4.6 Article

Retrospective Study Evaluating Treatment Decisions and Outcomes of Childhood Uveitis Not Associated with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 186, 期 -, 页码 131-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.03.052

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate treatment, ocular complications and outcomes of children with pediatric uveitis not associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Study design This was a retrospective chart review of pediatric uveitis in children under 16 years of age, recruited from the pediatric rheumatology department at Bicetre Hospital from 2005 to 2015. Patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated and infectious uveitis were excluded. We used the Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature Working Group to classify uveitis, disease activity, and treatment end points. Results We enrolled 56 patients and 102 affected eyes. The mean age at diagnosis was 10 +/- 3.5 years (range 3-15), and the mean follow-up 4.2 +/- 3.3 years (1-15). The main diagnoses were idiopathic (55%), Behcet disease (15%), and sarcoidosis (5%). The main localization was panuveitis in 44 of 102 eyes (43%). Corticosteroid sparing treatment was needed in 62 of 102 eyes (60%). Second-line therapies included methotrexate and azathioprine, and the third-line therapy was a biologic agent, mainly infliximab, in 33 of 102 eyes (32%). Infliximab achieved uveitis inactivity in 14 of 18 eyes (80%), in all etiologies. Severe complications were present in 68 of 102 eyes (67%). The most common were synechiae 33% of eyes, cataract (20%), and macular edema (25%). Of these, 37% were present at diagnosis. Remission was achieved in 22 of 102 eyes (21%). Conclusions Conventional therapies were insufficient to treat many of the cases of posterior or panuveitis. This study underlines the need for earlier and more aggressive treatment and antitumor necrosis factor-a therapy was rapidly efficient in most cases of refractory uveitis.

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