4.6 Article

Adalimumab in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis-Associated Uveitis: 5-Year Follow-up of the Bristol Participants of the SYCAMORE Trial

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 207, 期 -, 页码 170-174

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.06.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
  2. UCL Institute of Ophthalmology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To determine longer-term outcomes of participants enrolled from a single center in the SYCA-MORE trial, a randomized placebo-controlled trial of adalimumab vs placebo in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis (JIA-U) uncontrolled on methotrexate. DESIGN: Retrospective interventional case series. METHODS: Medical records of all 28 SYCAMORE participants recruited at the Bristol Eye Hospital were reviewed at approximately 3-monthly intervals up to 5 years from the trial randomization date. Uveitis activity, treatment course, visual outcomes, ocular complications, and adverse events were recorded. Data are presented using summary statistics. RESULTS: Following withdrawal of the investigational medicinal product (IMP), 25 of the 28 participants were started on adalimumab for active JIA-U. Of the 12 participants in the active treatment arm of the SYCA-MORE study, 11 (92%) were restarted on adalimumab after withdrawal of the IMP for active JIA-U (median time to flare 188 days [range 42-413 days). Two participants stopped adalimumab for uncontrolled JIA-U. One participant had a reduction in vision to 0.3 owing to cataract. Mean visual acuity for the remaining 27 participants was -0.04 (right eye) and -0.05 (left eye). CONCLUSIONS: Drug-induced remission of JIA-U did not persist when adalimumab was withdrawn after 1.2 years of treatment. Adalimumab was well tolerated and Supplemental visual acuity outcomes were excellent. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据