4.3 Article

Combination of pulse cyclophosphamide and azathioprine in ocular manifestations of Behcet's disease: longitudinal study of up to 10years

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 444-452

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1756-185X.12248

关键词

Behcet's disease; cytotoxic drugs; longitudinal study; ocular lesions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Ocular lesions of Behcet's disease (BD) need aggressive treatment to prevent severe loss of vision or blindness. Cytotoxic drugs are the main therapeutic agents and the first line treatment. Retinal vasculitis is the most aggressive lesion of ocular manifestations and predicts a worse systemic outcome. We present here the outcome with a combination of pulse cyclophosphamide, azathioprine and prednisolone, on long-term usage, up to 10years, on 295 patients (18493 eye-months of follow-up). Methods Cyclophosphamide was used as a 1-g monthly pulse for 6months and then every 2-3months as necessary. Azathioprine was used at 2-3mg/kg daily. Prednisolone was initiated at 0.5mg/kg daily. Upon the suppression of the inflammatory reaction, prednisolone was tapered gradually. Patients fulfilled the International Criteria Behcet's Disease (ICBD) and had active posterior uveitis (PU) and/or retinal vasculitis (RV). Visual acuity (VA), PU, RV and TADAI (Total Adjusted Disease Activity Index) were calculated. Results Overall results: mean VA improved from 3.5 to 4.3 (P<0.0001), 44% of eyes improved (95% CI=40-50). Mean PU improved from 2.1 to 0.8 (P<0.0001), 73% of eyes improved (95% CI=69-78). Mean RV improved from 3.0 to 1.4 P<0.0001), 70% of eyes improved (95% CI=65-74). Mean TADAI improved from 29 to 18 (P<0.0001), 72% of patients improved (95% CI=66-77). The details of the longitudinal studies are given in the main article. Conclusion All parameters significantly improved. VA improvement was the least, mainly due to cataracts. This combination is the best treatment choice for retinal vasculitis before opting for biologic agents.

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

4.3
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