050: Adalimumab in the therapy of juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis

Clément, A; Valls, Isabel Campi; Gutiérrez, Belén; Jimenez, Clara

doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2008.12.021

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As for visual acuity, seven articles [30][31][32][33][34][35][36] were available for the analysis. Improved or stable VA was reported in 12 (92.3%) out of 13 patients with ADA treatment, 9 (90.0%) of 10 with IFX, 9 of 12 (75.0%) with ETA, 13 (100.0%) of 13 with GLM.…”

Section: Control Of Intraocular Inflammationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-TNFα Therapy for Uveitis Associated with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mao

Tang

et al. 2021

Rheumatol Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: To investigate the efficacy and safety of anti-TNFa therapy in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis associated uveitis (JIA-U). Methods: Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies reporting anti-TNFa treatment in patients with JIA-U. The primary outcome was the control of intraocular inflammation (CII). The pooled proportion of CII was assessed by the random-effects method when I 2 [ 50%, otherwise, by the fixed-effect method. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020161749). Results: Three randomized clinical trials (RCTs), twelve case series, three retrospective cohort studies, and three case reports were identified. A total of 399 patients were receiving anti-TNFa therapy, of which 201 patients were treated with adalimumab (ADA), 139 with infliximab (IFX), 36 with etanercept (ETA), 20 with golimumab (GLM), and 3 with certolizumab pegol (CZP). The pooled proportions of CII on observational studies were 82% (95% CI 63-96%) in patients receiving ADA, 56% (95% CI 30-80%) in IFX, 38% (95% CI 8-73%) in ETA and 65% (95% CI 42-86%) in GLM, respectively. All three patients treated with CZP reached improved activity. ADA therapy led to a significantly higher proportion of CII compared to IFX therapy (v 2 = 26.24, P \ 0.001), or to ETA therapy (v 2 = 13.43, P \ 0.001); but no statistical difference was observed between IFX and ETA (v 2 = 0.13, P = 0.71). As to safety, most reported adverse events were tolerable and two cohort studies consistently showed that ADA was safer than IFX. Conclusions: The existing evidence suggests that ADA is better than IFX regarding efficacy and safety. The effectiveness of IFX is higher than ETA with no statistical difference. GLM and CZP may be proxies for ADA but the evidence is limited.

show abstract