4.7 Article

Long-term efficacy of infliximab in refractory posterior uveitis of Behcet's disease: a 24-month follow-up study

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 46, 期 7, 页码 1161-1164

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kem101

关键词

infliximab; anti-TNF-alpha drugs; Behcet's disease; uveitis; retinal vasculitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of infliximab in patients with Behcet's disease (BD) and refractory bilateral posterior uveitis, and to assess the proportion of relapse-free subjects through months 12 and 24. Methods. Open-label, multicentre, 24-month, prospective, follow up study on 12 consecutive patients with BD and refractory posterior uveitis who had failed at least one immunosuppressive drug. At baseline patients received prednisolone 1 mg/Kg/day with rapid tapering and nine infliximab infusions (5mg/kg) over a 12-month period. Non-responders after the third infusion withdrew from the study. Patients were evaluated for ocular inflammation degree, visual acuity (VA), number of ocular attacks and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results. At 12-month visit, 9/12 (75%) patients achieved a complete remission with no relapse during the treatment period. All had a dramatic improvement of ocular inflammation after the first infusion, six were in complete remission after three infusions, and three after four. All these patients suspended corticosteroids at week 22. At 24-month visit, seven out of nine (78%) were still in remission. Mean VA improved from 0.2 +/- 0.6 to 0.5 +/- 0.2 (P<0.001), and ocular attacks dropped from 40 in the year before therapy to 5 after infliximab cessation (P<0.001). One patient had a partial remission with two relapses during treatment, and 2/12 (17%) patients showed no improvement. Infliximab was well tolerated with no serious AEs. Conclusions. Infliximab is rapidly effective and safe in a high proportion BD patients with refractory posterior uveitis, and may be helpful to prevent recurrences.

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

4.7
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