4.2 Article

Retrospective Medical Record Review to Describe Use of Repository Corticotropin Injection Among Patients with Uveitis in the United States

期刊

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jop.2018.0090

关键词

ACTH; drug therapy; health care utilization; repository corticotropin injection; RCI; uveitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Repository corticotropin injection (RCI) has immune-modulatory and anti-inflammatory effects and is approved for multiple indications, including severe and acute chronic allergic and inflammatory processes involving the eye and adnexa. This study describes patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and physicians' assessments of patients with uveitis treated with RCI. Methods: This was a retrospective medical record review of US patients. Eligible patients had a diagnosis of uveitis, received RCI in the past 12 months, and had completed or were receiving RCI treatment at the time of data collection. Baseline characteristics and after-treatment clinical data are descriptively reported. Results: The study included 91 patients (mean age 41 years, 62% female, and mean time since diagnosis 3.98 years). Most patients had moderate (n = 48, 53%) to severe (n = 21, 23%) visual impairment, and none was blind before RCI therapy. Patients used an average of 2.5 medications before RCI. Initial RCI dosing regimens, dose adjustments, and treatment durations were different for each patient. Concomitant medication use and dosages were reduced during RCI; 76 patients (84%) improved, 15 patients (16%) stayed the same, and none worsened; 86% of patients had improvements in vision. Conclusions: Physicians individualized RCI therapy among patients who suffered uveitis for several years and when previous therapies were inadequate. Most patients improved after initiating RCI, most commonly in vision. The findings support use of RCI for uveitis and provide a better understanding of patient characteristics and practice patterns to guide appropriate use.

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

4.2
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