [168,169,170]. In addition, ocular side effects include peripheral ulcerative keratitis and paradoxical inflammatory responses like uveitic flares [161, 171].
IL-1 inhibitor
Anakinra (Kineret, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, Stockholm, Sweden), one kind of IL-1 receptor inhibitor, has been approved for Behcet’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic infantile neurological cutaneous articular syndrome associated uveitis [172,173,174,175]. Reported side effect of anakinra includes injection site reaction, such as ecchymosis and erythema [176]. Canakinumab (Ilaris, Novartis, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA), an anti- IL-1β monoclonal antibody, has been approved for therapy of certain periodic fever syndromes and JIA. In addition, the efficacy of canakinumab in Blau syndrome-associated uveitis refractory to other medicine has also been illustrated [177]. Besides, both anakinra and canakinumab are able to decrease uveitic flares in Behcet’s disease-associated uveitis [178]. The side effects of canakinumab include nausea, injection site reactions, diarrhea, and upper respiratory tract infection [176].
IL-17 inhibitor
Secukinumab (Consentyx, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland) is an anti- IL-17 monoclonal antibody. One randomized controlled trial illustrated that intravenous administration of secukinumab is better than subcutaneous administration in inducing remission of NIU and clinical improvement [179]. Besides, high intravenous dosage seems to be the best approach for disease control, and low intravenous dosage or subcutaneous administration can be applied to maintenance therapy [180]. In addition, side effects of secukinumab include injection site erythema, cholecystitis, deep venous thrombosis, fatigue, headache, arthralgias, increased risk of infections, and reactivation of uveitis [176, 179,180,181].
IL-23 inhibitor
Guselkumab (Tremfya, Janssen, Beerse, Belgium) is an anti- IL-23 monoclonal antibody. A clinical case report demonstrated the deterioration of uveitis after guselkumab administration in a case with poorly controlled sarcoidosis-associated panuveitis [182]. In addition, ustekinumab (Stelara, Janssen, Beerse, Belgium), a monoclonal antibody, can target IL-12 and IL-23, and it has been reported to be an alternative for therapy of refractory uveitis associated with Behcet’s disease and psoriatic arthritis in several studies [183, 184]. In addition, another study STELARA (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02911116) also explored the effect of ustekinumab on NIU, and ustekinumab seems to have favorable results with no serious side effects [160, 185]. The common adverse events associated with ustekinumab include gastrointestinal symptoms, dizziness, headache and flu-like symptoms [176].
CD-20 inhibitor
Rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech Inc) is an anti-CD-20 chimeric monoclonal antibody. There are many reports of rituximab in refractory NIU [186,187,188]. With regard to NIU, the efficacy of rituximab has been demonstrated in JIA, VKH and Behcet’s disease-associated refractory uveitis [189,190,191,192]. One study demonstrated that rituximab controlled the ocular inflammation in eight patients with JIA-related uveitis in whom biologics were ineffective [193]. Therefore, for various ocular inflammatory diseases, rituximab is one viable option when other therapies were ineffective. The adverse events of rituximab include herpes zoster, pneumonia, hives and flushing [190, 194]. In addition, hepatitis B virus infection should be tested before rituximab administration, because rituximab may lead to reactivation of hepatitis B virus [178].
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor
JAK signal transducers play an important role in biological activity of cytokines. Tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Pfizer Inc, New York, New York, USA) has been reported to selectively inhibit JAK1 and JAK3, and it has been approved for therapy of rheumatoid arthritis [31]. Tofacitinib is also effective in refractory JIA-associated uveitis without significant side effects [195, 196]. One clinical trial of JIA (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02592434) showed that there was no active uveitis in the tofacitinib group, while two patients developed uveitis in the placebo group [31]. However, there are some risks with the use of tofacitinib, including venous thromboembolism, cardiovascular side effects, malignancy and infections [197]. Filgotinib (GLPG0634/GS-6034, Galapagos NV/Gilead, Mechelen, Belgium/Foster City, California, USA) has been reported to selectively inhibit JAK1, and it has been approved for therapy of rheumatoid arthritis in the European Union and Japan [31]. One randomized, placebo-controlled trial aimed to explore the effect of filgotinib on NIU. The results demonstrated that 200 mg filgotinib decreased the risk of uveitis flares compared to placebo and was well tolerated [198]. The side effects include upper respiratory infection, nasopharyngitis, headache, and nasopharyngitis [199].
Interferon (IFN)
IFNs are secretory glycoprotein cytokines that enhance immune response. Literature supports the use of IFN in refractory uveitic macular edema [200, 201], multiple sclerosis [202], and Behcet’s disease [203, 204]. Interferon alpha (IFNα) is an immunomodulatory agent. Several studies have illustrated the effectiveness of IFNα in NIU as monotherapy or in combination with glucocorticoid or other immunosuppressants. For example, it has been demonstrated that IFNα is successful in achieving control of inflammation in 78% to 92% of cases for severe Behcet’s disease [205, 206]. Interestingly, IFNα appears to be superior to conventional immunosuppressive drugs for uveitic macular edema [207, 208]. Furthermore, in 24 cases of refractory macular edema secondary to anterior, intermediate, and posterior NIU, IFNα was evaluated as partial and complete resolution in 25 and 62.5%, respectively [209]. Besides, IFN-β can also be used in the treatment of NIU. In one clinical trial of uveitic cystoid macular edema secondary to multiple sclerosis, the IFN-β group had significant improvements in visual acuity and uveitic cystoid macular edema at 3 months [208]. The adverse events of IFN include transaminase elevations, alopecia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, depression, and Flu-like symptoms [142, 210]
Alkylating agents
Alkylating agents have been reported to play an important role in interference with DNA replication [15, 211, 212]. Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan, Roxane laboratories, Inc. Columbus, OH) is an alkylating agent that inhibits B-cell function through DNA cross-linking. In the SITE study, the inflammation was controlled within a year in 76% of patients after cyclophosphamide therapy [213]. However, cyclophosphamide has potent immunosuppressive effects and is cytotoxic to cells that are undergoing rapid division and differentiation, such as lymphocytes and macrophages [214, 215]. Chlorambucil (Leukeran, Aspen Global Pharma, Inc., Johannesburg, SA) is another alkylating agent and the mechanism of chlorambucil is similar to that of cyclophosphamide. In one study, 77% of 53 cases remained in remission after chlorambucil therapy [216]. However, alkylating agents are not frequently used because of their association with secondary malignancy, severe bone marrow suppression, infection, and sterility [15, 211, 212]. Therefore, it is strongly recommended to have enough water intake during treatment. Although both alkylating agents had severe side effects in the SITE study, there was no significant association with increased mortality [217].
Conclusion
At present, NIU therapy presents a major challenge to ophthalmologists due to its diverse etiologies and its recurrent nature. NIU treatments have expanded to include conventional corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and biologics [50, 51]. Both topical and systemic corticosteroids have been used to restrain the inflammation of eye. Recently, new drug delivery systems that may ensure the intraocular delivery of therapeutic levels of drugs have been highlighted. With the progress in the development of drug delivery systems, therapy of NIU, especially NIPU, has changed over the past decade. Immunomodulatory agents, as corticosteroid-sparing therapies, have been demonstrated to be effective in NIU associated with systemic disease. However, immunosuppressants must be administered carefully because these drugs may be related to serious systemic adverse toxic effects, such as hepatic and hematologic side effects [53]. At present, biologics have been reported to inhibit inflammation. Adalimumab, a type of TNFα inhibitor, has been a novel drug approved for NIU therapy since corticosteroids in the 1960s [126], and its approval seems to be a major milestone in the developmental process of systemic therapy for NIU. Furthermore, successful management of NIU often requires clinicians to consider the pros and cons of every treatment and the personal circumstances of each patient. Adequate counseling about the reported complications and potential benefits of each treatment is necessary before any treatment is initiated. In addition, further studies on the side effects related to multiple routes of administration are needed.
Abbreviations
- NIU:
-
Non-infectious uveitis
- NIPU:
-
Non-infectious posterior uveitis
- IL:
-
Interleukin
- EAU:
-
Experimental autoimmune uveitis
- Treg cell:
-
Regulatory T cell
- S-Ag:
-
The soluble antigen
- IRBP:
-
Interphotoreceptor retinoid-binding protein
- JIA:
-
Juvenile idiopathic arthritis
- VKH:
-
Vogt‒Koyanagi‒Harada
- IBD:
-
Inflammatory bowel disease
- FDA:
-
Food and Drug Administration
- IOP:
-
Intraocular pressure
- FA:
-
Fluocinolone acetonide
- MMF:
-
Mycophenolate mofetil
- SITE:
-
Systemic immunosuppressive therapy for eye diseases
- AZA:
-
Azathioprine
- TNFα:
-
Tumor necrosis factor alpha
- JAK:
-
Janus kinase
- IFN:
-
Interferon
References
Zeng S, Yang L, Bai F, Liu T, Liu X. Intravitreal dexamethasone implant for noninfectious uveitis in Chinese patients. Int Ophthalmol. 2022;42(7):2063–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-02204-2.
de Smet MD, Taylor SR, Bodaghi B, Miserocchi E, Murray PI, Pleyer U, et al. Understanding uveitis: the impact of research on visual outcomes. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2011;30(6):452–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2011.06.005.
Abdulla D, Ali Y, Menezo V, Taylor SRJ. The use of sustained release intravitreal steroid implants in non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye. Ophthalmol Ther. 2022;11(2):479–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-022-00456-4.
Jabs DA, Nussenblatt RB, Rosenbaum JT. Standardization of uveitis nomenclature for reporting clinical data. Results of the First International Workshop. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140(3):509–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2005.03.057.
Rodriguez A, Calonge M, Pedroza-Seres M, Akova YA, Messmer EM, D’Amico DJ, et al. Referral patterns of uveitis in a tertiary eye care center. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114(5):593–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1996.01100130585016.
Dick AD, Rosenbaum JT, Al-Dhibi HA, Belfort R Jr, Brézin AP, Chee SP, et al. Guidance on noncorticosteroid systemic immunomodulatory therapy in noninfectious uveitis: fundamentals of care for uveitiS (FOCUS) initiative. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(5):757–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.11.017.
Markomichelakis NN, Halkiadakis I, Pantelia E, Peponis V, Patelis A, Theodossiadis P, et al. Patterns of macular edema in patients with uveitis: qualitative and quantitative assessment using optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology. 2004;111(5):946–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.08.037.
Durrani OM, Tehrani NN, Marr JE, Moradi P, Stavrou P, Murray PI. Degree, duration, and causes of visual loss in uveitis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(9):1159–62. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2003.037226.
Cunningham ET Jr, Wender JD. Practical approach to the use of corticosteroids in patients with uveitis. Can J Ophthalmol. 2010;45(4):352–8. https://doi.org/10.3129/i10-081.
Uchiyama E, Papaliodis GN, Lobo AM, Sobrin L. Side-effects of anti-inflammatory therapy in uveitis. Semin Ophthalmol. 2014;29(5–6):456–67. https://doi.org/10.3109/08820538.2014.959203.
Hosoya K, Tachikawa M. Inner blood-retinal barrier transporters: role of retinal drug delivery. Pharm Res. 2009;26(9):2055–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-009-9930-2.
Nayak K, Misra M. A review on recent drug delivery systems for posterior segment of eye. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018;107:1564–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2018.08.138.
Ormaechea MS, Hassan M, Onghanseng N, Park JH, Mahajan S, Al-Kirwi KY, et al. Safety of systemic therapy for noninfectious uveitis. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2019;18(12):1219–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2019.1692810.
Lee DJ. Intraocular implants for the treatment of autoimmune uveitis. J Funct Biomater. 2015;6(3):650–66. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb6030650.
Foster CS, Kothari S, Anesi SD, Vitale AT, Chu D, Metzinger JL, et al. The Ocular Immunology and Uveitis Foundation preferred practice patterns of uveitis management. Surv Ophthalmol. 2016;61(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2015.07.001.
Takeuchi M, Mizuki N, Ohno S. Pathogenesis of non-infectious uveitis elucidated by recent genetic findings. Front Immunol. 2021;12: 640473. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.640473.
Airody A, Heath G, Lightman S, Gale R. Non-infectious uveitis: optimising the therapeutic response. Drugs. 2016;76(1):27–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-015-0502-y.
Mochizuki M, Sugita S, Kamoi K. Immunological homeostasis of the eye. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2013;33:10–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2012.10.002.
Read S, Malmström V, Powrie F. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 plays an essential role in the function of CD25(+)CD4(+) regulatory cells that control intestinal inflammation. J Exp Med. 2000;192(2):295–302. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.192.2.295.
Collison LW, Workman CJ, Kuo TT, Boyd K, Wang Y, Vignali KM, et al. The inhibitory cytokine IL-35 contributes to regulatory T-cell function. Nature. 2007;450(7169):566–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06306.
Durrani OM, Meads CA, Murray PI. Uveitis: a potentially blinding disease. Ophthalmologica. 2004;218(4):223–36. https://doi.org/10.1159/000078612.
Annacker O, Asseman C, Read S, Powrie F. Interleukin-10 in the regulation of T cell-induced colitis. J Autoimmun. 2003;20(4):277–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-8411(03)00045-3.
Sakaguchi S, Mikami N, Wing JB, Tanaka A, Ichiyama K, Ohkura N. Regulatory T cells and human disease. Annu Rev Immunol. 2020;38:541–66. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-immunol-042718-041717.
Kawazoe Y, Sugita S, Keino H, Yamada Y, Imai A, Horie S, et al. Retinoic acid from retinal pigment epithelium induces T regulatory cells. Exp Eye Res. 2012;94(1):32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2011.11.002.
Zamiri P, Masli S, Streilein JW, Taylor AW. Pigment epithelial growth factor suppresses inflammation by modulating macrophage activation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(9):3912–8. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.05-1267.
Zamiri P, Masli S, Kitaichi N, Taylor AW, Streilein JW. Thrombospondin plays a vital role in the immune privilege of the eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(3):908–19. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.04-0362.
Egwuagu CE, Alhakeem SA, Mbanefo EC. Uveitis: molecular pathogenesis and emerging therapies. Front Immunol. 2021;12: 623725. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.623725.
Boivin WA, Cooper DM, Hiebert PR, Granville DJ. Intracellular versus extracellular granzyme B in immunity and disease: challenging the dogma. Lab Invest. 2009;89(11):1195–220. https://doi.org/10.1038/labinvest.2009.91.
Cua DJ, Sherlock J, Chen Y, Murphy CA, Joyce B, Seymour B, et al. Interleukin-23 rather than interleukin-12 is the critical cytokine for autoimmune inflammation of the brain. Nature. 2003;421(6924):744–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01355.
Oh HM, Yu CR, Lee Y, Chan CC, Maminishkis A, Egwuagu CE. Autoreactive memory CD4+ T lymphocytes that mediate chronic uveitis reside in the bone marrow through STAT3-dependent mechanisms. J Immunol. 2011;187(6):3338–46. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1004019.
Su Y, Tao T, Liu X, Su W. JAK-STAT signaling pathway in non-infectious uveitis. Biochem Pharmacol. 2022;204: 115236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2022.115236.
Lin P, Suhler EB, Rosenbaum JT. The future of uveitis treatment. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(1):365–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.029.
Pepple KL, Wilson L, Van Gelder RN. Comparison of aqueous and vitreous lymphocyte populations from two rat models of experimental uveitis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018;59(6):2504–11. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.18-24192.
Pennesi G, Mattapallil MJ, Sun SH, Avichezer D, Silver PB, Karabekian Z, et al. A humanized model of experimental autoimmune uveitis in HLA class II transgenic mice. J Clin Invest. 2003;111(8):1171–80. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci15155.
Bose T, Diedrichs-Möhring M, Wildner G. Dry eye disease and uveitis: A closer look at immune mechanisms in animal models of two ocular autoimmune diseases. Autoimmun Rev. 2016;15(12):1181–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2016.09.001.
Hirose S, Ogasawara K, Natori T, Sasamoto Y, Ohno S, Matsuda H, et al. Regulation of experimental autoimmune uveitis in rats–separation of MHC and non-MHC gene effects. Clin Exp Immunol. 1991;86(3):419–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2249.1991.tb02947.x.
Caspi RR, Chan CC, Fujino Y, Oddo S, Najafian F, Bahmanyar S, et al. Genetic factors in susceptibility and resistance to experimental autoimmune uveoretinitis. Curr Eye Res. 1992;11(Suppl):81–6. https://doi.org/10.3109/02713689208999515.
Agarwal RK, Caspi RR. Rodent models of experimental autoimmune uveitis. Methods Mol Med. 2004;102:395–419. https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-805-6:395.
Bansal S, Barathi VA, Iwata D, Agrawal R. Experimental autoimmune uveitis and other animal models of uveitis: an update. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2015;63(3):211–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.156914.
Epps SJ, Boldison J, Stimpson ML, Khera TK, Lait PJP, Copland DA, et al. Re-programming immunosurveillance in persistent non-infectious ocular inflammation. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2018;65:93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2018.03.001.
Smith JR, Stempel AJ, Bharadwaj A, Appukuttan B. Involvement of B cells in non-infectious uveitis. Clin Transl Immunol. 2016;5(2): e63. https://doi.org/10.1038/cti.2016.2.
Dick AD, Tundia N, Sorg R, Zhao C, Chao J, Joshi A, et al. Risk of ocular complications in patients with noninfectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, or panuveitis. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(3):655–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.10.028.
Rothova A, Buitenhuis HJ, Meenken C, Brinkman CJ, Linssen A, Alberts C, et al. Uveitis and systemic disease. Br J Ophthalmol. 1992;76(3):137–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.76.3.137.
Jabs DA, Busingye J. Approach to the diagnosis of the uveitides. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(2):228–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2013.03.027.
Rosenbaum JT, Bodaghi B, Couto C, Zierhut M, Acharya N, Pavesio C, et al. New observations and emerging ideas in diagnosis and management of non-infectious uveitis: A review. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019;49(3):438–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2019.06.004.
Guly CM, Forrester JV. Investigation and management of uveitis. BMJ. 2010;341: c4976. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4976.
Babu BM, Rathinam SR. Intermediate uveitis. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2010;58(1):21–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.58469.
Rathinam SR, Babu M. Algorithmic approach in the diagnosis of uveitis. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013;61(6):255–62. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.114092.
Hettinga YM, Scheerlinck LM, Lilien MR, Rothova A, de Boer JH. The value of measuring urinary β2-microglobulin and serum creatinine for detecting tubulointerstitial nephritis and uveitis syndrome in young patients with uveitis. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133(2):140–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.4301.
van Laar JA, van Velthoven ME, Missotten T, Kuijpers R, van Hagen PM, Rothova A. Diagnosis and treatment of uveitis; not restricted to the ophthalmologist. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2013;157(38):A5703.
Charkoudian LD, Ying GS, Pujari SS, Gangaputra S, Thorne JE, Foster CS, et al. High-dose intravenous corticosteroids for ocular inflammatory diseases. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2012;20(2):91–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/09273948.2011.646382.
Gallego-Pinazo R, Dolz-Marco R, Martínez-Castillo S, Arévalo JF, Díaz-Llopis M. Update on the principles and novel local and systemic therapies for the treatment of non-infectious uveitis. Inflamm Allergy Drug Targets. 2013;12(1):38–45. https://doi.org/10.2174/1871528111312010006.
Jabs DA, Rosenbaum JT, Foster CS, Holland GN, Jaffe GJ, Louie JS, et al. Guidelines for the use of immunosuppressive drugs in patients with ocular inflammatory disorders: recommendations of an expert panel. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130(4):492–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(00)00659-0.
Agrawal H, Doan H, Pham B, Khosla A, Babu M, McCluskey P, et al. Systemic immunosuppressive therapies for uveitis in developing countries. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020;68(9):1852–62. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_1548_20.
Shahab MA, Mir TA, Zafar S. Optimising drug therapy for non-infectious uveitis. Int Ophthalmol. 2019;39(7):1633–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-0984-1.
Singh RB, Sinha S, Saini C, Elbasiony E, Thakur S, Agarwal A. Recent advances in the management of non-infectious posterior uveitis. Int Ophthalmol. 2020;40(11):3187–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01496-0.
Poetker DM, Reh DD. A comprehensive review of the adverse effects of systemic corticosteroids. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2010;43(4):753–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2010.04.003.
Relhan N, Yeh S, Albini TA. Intraocular Sustained-release Steroids for Uveitis. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2015;55(3):25–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/iio.0000000000000075.
Berkenstock MK, Mir TA, Khan IR, Burkholder BM, Chaon BC, Shifera AS, et al. Effectiveness of the dexamethasone implant in Lieu of oral corticosteroids in intermediate and posterior uveitis requiring immunosuppression. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2022;30(3):741–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273948.2020.1826534.
Yu C, MacDougall D. CADTH Rapid response reports. Intravitreal dexamethasone implants for non-infectious uveitis: a review of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and guidelines. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Copyright © 2020 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.; 2020.
Kiddee W, Trope GE, Sheng L, Beltran-Agullo L, Smith M, Strungaru MH, et al. Intraocular pressure monitoring post intravitreal steroids: a systematic review. Surv Ophthalmol. 2013;58(4):291–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2012.08.003.
Cabrera M, Yeh S, Albini TA. Sustained-release corticosteroid options. J Ophthalmol. 2014;2014: 164692. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/164692.
Chang-Lin JE, Attar M, Acheampong AA, Robinson MR, Whitcup SM, Kuppermann BD, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a sustained-release dexamethasone intravitreal implant. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(1):80–6. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.10-5285.
London NJ, Chiang A, Haller JA. The dexamethasone drug delivery system: indications and evidence. Adv Ther. 2011;28(5):351–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-011-0019-z.
Lightman S, Belfort R Jr, Naik RK, Lowder C, Foster CS, Rentz AM, et al. Vision-related functioning outcomes of dexamethasone intravitreal implant in noninfectious intermediate or posterior uveitis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54(7):4864–70. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.12-10981.
Tomkins-Netzer O, Talat L, Seguin-Greenstein S, Bar A, Lightman S. Outcome of treating pediatric uveitis with dexamethasone implants. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;161:110–5.e1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2015.09.036.
Kriegel M, Heiligenhaus A, Heinz C. Comparing the Efficacy of Intravitreal Dexamethasone and Time-displaced Fluocinolone Acetonide on Central Retinal Thickness in Patients with Uveitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2022:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273948.2021.2018469.
Cicinelli MV, Rosenblatt A, Grosso D, Zollet P, Capone L, Rabiolo A, et al. The outcome of fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant is predicted by the response to dexamethasone implant in diabetic macular oedema. Eye (Lond). 2021;35(12):3232–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-01373-1.
Hikal M, Celik N, Auffarth GU, Kessler LJ, Mayer CS, Khoramnia R. Intravitreal 0.19 mg Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant in Non-Infectious Uveitis. J Clin Med. 2021;10(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10173966.
Bodaghi B, Nguyen QD, Jaffe G, Khoramnia R, Pavesio C. Preventing relapse in non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye - evaluating the 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (ILUVIEN(®)). J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect. 2020;10(1):32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12348-020-00225-z.
Weber LF, Marx S, Auffarth GU, Scheuerle AF, Tandogan T, Mayer C, et al. Injectable 0.19-mg fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant for the treatment of non-infectious uveitic macular edema. J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect. 2019;9(1):3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12348-019-0168-9.
Studsgaard A, Clemmensen K, Nielsen MS. Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide 0.19 mg (Iluvien®) for the treatment of uveitic macular edema: 2-year follow-up of 20 patients. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022;260(5):1633–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05504-6.
Yang Y, Bailey C, Holz FG, Eter N, Weber M, Baker C, et al. Long-term outcomes of phakic patients with diabetic macular oedema treated with intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implants. Eye (Lond). 2015;29(9):1173–80. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.98.
Bailey C, Chakravarthy U, Lotery A, Menon G, Talks J. Extended real-world experience with the ILUVIEN® (fluocinolone acetonide) implant in the United Kingdom: 3-year results from the Medisoft® audit study. Eye (Lond). 2022;36(5):1012–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01542-w.
Massin P, Erginay A, Dupas B, Couturier A, Tadayoni R. Efficacy and safety of sustained-delivery fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant in patients with chronic diabetic macular edema insufficiently responsive to available therapies: a real-life study. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:1257–64. https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.S105385.
de Oliveira Dias JR, Nunes RP, Goldhardt R. New drugs and new posterior delivery methods in CME. Curr Ophthalmol Rep. 2017;5(2):160–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40135-017-0134-3.
Patel CC, Mandava N, Oliver SC, Braverman R, Quiroz-Mercado H, Olson JL. Treatment of intractable posterior uveitis in pediatric patients with the fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (Retisert). Retina. 2012;32(3):537–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e31822058bb.
Callanan DG, Jaffe GJ, Martin DF, Pearson PA, Comstock TL. Treatment of posterior uveitis with a fluocinolone acetonide implant: three-year clinical trial results. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(9):1191–201. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.126.9.1191.
Pavesio C, Zierhut M, Bairi K, Comstock TL, Usner DW. Evaluation of an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant versus standard systemic therapy in noninfectious posterior uveitis. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(3):567–75, 75.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.11.027.
Sangwan VS, Pearson PA, Paul H, Comstock TL. Use of the fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant for the treatment of noninfectious posterior uveitis: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial in a predominantly Asian population. Ophthalmol Ther. 2015;4(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-014-0027-6.
Kempen JH, Altaweel MM, Holbrook JT, Jabs DA, Louis TA, Sugar EA, et al. Randomized comparison of systemic anti-inflammatory therapy versus fluocinolone acetonide implant for intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis: the multicenter uveitis steroid treatment trial. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(10):1916–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.07.027.
Georgalas I, Koutsandrea C, Papaconstantinou D, Mpouritis D, Petrou P. Scleral melt following Retisert intravitreal fluocinolone implant. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2014;8:2373–5. https://doi.org/10.2147/dddt.S66634.
Brumm MV, Nguyen QD. Fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal sustained release device–a new addition to the armamentarium of uveitic management. Int J Nanomedicine. 2007;2(1):55–64. https://doi.org/10.2147/nano.2007.2.1.55.
Fluocinolone acetonide ophthalmic--Bausch & Lomb: fluocinolone acetonide Envision TD implant. Drugs R D. 2005;6(2):116–9. https://doi.org/10.2165/00126839-200506020-00007.
Taban M, Lowder CY, Kaiser PK. Outcome of fluocinolone acetonide implant (Retisert) reimplantation for chronic noninfectious posterior uveitis. Retina. 2008;28(9):1280–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e31817d8bf2.
Lim LL, Smith JR, Rosenbaum JT. Retisert (Bausch & Lomb/Control Delivery Systems). Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2005;6(11):1159–67.
Berger BB, Mendoza W. Sclerotomy closure for Retisert implant. Retina. 2013;33(2):436–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182759fdb.
Ajamil-Rodanes S, Testi I, Luis J, Robson AG, Westcott M, Pavesio C. Evaluation of fluocinolone acetonide 0.19 mg intravitreal implant in the management of birdshot retinochoroiditis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2022;106(2):234–40. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-317372.
Tabandeh H, Rezaei K. Scleral fixation of fluocinolone acetonide implant. Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep. 2020;19: 100775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoc.2020.100775.
Jaffe GJ, Foster CS, Pavesio CE, Paggiarino DA, Riedel GE. Effect of an injectable fluocinolone acetonide insert on recurrence rates in chronic noninfectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment: twelve-month results. Ophthalmology. 2019;126(4):601–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.10.033.
Mahmud H, Ahmad TR, Gonzales JA, Stewart JM. Efficacy of the Fluocinolone Acetonide (Yutiq) intravitreal implant as monotherapy for uveitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2022:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273948.2022.2076131.
Testi I, Pavesio C. Preliminary evaluation of YUTIQ™ (fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant 0.18 mg) in posterior uveitis. Ther Deliv. 2019;10(10):621–5. https://doi.org/10.4155/tde-2019-0051.
Haghjou N, Soheilian M, Abdekhodaie MJ. Sustained release intraocular drug delivery devices for treatment of uveitis. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2011;6(4):317–29.
Nussenblatt RB, Palestine AG, Chan CC. Cyclosporine therapy for uveitis: long-term followup. J Ocul Pharmacol. 1985;1(4):369–82. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.1985.1.369.
Lee SH, Chung H, Yu HG. Clinical outcomes of cyclosporine treatment for noninfectious uveitis. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2012;26(1):21–5. https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2012.26.1.21.
Kaçmaz RO, Kempen JH, Newcomb C, Daniel E, Gangaputra S, Nussenblatt RB, et al. Cyclosporine for ocular inflammatory diseases. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(3):576–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.08.010.
Akman-Demir G, Ayranci O, Kurtuncu M, Vanli EN, Mutlu M, Tugal-Tutkun I. Cyclosporine for Behçet’s uveitis: is it associated with an increased risk of neurological involvement? Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2008;26(4 Suppl 50):S84-90.
A comparison of tacrolimus (FK 506) and cyclosporine for immunosuppression in liver transplantation. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(17):1110–5. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199410273311702.
Hogan AC, McAvoy CE, Dick AD, Lee RW. Long-term efficacy and tolerance of tacrolimus for the treatment of uveitis. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(5):1000–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.01.026.
Sloper CM, Powell RJ, Dua HS. Tacrolimus (FK506) in the treatment of posterior uveitis refractory to cyclosporine. Ophthalmology. 1999;106(4):723–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(99)90156-2.
Kilmartin DJ, Forrester JV, Dick AD. Tacrolimus (FK506) in failed cyclosporin A therapy in endogenous posterior uveitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 1998;6(2):101–9. https://doi.org/10.1076/ocii.6.2.101.4051.
Mochizuki M, Masuda K, Sakane T, Ito K, Kogure M, Sugino N, et al. A clinical trial of FK506 in refractory uveitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;115(6):763–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(14)73645-1.
Murphy CC, Greiner K, Plskova J, Duncan L, Frost NA, Forrester JV, et al. Cyclosporine vs tacrolimus therapy for posterior and intermediate uveitis. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(5):634–41. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.123.5.634.
Taylor DO, Barr ML, Radovancevic B, Renlund DG, Mentzer RM Jr, Smart FW, et al. A randomized, multicenter comparison of tacrolimus and cyclosporine immunosuppressive regimens in cardiac transplantation: decreased hyperlipidemia and hypertension with tacrolimus. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1999;18(4):336–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-2498(98)00060-6.
Dunn JP. Uveitis. Prim Care. 2015;42(3):305–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pop.2015.05.003.
Samson CM, Waheed N, Baltatzis S, Foster CS. Methotrexate therapy for chronic noninfectious uveitis: analysis of a case series of 160 patients. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(6):1134–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00576-0.
Muñoz-Fernández S, García-Aparicio AM, Hidalgo MV, Platero M, Schlincker A, Bascones ML, et al. Methotrexate: an option for preventing the recurrence of acute anterior uveitis. Eye (Lond). 2009;23(5):1130–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2008.198.
Gangaputra S, Newcomb CW, Liesegang TL, Kaçmaz RO, Jabs DA, Levy-Clarke GA, et al. Methotrexate for ocular inflammatory diseases. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(11):2188-98.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.04.020.
Kremer JM, Alarcón GS, Lightfoot RW, Jr., Willkens RF, Furst DE, Williams HJ, et al. Methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis. Suggested guidelines for monitoring liver toxicity. American College of Rheumatology. Arthritis Rheum. 1994;37(3):316–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780370304.
Galor A, Jabs DA, Leder HA, Kedhar SR, Dunn JP, Peters GB 3rd, et al. Comparison of antimetabolite drugs as corticosteroid-sparing therapy for noninfectious ocular inflammation. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(10):1826–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.04.026.
Allison AC, Eugui EM. Mycophenolate mofetil and its mechanisms of action. Immunopharmacology. 2000;47(2–3):85–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0162-3109(00)00188-0.
Klisovic DD. Mycophenolate mofetil use in the treatment of noninfectious uveitis. Dev Ophthalmol. 2012;51:57–62. https://doi.org/10.1159/000336192.
Thorne JE, Jabs DA, Qazi FA, Nguyen QD, Kempen JH, Dunn JP. Mycophenolate mofetil therapy for inflammatory eye disease. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(8):1472–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.02.020.
Sobrin L, Christen W, Foster CS. Mycophenolate mofetil after methotrexate failure or intolerance in the treatment of scleritis and uveitis. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(8):1416–21, 21.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.12.011.
Pleyer U, Neri P, Deuter C. New pharmacotherapy options for noninfectious posterior uveitis. Int Ophthalmol. 2021;41(6):2265–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01763-8.
Pasadhika S, Kempen JH, Newcomb CW, Liesegang TL, Pujari SS, Rosenbaum JT, et al. Azathioprine for ocular inflammatory diseases. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148(4):500-9.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2009.05.008.
Yazici H, Pazarli H, Barnes CG, Tüzün Y, Ozyazgan Y, Silman A, et al. A controlled trial of azathioprine in Behçet’s syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(5):281–5. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199002013220501.
Mili-Boussen I, Zitouni M, Ammous I, Letaief I, Errais K, Zhioua R, et al. Azathioprine for glucocorticoid resistant noninfectious uveitis. Tunis Med. 2015;93(3):158–63.
Pasadhika S, Rosenbaum JT. Update on the use of systemic biologic agents in the treatment of noninfectious uveitis. Biologics. 2014;8:67–81. https://doi.org/10.2147/btt.S41477.
Agrawal R, Iyer J, Connolly J, Iwata D, Teoh S. Cytokines and Biologics in non-infectious autoimmune uveitis: bench to bedside. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014;62(1):74–81. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.126187.
LaMattina KC, Goldstein DA. Adalimumab for the treatment of uveitis. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2017;13(3):181–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/1744666x.2017.1288097.
Hu S, Liang S, Guo H, Zhang D, Li H, Wang X, et al. Comparison of the inhibition mechanisms of adalimumab and infliximab in treating tumor necrosis factor α-associated diseases from a molecular view. J Biol Chem. 2013;288(38):27059–67. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M113.491530.
Suhler EB, Adán A, Brézin AP, Fortin E, Goto H, Jaffe GJ, et al. Safety and efficacy of Adalimumab in patients with noninfectious uveitis in an ongoing open-label study: VISUAL III. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(7):1075–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.12.039.
Ramanan AV, Dick AD, Jones AP, McKay A, Williamson PR, Compeyrot-Lacassagne S, et al. Adalimumab plus Methotrexate for uveitis in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(17):1637–46. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1614160.
Levy-Clarke G, Jabs DA, Read RW, Rosenbaum JT, Vitale A, Van Gelder RN. Expert panel recommendations for the use of anti-tumor necrosis factor biologic agents in patients with ocular inflammatory disorders. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(3):785-96.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.09.048.
Sharma SM, Fu DJ, Xue K. A review of the landscape of targeted immunomodulatory therapies for non-infectious uveitis. Ophthalmol Ther. 2018;7(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-017-0115-5.
Kahn P, Weiss M, Imundo LF, Levy DM. Favorable response to high-dose infliximab for refractory childhood uveitis. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(5):860-4.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.01.005.
Pritchard C, Nadarajah K. Tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitor treatment for sarcoidosis refractory to conventional treatments: a report of five patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(3):318–20. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2002.004226.
Rispo A, Scarpa R, Di Girolamo E, Cozzolino A, Lembo G, Atteno M, et al. Infliximab in the treatment of extra-intestinal manifestations of Crohn’s disease. Scand J Rheumatol. 2005;34(5):387–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/03009740510026698.
Artornsombudh P, Gevorgyan O, Payal A, Siddique SS, Foster CS. Infliximab treatment of patients with birdshot retinochoroidopathy. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(3):588–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.05.048.
Takeuchi M, Kezuka T, Sugita S, Keino H, Namba K, Kaburaki T, et al. Evaluation of the long-term efficacy and safety of infliximab treatment for uveitis in Behçet’s disease: a multicenter study. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(10):1877–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.04.042.
Dogra S, Khullar G. Tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists: side effects and their management. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2013;79(Suppl 7):S35-46. https://doi.org/10.4103/0378-6323.115526.
Giganti M, Beer PM, Lemanski N, Hartman C, Schartman J, Falk N. Adverse events after intravitreal infliximab (Remicade). Retina. 2010;30(1):71–80. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181bcef3b.
Tan HY, Agarwal A, Lee CS, Chhablani J, Gupta V, Khatri M, et al. Management of noninfectious posterior uveitis with intravitreal drug therapy. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:1983–2020. https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.S89341.
Weinblatt ME, Kremer JM, Bankhurst AD, Bulpitt KJ, Fleischmann RM, Fox RI, et al. A trial of etanercept, a recombinant tumor necrosis factor receptor: Fc fusion protein, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(4):253–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199901283400401.
Smith JR, Levinson RD, Holland GN, Jabs DA, Robinson MR, Whitcup SM, et al. Differential efficacy of tumor necrosis factor inhibition in the management of inflammatory eye disease and associated rheumatic disease. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;45(3):252–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(200106)45:3%3c252::Aid-art257%3e3.0.Co;2-5.
Reiff A, Takei S, Sadeghi S, Stout A, Shaham B, Bernstein B, et al. Etanercept therapy in children with treatment-resistant uveitis. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44(6):1411–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(200106)44:6%3c1411::Aid-art235%3e3.0.Co;2-o.
Saurenmann RK, Levin AV, Rose JB, Parker S, Rabinovitch T, Tyrrell PN, et al. Tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors in the treatment of childhood uveitis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006;45(8):982–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kel030.
Galor A, Perez VL, Hammel JP, Lowder CY. Differential effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab in the treatment of ocular inflammation. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(12):2317–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.04.038.
Tynjälä P, Lindahl P, Honkanen V, Lahdenne P, Kotaniemi K. Infliximab and etanercept in the treatment of chronic uveitis associated with refractory juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(4):548–50. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2006.058248.
Simonini G, Druce K, Cimaz R, Macfarlane GJ, Jones GT. Current evidence of anti-tumor necrosis factor α treatment efficacy in childhood chronic uveitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis approach of individual drugs. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014;66(7):1073–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22214.
Gaggiano C, Sota J, Gentileschi S, Caggiano V, Grosso S, Tosi GM, et al. The current status of biological treatment for uveitis. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2020;16(8):787–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/1744666x.2020.1798230.
Leclercq M, Desbois AC, Domont F, Maalouf G, Touhami S, Cacoub P, et al. Biotherapies in uveitis. J Clin Med. 2020;9(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9113599.
Trivedi A, Katelaris C. The use of biologic agents in the management of uveitis. Intern Med J. 2019;49(11):1352–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.14215.
Baughman RP, Lower EE, Bradley DA, Raymond LA, Kaufman A. Etanercept for refractory ocular sarcoidosis: results of a double-blind randomized trial. Chest. 2005;128(2):1062–147. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.128.2.1062.
Foster CS, Tufail F, Waheed NK, Chu D, Miserocchi E, Baltatzis S, et al. Efficacy of etanercept in preventing relapse of uveitis controlled by methotrexate. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(4):437–40. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.121.4.437.
Toussirot É, Aubin F. Paradoxical reactions under TNF-α blocking agents and other biological agents given for chronic immune-mediated diseases: an analytical and comprehensive overview. RMD Open. 2016;2(2): e000239. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2015-000239.
Lim LL, Fraunfelder FW, Rosenbaum JT. Do tumor necrosis factor inhibitors cause uveitis? A registry-based study. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56(10):3248–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.22918.
Nicolela Susanna F, Pavesio C. A review of ocular adverse events of biological anti-TNF drugs. J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect. 2020;10(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12348-020-00202-6.
Calvo-Río V, de la Hera D, Blanco R, Beltrán-Catalán E, Loricera J, Cañal J, et al. Golimumab in uveitis previously treated with other anti-TNF-alpha drugs: a retrospective study of three cases from a single centre and literature review. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014;32(6):864–8.
Faez S, Lobo AM, Sobrin L, Papaliodis GN. Treatment of seronegative spondyloarthropathy-associated uveitis with golimumab: retrospective case series. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014;42(4):392–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.12207.
Cordero-Coma M, Salom D, Díaz-Llopis M, López-Prats MJ, Calleja S. Golimumab for uveitis. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(9):1892.e3-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.05.019.
William M, Faez S, Papaliodis GN, Lobo AM. Golimumab for the treatment of refractory juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis. J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect. 2012;2(4):231–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12348-012-0081-y.
Boyce EG, Halilovic J, Stan-Ugbene O. Golimumab: review of the efficacy and tolerability of a recently approved tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor. Clin Ther. 2010;32(10):1681–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2010.09.003.
Miserocchi E, Modorati G, Pontikaki I, Meroni PL, Gerloni V. Long-term treatment with golimumab for severe uveitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2014;22(2):90–5. https://doi.org/10.3109/09273948.2013.844265.
Calvo-Río V, Blanco R, Santos-Gómez M, Rubio-Romero E, Cordero-Coma M, Gallego-Flores A, et al. Golimumab in refractory uveitis related to spondyloarthritis. Multicenter study of 15 patients. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2016;46(1):95–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2016.03.002.
Fabiani C, Sota J, Rigante D, Vitale A, Emmi G, Vannozzi L, et al. Rapid and sustained efficacy of Golimumab in the treatment of Multirefractory uveitis associated with Behçet's disease. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2019;27(1):58–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273948.2017.1351573.
Michelon MA, Gottlieb AB. Role of golimumab, a TNF-alpha inhibitor, in the treatment of the psoriatic arthritis. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2010;3:79–84. https://doi.org/10.2147/ccid.s6186.
Tappeiner C, Mesquida M, Adán A, Anton J, Ramanan AV, Carreno E, et al. Evidence for Tocilizumab as a treatment option in refractory uveitis associated with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2016;43(12):2183–8. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.160231.
Gupta S, Shyamsundar K, Agrawal M, Vichare N, Biswas J. Current knowledge of biologics in treatment of noninfectious uveitis. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2022;38(3):203–22. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2021.0098.
Sepah YJ, Sadiq MA, Chu DS, Dacey M, Gallemore R, Dayani P, et al. Primary (Month-6) outcomes of the STOP-uveitis study: evaluating the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of Tocilizumab in patients with noninfectious uveitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;183:71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.08.019.
Calvo-Río V, Santos-Gómez M, Calvo I, González-Fernández MI, López-Montesinos B, Mesquida M, et al. Anti-interleukin-6 receptor Tocilizumab for severe Juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis refractory to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy: a multicenter study of twenty-five patients. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69(3):668–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39940.
Atienza-Mateo B, Calvo-Río V, Beltrán E, Martínez-Costa L, Valls-Pascual E, Hernández-Garfella M, et al. Anti-interleukin 6 receptor tocilizumab in refractory uveitis associated with Behçet’s disease: multicentre retrospective study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2018;57(5):856–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kex480.
Eser Ozturk H, Oray M, Tugal-Tutkun I. Tocilizumab for the treatment of Behçet Uveitis that failed interferon alpha and anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2018;26(7):1005–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273948.2017.1355471.
Leclercq M, Le Besnerais M, Langlois V, Girszyn N, Benhamou Y, Ngo C, et al. Tocilizumab for the treatment of birdshot uveitis that failed interferon alpha and anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy: two cases report and literature review. Clin Rheumatol. 2018;37(3):849–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-018-4007-4.
Calvo-Río V, Blanco R, Santos-Gómez M, Díaz-Valle D, Pato E, Loricera J, et al. Efficacy of anti-IL6-Receptor Tocilizumab in refractory cystoid macular edema of birdshot retinochoroidopathy report of two cases and literature review. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2017;25(5):604–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273948.2016.1231331.
Lu L, Shen M, Jiang D, Li Y, Zheng X, Li Y, et al. Blau syndrome with good Reponses to Tocilizumab: A case report and focused literature review. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2018;47(5):727–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2017.09.010.
Lopalco G, Fabiani C, Sota J, Lucherini OM, Tosi GM, Frediani B, et al. IL-6 blockade in the management of non-infectious uveitis. Clin Rheumatol. 2017;36(7):1459–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-017-3672-z.
Silpa-Archa S, Oray M, Preble JM, Foster CS. Outcome of tocilizumab treatment in refractory ocular inflammatory diseases. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(6):e400–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.13015.
Mesquida M, Molins B, Llorenç V, Sainz de la Maza M, Adán A. Long-term effects of tocilizumab therapy for refractory uveitis-related macular edema. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(12):2380–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.06.050.
Wendling D, Dernis E, Prati C, Frisch E, Delbosc B. Onset of inflammatory eye disease under tocilizumab treatment for rheumatologic conditions: a paradoxical effect? J Rheumatol. 2011;38(10):2284. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.110170.
Cohen SB, Moreland LW, Cush JJ, Greenwald MW, Block S, Shergy WJ, et al. A multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial of anakinra (Kineret), a recombinant interleukin 1 receptor antagonist, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with background methotrexate. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(9):1062–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2003.016014.
Fabiani C, Vitale A, Rigante D, Emmi G, Lopalco G, Di Scala G, et al. The presence of Uveitis is associated with a sustained response to the Interleukin (IL)-1 inhibitors Anakinra and Canakinumab in Behçet's disease. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2020;28(2):298–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273948.2018.1511810.
Fabiani C, Vitale A, Emmi G, Lopalco G, Vannozzi L, Guerriero S, et al. Interleukin (IL)-1 inhibition with anakinra and canakinumab in Behçet’s disease-related uveitis: a multicenter retrospective observational study. Clin Rheumatol. 2017;36(1):191–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-016-3506-4.
Teoh SC, Sharma S, Hogan A, Lee R, Ramanan AV, Dick AD. Tailoring biological treatment: anakinra treatment of posterior uveitis associated with the CINCA syndrome. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91(2):263–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2006.0101477.
Hassan M, Karkhur S, Bae JH, Halim MS, Ormaechea MS, Onghanseng N, et al. New therapies in development for the management of non-infectious uveitis: a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019;47(3):396–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13511.
Simonini G, Xu Z, Caputo R, De Libero C, Pagnini I, Pascual V, et al. Clinical and transcriptional response to the long-acting interleukin-1 blocker canakinumab in Blau syndrome-related uveitis. Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65(2):513–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.37776.
Thomas AS. Biologics for the treatment of noninfectious uveitis: current concepts and emerging therapeutics. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2019;30(3):138–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/icu.0000000000000562.
Dick AD, Tugal-Tutkun I, Foster S, Zierhut M, Melissa Liew SH, Bezlyak V, et al. Secukinumab in the treatment of noninfectious uveitis: results of three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(4):777–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.09.040.
Letko E, Yeh S, Foster CS, Pleyer U, Brigell M, Grosskreutz CL. Efficacy and safety of intravenous secukinumab in noninfectious uveitis requiring steroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(5):939–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.12.033.
Braun J, Baraliakos X, Deodhar A, Baeten D, Sieper J, Emery P, et al. Effect of secukinumab on clinical and radiographic outcomes in ankylosing spondylitis: 2-year results from the randomised phase III MEASURE 1 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(6):1070–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209730.
Thomas AS, Rosenbaum JT. Poor control of Sarcoidosis-related Panuveitis with an antibody to IL-23. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2020;28(3):491–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273948.2019.1569245.
Lopalco G, Fabiani C, Venerito V, Lapadula G, Iannone F, Cantarini L. Ustekinumab efficacy and safety in mucocutaneous multi-refractory Behçet's disease. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2017;35 Suppl 108(6):130–1.
Mugheddu C, Atzori L, Del Piano M, Lappi A, Pau M, Murgia S, et al. Successful ustekinumab treatment of noninfectious uveitis and concomitant severe psoriatic arthritis and plaque psoriasis. Dermatol Ther. 2017;30(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/dth.12527.
Utriainen L, Lee JW, Li Z, Chaon B, Thompson I, Chaigne-Delalande B, et al. Efficacy of IL-12/23 inhibition for the treatment of active sight-threatening uveitis: a pilot study. Investigative Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018;59(9):5948-.
Zhu L, Chen B, Su W. A review of the various roles and participation levels of B-cells in non-infectious uveitis. Front Immunol. 2021;12: 676046. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.676046.
Umran RMR, Shukur ZYH. Rituximab for sight-threatening refractory pediatric Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease. Mod Rheumatol. 2018;28(1):197–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/14397595.2015.1071234.
Pelegrin L, Jakob E, Schmidt-Bacher A, Schwenger V, Becker M, Max R, et al. Experiences with rituximab for the treatment of autoimmune diseases with ocular involvement. J Rheumatol. 2014;41(1):84–90. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.130206.
Heiligenhaus A, Miserocchi E, Heinz C, Gerloni V, Kotaniemi K. Treatment of severe uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (rituximab). Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011;50(8):1390–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ker107.
Davatchi F, Shams H, Rezaipoor M, Sadeghi-Abdollahi B, Shahram F, Nadji A, et al. Rituximab in intractable ocular lesions of Behcet’s disease; randomized single-blind control study (pilot study). Int J Rheum Dis. 2010;13(3):246–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-185X.2010.01546.x.
Caso F, Rigante D, Vitale A, Costa L, Bascherini V, Latronico E, et al. Long-lasting uveitis remission and hearing loss recovery after rituximab in Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease. Clin Rheumatol. 2015;34(10):1817–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-014-2781-1.
Abu El-Asrar AM, Dheyab A, Khatib D, Struyf S, Van Damme J, Opdenakker G. Efficacy of B cell depletion therapy with Rituximab in refractory chronic recurrent uveitis associated with Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2022;30(3):750–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273948.2020.1820531.
Miserocchi E, Modorati G, Berchicci L, Pontikaki I, Meroni P, Gerloni V. Long-term treatment with rituximab in severe juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100(6):782–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-306790.
Valenzuela RA, Flores I, Urrutia B, Fuentes F, Sabat PE, Llanos C, et al. New pharmacological strategies for the treatment of non-infectious uveitis. A minireview. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:655. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.00655.
Bauermann P, Heiligenhaus A, Heinz C. Effect of Janus Kinase inhibitor treatment on anterior uveitis and associated macular edema in an adult patient with Juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2019;27(8):1232–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273948.2019.1605453.
Miserocchi E, Giuffrè C, Cornalba M, Pontikaki I, Cimaz R. JAK inhibitors in refractory juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis. Clin Rheumatol. 2020;39(3):847–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-019-04875-w.
Mishra S, Jena A, Kakadiya R, Sharma V, Ahuja V. Positioning of tofacitinib in treatment of ulcerative colitis: a global perspective. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;16(8):737–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/17474124.2022.2106216.
Srivastava SK, Watkins T, Nguyen QD, Sharma S, Scales D, Dacey M, et al. A phase 2 randomized controlled trial of the Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitor filgotinib in patients with noninfectious uveitis. Investigative Ophthalmol Visual Sci. 2022;63(7):2678-.
Genovese MC, Kalunian K, Gottenberg JE, Mozaffarian N, Bartok B, Matzkies F, et al. Effect of Filgotinib vs placebo on clinical response in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis refractory to disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy: the FINCH 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322(4):315–25. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.9055.
Deuter CM, Koetter I, Guenaydin I, Stuebiger N, Zierhut M. Interferon alfa-2a: a new treatment option for long lasting refractory cystoid macular edema in uveitis?. A pilot study. Retina. 2006;26(7):786–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.iae.0000244265.75771.71.
Butler NJ, Suhler EB, Rosenbaum JT. Interferon alpha 2b in the treatment of uveitic cystoid macular edema. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2012;20(2):86–90. https://doi.org/10.3109/09273948.2011.645989.
Becker MD, Heiligenhaus A, Hudde T, Storch-Hagenlocher B, Wildemann B, Barisani-Asenbauer T, et al. Interferon as a treatment for uveitis associated with multiple sclerosis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(10):1254–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2004.061119.
Hasanreisoglu M, Cubuk MO, Ozdek S, Gurelik G, Aktas Z, Hasanreisoglu B. Interferon Alpha-2a therapy in patients with refractory Behçet uveitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2017;25(1):71–5. https://doi.org/10.3109/09273948.2015.1133835.
Diwo E, Gueudry J, Saadoun D, Weschler B, LeHoang P, Bodaghi B. Long-term efficacy of interferon in severe uveitis associated with Behçet disease. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2017;25(1):76–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/09273948.2016.1206204.
Gueudry J, Wechsler B, Terrada C, Gendron G, Cassoux N, Fardeau C, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of low-dose interferon alpha2a therapy in severe uveitis associated with Behçet disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;146(6):837-44.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2008.08.038.
Krause L, Altenburg A, Pleyer U, Köhler AK, Zouboulis CC, Foerster MH. Longterm visual prognosis of patients with ocular Adamantiades-Behçet’s disease treated with interferon-alpha-2a. J Rheumatol. 2008;35(5):896–903.
Touhami S, Gueudry J, Leclercq M, Touitou V, Ghembaza A, Errera MH, et al. Perspectives for immunotherapy in noninfectious immune mediated uveitis. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2021;17(9):977–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/1744666x.2021.1956313.
Mackensen F, Jakob E, Springer C, Dobner BC, Wiehler U, Weimer P, et al. Interferon versus methotrexate in intermediate uveitis with macular edema: results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156(3):478-86.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2013.05.002.
Deuter CM, Kötter I, Günaydin I, Stübiger N, Doycheva DG, Zierhut M. Efficacy and tolerability of interferon alpha treatment in patients with chronic cystoid macular oedema due to non-infectious uveitis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93(7):906–13. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2008.153874.
Alibaz-Oner F, Direskeneli H. Advances in the treatment of Behcet's disease. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2021;23(6):47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-021-01011-z.
Ferreira LB, Farrall AL, Furtado JM, Smith JR. Treatment of noninfectious uveitis. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2021;84(6):610–21. https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.20220094.
Jabs DA. Immunosuppression for the Uveitides. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(2):193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.08.007.
Pujari SS, Kempen JH, Newcomb CW, Gangaputra S, Daniel E, Suhler EB, et al. Cyclophosphamide for ocular inflammatory diseases. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(2):356–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.06.060.
Wakefield D. Does cyclophosphamide still have a role in the treatment of severe inflammatory eye disease? Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2014;22(4):306–10. https://doi.org/10.3109/09273948.2013.854395.
Ahmed AR, Hombal SM. Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan). A review on relevant pharmacology and clinical uses. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1984;11(6):1115–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0190-9622(84)80193-0.
Goldstein DA, Fontanilla FA, Kaul S, Sahin O, Tessler HH. Long-term follow-up of patients treated with short-term high-dose chlorambucil for sight-threatening ocular inflammation. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(2):370–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00942-3.
Kempen JH, Daniel E, Dunn JP, Foster CS, Gangaputra S, Hanish A, et al. Overall and cancer related mortality among patients with ocular inflammation treated with immunosuppressive drugs: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2009;339: b2480. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2480.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr Kelly (Save Sight Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia) and Dr Caixia Wu (Department of Pathology, Shanghai Tongji Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai 200065, China) for their advice on the revision of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the Project of National Key Research and Development Project of China [2018YFC1106103], and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81900897). XW was supported by the China Scholarship Council (File No. 202106240116).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
XW and MZ conceived and designed the work; XW drafted the manuscript and designed the figure; MZ, MT, LZ, and TZ revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, X., Tao, M., Zhu, L. et al. Pathogenesis and current therapies for non-infectious uveitis. Clin Exp Med 23, 1089–1106 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-022-00954-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-022-00954-6