4.2 Article

Clinical background comparison of patients with and without ocular inflammatory attacks after initiation of infliximab therapy

Journal

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 56, Issue 6, Pages 536-543

Publisher

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s10384-012-0182-z

Keywords

Behcet's disease; Uveitis; Tumor necrosis factor alpha; Infliximab; Ocular inflammatory attacks

Categories

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23592554, 23406031] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To examine the factors affecting the efficacy of infliximab (IFX) as a treatment for uveitis in Beh double dagger et's disease. Clinical records of 29 patients with refractory uveoretinitis were examined retrospectively for the period between 6 months before the initiation of IFX therapy to 12 months thereafter. The patients were divided into two groups based on the absence (Group 1) or occurrence (Group 2) of ocular inflammatory attacks during the observation period after IFX therapy, and the clinical records of the groups were compared The mean age at onset of ocular inflammation in Group 1 patients (n = 17) was lower than that in Group 2 patients (n = 12) (p = 0.023). Compared to Group 2 patients, the period from onset to IFX therapy in Group 1 was longer (p = 0.037), and the frequency of ocular inflammatory attacks before IFX therapy was lower (p = 0.013). The rates of ocular fundus attacks before IFX therapy were 0.82 +/- A 0.28 in Group 1 and 0.96 +/- A 0.10 in Group 2 (p = 0.040). Three of 33 (9.1 %) eyes in Group 1 and nine of 24 eyes (37.5 %) in Group 2 had an improved best-corrected visual acuity of > 0.2 logarithm of the minimal angle resolution (p < 0.01). Patients in Group 1 tended to have fewer intraocular attacks (fewer fundus attacks in particular) prior to IFX therapy and have a longer period from onset of intraocular inflammation to IFX therapy. The improvement of the BCVA in Group 2 tended to be better.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available