Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Mediators of Inflammation
Volume 2013, Article ID 515312, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/515312
Review Article

Systemic Treatments for Noninfectious Vitreous Inflammation

1Department of Ophthalmology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 915 Olentangy River Road, Suite 5000, Columbus, OH 43212, USA
2Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Arizona Medical Center, 655 North Alvernon Way, Suite 108, Tucson, AZ 85711, USA

Received 18 August 2013; Accepted 26 September 2013

Academic Editor: Mario R. Romano

Copyright © 2013 Angela Jiang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Vitreous inflammation, or vitritis, may result from many causes, including both infectious and noninfectious, including rheumatologic and autoimmune processes. Vitritis is commonly vision threatening and has serious sequelae. Treatment is frequently challenging, but, today, there are multiple methods of systemic treatment for vitritis. These categories include corticosteroids, antimetabolites, alkylating agents, T-cell inhibitors/calcineurin inhibitors, and biologic agents. These treatment categories were reviewed last year, but, even over the course of just a year, many therapies have made progress, as we have learned more about their indications and efficacy. We discuss here discoveries made over the past year on both existing and new drugs, as well as reviewing mechanisms of action, clinical dosages, specific conditions that are treated, adverse effects, and usual course of treatment for each class of therapy.

1. Introduction

Vitreous inflammation, or vitritis, may result from many causes, including both infectious and noninfectious. Epidemiologic studies indicate that uveitis accounts for 2–10% of prevalent blindness in the European and North American population and is therefore an underrated and significant public health problem [1]. Infectious etiologies include bacterial Lyme, syphilis, or Bartonella; viruses HSV, VZV, and CMV, and a variety of fungal and parasitic causes. Noninfectious etiologies include rheumatologic and autoimmune processes, examples being sarcoidosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, and Behcet’s disease. However, idiopathic vitritis without associated systemic disease is most common. Vitritis is sometimes visionthreatening, due to sequelae such as cystoid macular edema (CME), vitreous opacities, and retinal detachment, ischemia/neovascularization, or pigment epithelium changes. Glaucoma and cataracts may also form. With such serious sequelae, there are multiple methods of systemic treatment for vitritis. On the other hand, mild vitritis without vasculitis or CME can sometimes be followed closely without any treatment. The goal of all types of treatment is to rapidly alter and stop the course of intraocular inflammation but at the same time minimize any side effects from these systemic drugs. We reviewed these treatment categories last year, but, even over the course of just a year, many therapies have made progress, as we have learned more about their indications and efficacy [2].

2. Initial Treatment: Corticosteroids

The first line of treatment for noninfectious uveitis is corticosteroids. This group of drugs is used to suppress inflammation, either systemically or intraocular. The accepted algorithm for treatment begins with topical glucocorticoids, with frequency depending upon severity and not necessarily etiology. However, topical corticosteroids have been shown to have poor penetration into the posterior segment and are thus not used often for posterior segment disease; they are more commonly used to reduce anterior chamber inflammation and have only a minor effect on vitreous inflammation [3]. Oral or intravitreal corticosteroids are therefore used to treat cases of posterior segment disease. Oral prednisone (1 mg/kg/day with gradual tapering) is often the first therapeutic agent used [4].

Intravitreal delivery systems include injection or implantation of periocular or intravitreal steroid compounds (triamcinolone acetonide) [5]. There are several different types of systems, either nonbiodegradable or biodegradable; a more extensive review of drug delivery implants is reviewed in our other paper. Although previous studies raised concern for recurrence of inflammation as intravitreal steroid concentration decreases, some recent trials elude that this may no longer be the case [6]. Patients undergoing treatment with local delivery methods will usually have minimal adverse events. It has however been reported that localized side effects may occur, such as cataract formation, increased intraocular pressure, and transient vitreous hemorrhage.

On the other hand, those undergoing systemic corticosteroid therapy often encounter nonocular adverse events, such as arthralgia and hypertension. Other common complications range from those affecting the musculoskeletal system (osteoporosis, aseptic bone necrosis, and myopathy), gastrointestinal system (ulcers and pancreatitis), endocrine (hyperglycemia and cushinoid features), infectious, (delayed wound healing, secondary infection, and reactivation of latent herpes simplex or tuberculosis), or even psychosis. If patients develop adverse effects, or are refractory to treatment with corticosteroid therapy, switching to an intravitreal delivery system or considering systemic immunosuppressive therapy is indicated [7].

3. Immunosuppressive Treatment

Systemic immunosuppressive therapy can either supplement or completely replace corticosteroid therapy, for the reasons touched upon above. There are several conditions that have been found to be refractory to corticosteroid treatment but instead respond to immunosuppressives. Examples of these conditions ran the gamut of several autoimmune diseases such as Behcet’s, Wegener’s, or juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis [8]. Other conditions that indicate immunosuppressive therapy are found in Table 1.

tab1
Table 1: Disease indications for immunosuppressive agents.

There are several categories of immunosuppressive agents: antimetabolites, alkylating agents, T-cell inhibitors/calcineurin inhibitors, and biologic agents. Information about these categories is available in Table 2, while newer biologics and investigations are discussed below. Table 3 addresses ocular diseases and which groups of immunosuppressive agents are used to treat them.

tab2
Table 2: Immunosuppressive agents, organized into categories, and with information on mechanism of action, administration, side effects, and clinical management.
tab3
Table 3: Categories of vitritis drugs and what diseases they are indicated for.

In general, treatment with immunosuppressives starts after or with corticosteroid therapy, with local treatment attempted before systemic treatment, if the disease process is amenable. Systemic treatment attempts to start with the least toxic medications in the case of mild-moderate disease; methotrexate and cyclosporine are most commonly used after corticosteroids, followed by more antimetabolites. Severe, vision-threatening disease may require the use of biologic or cytotoxic agents, although they are avoided whenever possible due to their severe adverse effects.

3.1. Leflunomide

Leflunomide is a noncytotoxic drug that works on both the cellular and humoral immune response. It is most commonly used for systemic rheumatologic diseases, examples being severe rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. Ocular use in treating chronic inflammation associated with sarcoidosis is currently under investigation [9]. Recently, Leflunomide was proven as both safe and efficacious for long-term therapy treating chronic anterior uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis [10]. Most patients maintained an ocular response to the drug and underwent only a few mild adverse effects. Common adverse effects of Leflunomide include hepatotoxicity with known fatalities, myelosuppression with resulting opportunistic infection and anemia, interstitial lung disease, alopecia, and skin reactions (Stevens Johnson and toxic epidermal necrolysis). Leflunomide is also a teratogen (pregnancy class X), and patients need to be on contraception during treatment. Overall, it is a promising form of treatment, as methotrexate is currently the first and was previously the only choice for patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

3.2. Biologic Agents

Biologic agents are one of the newest classes of therapeutic proteins. They were originally developed for preventing organ transplant rejection but were found to be useful for treating systemic inflammatory diseases as well. They are now used off label in treating uveitis, and have been used with some success for refractory cases. Biologic agents’ major mechanisms of action all revolve around targeting specific inflammatory molecules, with the goal of inhibiting mediators or cytokines. Examples of these inflammatory mediators include tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin-2. Due to their strong immunologic suppression, serious adverse effects revolve around infectious processes or malignancies such as lymphoma. Latent and opportunistic infections are especially important to monitor for and include those such as tuberculosis, histoplasmosis, coccidiomycosis and herpes viruses.

Biologic agents are categorized into two groups: monoclonal antibodies and fusion proteins. Monoclonal antibodies are further classified and suffixes named based on their regions (either human, murine, or a combination of regions). Fusion proteins are created by joined genes, and are a combination of a receptor and another protein fragment.

3.2.1. Adalimumab

Adalimumab is a recombinant, full-length humanized immunoglobulin directed against tumor necrosis factor (TNF). It is able to bind with both high affinity and specificity to soluble TNFα or β, thus neutralizing the biological function of TNF, as well as modulating biological responses that TNF is responsible for inducing or regulating [11]. It is currently used with increasing frequency for treating several autoimmune diseases such as Behcet’s, juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis, Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada (VKH) disease, and birdshot retinochoroidopathy [1216]. A recent multicenter trial found it to be a useful treatment for patients with refractory uveitis, with a 10-week success rate of 68% [17].

A more recent retrospective analysis of 60 patients, the largest case series to date, showed a positive effect of adalimumab in 82% of these patients with different uveitis types, independent of additional systemic disease [11]. This study found that those who had been treated with infliximab and etanercept with insufficient response were effectively treated with adalimumab in 92% of cases. Another interesting finding was that patients pretreated with other TNF agents still had good results; thus, it is reasonable to switch to another TNF agent if the first was ineffective. In this study, no major infections nor serious complications known to TNF inhibitors (demyelinating disease, reactivation of TB) occurred. This is a significant finding, as adalimumab may thus be a better option than infliximab, although follow-up was short and the study’s power would need to be increased in a further study.

Another prospective study evaluated the efficacy and outcomes of using adalimumab to treat uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis [18]. Ocular symptom improvement was seen in 76% of cases, with anterior uveitis flare rate reduced after starting treatment. This study also confirmed a lack of serious sideeffects and infections and fewer hypersensitivity reactions than infliximab. Overall, this study concluded that adalimumab was a reasonable adjuvant therapy for treating uveitis.

3.2.2. Rituximab

Rituximab is an antibody that binds CD20, with many effects. Most commonly used in hematologic and autoimmune disorders, it has been found to be effective as a sole treatment for Wegener’s uveitis and retinal vasculitis [19, 20]. The value of rituximab in Behcet’s disease is yet to be determined, due to limited evidence [21]. In addition, it has also been used with intravenous IgG to treat ocular cicatricial pemphigoid [22].

3.2.3. Tocilizumab

Tocilizumab is a humanized antibody that binds both to IL-6 receptors, originally used for treating rheumatoid arthritis and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis [23]. IL-6 has a role in proliferation and differentiation of T- and B-cells, with persistent production demonstrated in chronic inflammatory diseases. Although ophthalmologic usage is currently limited, patients with active posterior uveitis have been found to have elevated IL-6 levels in serum and intraocular, although levels were not specifically correlated with a clinical diagnosis [24].

In one retrospective study, tocilizumab was found to be efficacious in treating uveitis patients with cystoid macular edema that was refractory to intraocular steroids or other immunosuppressive therapies [25]. These patients were found to have complete resolution after six months of therapy and were also found to have no recurrence of inflammation at follow-up, suggesting that it is able to maintain disease remission. In another recent case study, a patient with severe refractory posterior uveitis improved, with decreasing levels of IL-6 after treatment [26].

3.2.4. Gevokizumab

IL-1β is an inflammatory cytokine produced in large amounts in Behcet’s patients. Gevokizumab is a recombinant anti-IL-1β antibody, which modulates cytokine activity. It is a new therapy whose indications and efficacy are still being studied; a recent pilot study for patients with refractory Behcet’s disease showed promising results, with only two infusions needed to render patients attack-free for several months [27]. Patients tolerated the infusions well, with no reported drug-related side effects. Treatment led to a rapid reduction in manifestations of intraocular inflammation, without the rebound attacks associated with discontinuation of corticosteroid use. This was thought to be in part due to accumulation of gevokizumab in ocular tissues, thus being able to sustain its therapeutic effect with an infrequent dosing interval.

3.3. Other
3.3.1. Interferons

Interferons (IFN) are endogenous cytokines, released in response to external pathogens. IFN-α 2a, IFN-α 2b, IFN-β 1a, and IFN-β 1b are the classes most commonly used in therapy. Interferons are commonly used to treat conditions ranging from malignancy (cutaneous melanoma), infection (hepatitis C), and inflammatory (multiple sclerosis) [28, 29]. As far as ophthalmologic uses, IFN-α 2a has successfully treated Behcet’s disease, and IFN-β 1a reduced uveitis recurrences in multiple sclerosis patients [3033]. In Behcet’s disease, interferon demonstrated significant benefit by decreases in aphthous ulceration and the number of lesions [34]. Several studies consistently reported that many patients had durable remissions of ocular inflammatory disease after discontinuation.

3.3.2. Anakinra

Anakinra is an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, which competitively inhibits IL-1 binding to its receptor. IL-1 has been found to have significance in systemic autoinflammatory diseases, where excessive IL-1 signaling will occur. It plays a key role in auto inflammatory diseases such as Muckle-Wells and neonatal onset multisystem inflammatory disease (NOMID), which are rare causes of uveitis in childhood [35]. It may in the future be used to treat refractory juvenile idiopathic and Behcet’s disease, for which it is currently in phase III clinical trials [36].

4. Conclusion

Uveitis is a vision-threating group of diseases that encompasses a variety of etiologies, which are either infectious or noninfectious. Both groups are commonly treated with steroids. Uveitis resulting from infection, however, focuses on eradicating the source with antibiotics or antivirals. Those of noninfectious origin may need additional immunosuppressive agents. These antimetabolites, cytotoxic agents, biologics, and immunomodulators can be used either alone or together, to control inflammation of the vitreous. As with any medication, especially immunosuppressants, side effects must be balanced with therapeutic benefit—a determination still in process for many drugs and indications. The complexities in investigating these therapies result from the innate heterogeneity of uveitis. Even with its difficulties, research on expanding indications for existing therapies and the discovery of new systemic agents continues to progress.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests related to any topic in this paper.

References

  1. M. S. A. Suttorp-Schulten and A. Rothova, “The possible impact of uveitis in blindness: a literature survey,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 80, no. 9, pp. 844–848, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. J. B. Christoforidis, S. Chang, A. Jiang, J. Wang, and C. M. Cebulla, “Systemic treatment of vitreous inflammation,” Mediators of Inflammation, vol. 2012, Article ID 936721, 10 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  3. D. A. Jabs and E. K. Akpek, “Immunosuppression for posterior uveitis,” Retina, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. N. A. Sabrosa and C. Pavésio, “Treatment strategies in patients with posterior uveitis,” International Ophthalmology Clinics, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 153–161, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. K. Kovacs, S. Wagley, M. T. Quirk et al., “Pharmacokinetic study of vitreous and serum concentrations of triamcinolone acetonide after posterior sub-Tenon's injection,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 153, no. 5, pp. 939–948, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. C. Pavesio, M. Zierhut, K. Bairi, T. L. Comstock, and D. W. Usner, “Evaluation of an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant versus standard systemic therapy in noninfectious posterior uveitis,” Ophthalmology, vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 567.e1–575.e1, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. K. Durrani, F. R. Zakka, M. Ahmed, M. Memon, S. S. Siddique, and C. S. Foster, “Systemic therapy with conventional and novel immunomodulatory agents for ocular inflammatory disease,” Survey of Ophthalmology, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 474–510, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. K. Durrani, F. R. Zakka, M. Ahmed, M. Memon, S. S. Siddique, and C. S. Foster, “Systemic therapy with conventional and novel immunomodulatory agents for ocular inflammatory disease,” Survey of Ophthalmology, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 474–510, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. R. P. Baughman and E. E. Lower, “Leflunomide for chronic sarcoidosis,” Sarcoidosis Vasculitis and Diffuse Lung Diseases, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 43–48, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. C. Molina, C. Modesto, N. Martín-Begué, and C. Arnal, “Leflunomide, a valid and safe drug for the treatment of chronic anterior uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis,” Clinical Rheumatology, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. M. D. Becker, J. R. Smith, R. Max, and C. Fiehn, “Management of sight-threatening uveitis: new therapeutic options,” Drugs, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 497–519, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. B. Mushtaq, T. Saeed, R. D. Situnayake, and P. I. Murray, “Adalimumab for sight-threatening uveitis in Behçet's disease,” Eye, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 824–825, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. M. Diaz-Llopis, S. García-Delpech, D. Salom et al., “Adalimumab therapy for refractory uveitis: a pilot study,” Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 351–361, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. J. P. Restrepo and M. P. Molina, “Successful treatment of severe nodular scleritis with adalimumab,” Clinical Rheumatology, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 559–561, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. L. B. Vazquez-Cobian, T. Flynn, and T. J. A. Lehman, “Adalimumab therapy for childhood uveitis,” Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 149, no. 4, pp. 572–575, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. P. Tynjälä, K. Kotaniemi, P. Lindahl et al., “Adalimumab in juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated chronic anterior uveitis,” Rheumatology, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 339–344, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. E. B. Suhler, C. Y. Lowder, D. A. Goldstein et al., “Adalimumab therapy for refractory uveitis: results of a multicentre, open-label, prospective trial,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 481–486, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. A. Magli, R. Forte, P. Navarro et al., “Adalimumab for juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis,” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 251, no. 6, pp. 1601–1606, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  19. F. Davatchi, H. Shams, M. Rezaipoor et al., “Rituximab in intractable ocular lesions of Behçet's disease; randomized single-blind control study (pilot study),” International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 246–252, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. S. R. J. Taylor, A. D. Salama, L. Joshi, C. D. Pusey, and S. L. Lightman, “Rituximab is effective in the treatment of refractory ophthalmic Wegener's granulomatosis,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 1540–1547, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. C. S. Foster, P. Y. Chang, and A. R. Ahmed, “Combination of rituximab and intravenous immunoglobulin for recalcitrant ocular cicatricial pemphigoid. A preliminary report,” Ophthalmology, vol. 117, no. 5, pp. 861–869, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. A. Bermudez, F. Marco, E. Conde, E. Mazo, M. Recio, and A. Zubizarreta, “Fatal visceral varicella-zoster infection following rituximab and chemotherapy treatment in a patient with follicular lymphoma,” Haematologica, vol. 85, no. 8, pp. 894–895, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. G. Jones, A. Sebba, J. Gu et al., “Comparison of tocilizumab monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: the AMBITION study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 88–96, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. V. L. Perez, G. N. Papaliodis, D. Chu, F. Anzaar, W. Christen, and C. S. Foster, “Elevated levels of interleukin 6 in the vitreous fluid of patients with pars planitis and posterior uveitis: the Massachusetts eye & ear experience and review of previous studies,” Ocular Immunology and Inflammation, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 193–201, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. A. Adán, M. Mesquida, V. Llorenç et al., “Tocilizumab treatment for refractory uveitis-related cystoid macular edema,” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  26. T. Hirano, N. Ohguro, S. Hohki et al., “A case of Behçet's disease treated with a humanized anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody, tocilizumab,” Modern Rheumatology, vol. 22, pp. 298–302, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. A. Gül, I. Tugal-Tutkun, C. A. Dinarello et al., “Interleukin-1β-regulating antibody XOMA 052 (gevokizumab) in the treatment of acute exacerbations of resistant uveitis of Behçet's disease: an open-label pilot study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 563–566, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. F. Hayden, “Antiviral agents (non-retroviral),” in Goodman & Gilman's the Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, L. S. Goodman, A. Gilman, L. L. Brunton, J. S. Lazo, and K. L. Parker, Eds., pp. 1243–1272, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  29. S. Mocellin, S. Pasquali, C. R. Rossi, and D. Nitti, “Interferon alpha adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 102, no. 7, pp. 493–501, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. E. Alpsoy, C. Durusoy, E. Yilmaz et al., “Interferon alfa-2a in the treatment of Behçet disease: a randomized placebo-controlled and double-blind study,” Archives of Dermatology, vol. 138, no. 4, pp. 467–471, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. I. Kötter, R. Vonthein, M. Zierhut et al., “Differential efficacy of human recombinant interferon-α2a on ocular and extraocular manifestations of Behçet disease: results of an open 4-center trial,” Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 311–319, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. F. Mackensen, R. Max, and M. D. Becker, “Interferons and their potential in the treatment of ocular inflammation,” Clinical Ophthalmology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 559–566, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. M. D. Becker, A. Heiligenhaus, T. Hudde et al., “Interferon as a treatment for uveitis associated with multiple sclerosis,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 89, no. 10, pp. 1254–1257, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. N. Warde, “Therapy: Behçet uveitis: good results for IFN-α-2a,” Nature Reviews Rheumatology, vol. 6, no. 8, article 437, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. A. Tarabishy, A. Hise, and E. Traboulsi, “Ocular manifestations of the autoinflammatory syndromes,” Ophthalmic Genetics, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 179–186, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  36. D. Saadoun, B. Bodaghi, B. Bienvenu et al., “Biotherapies in inflammatory ocular disorders: interferons, immunoglobulins, monoclonal antibodies,” Autoimmunity Reviews, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 774–783, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  37. A. Johnston, J. E. Gudjonsson, H. Sigmundsdottir, B. Runar Ludviksson, and H. Valdimarsson, “The anti-inflammatory action of methotrexate is not mediated by lymphocyte apoptosis, but by the suppression of activation and adhesion molecules,” Clinical Immunology, vol. 114, no. 2, pp. 154–163, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. F. F. Lee and C. S. Foster, “Pharmacotherapy of uveitis,” Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 1135–1146, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. M. E. Weinblatt, “Toxicity of low dose methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 12, supplement 12, pp. 35–39, 1985. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. D. BenEzra and E. Cohen, “Cataract surgery in children with chronic uveitis,” Ophthalmology, vol. 107, no. 7, pp. 1255–1260, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. G. L. C. Chan, D. M. Canafax, and C. A. Johnson, “The therapeutic use of azathioprine in renal transplantation,” Pharmacotherapy, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 165–177, 1987. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. P. L. Hooper and H. J. Kaplan, “Triple agent immunosuppression in serpiginous choroiditis,” Ophthalmology, vol. 98, no. 6, pp. 944–952, 1991. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. S. S. Michel, A. Ekong, S. Baltatzis, and C. S. Foster, “Multifocal choroiditis and panuveitis: immunomodulatory therapy,” Ophthalmology, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 378–383, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. V. P. J. Saw, J. K. G. Dart, S. Rauz et al., “Immunosuppressive therapy for ocular mucous membrane pemphigoid. Strategies and outcomes,” Ophthalmology, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 253.e1–261.e1, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. C. S. Foster and A. T. Vitale, “Immunosuppressive chemotherapy,” in Diagnosis and Treatment of Uveitis, C. S. Foster and A. T. Vitale, Eds., WB Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa, USA, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  46. J. K. Whisnant and J. Pelkey, “Rheumatoid arthritis: treatment with azathioprine (IMURAN (R)). Clinical side-effects and laboratory abnormalities,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 44–47, 1982. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. D. Vavvas and C. S. Foster, “Immunomodulatory medications in uveitis,” International Ophthalmology Clinics, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 187–203, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. A. C. Allison and E. M. Eugui, “Immunosuppressive and other effects of mycophenolic acid and an ester prodrug, mycophenolate mofetil,” Immunological Reviews, no. 136, pp. 5–28, 1993. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. R. Voisard, S. Viola, V. Kaspar et al., “Effects of mycophenolate mofetil on key pattern of coronary restenosis: a cascade of in vitro and ex vivo models,” BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, vol. 5, article 9, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. L. Sobrin, W. Christen, and C. S. Foster, “Mycophenolate mofetil after methotrexate failure or intolerance in the treatment of scleritis and uveitis,” Ophthalmology, vol. 115, no. 8, pp. 1416.e1–1421.e1, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. D. A. Jabs, J. T. Rosenbaum, C. S. Foster et al., “Guidelines for the use of immunosuppressive drugs in patients with ocular inflammatory disorders: recommendations of an expert panel,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 130, no. 4, pp. 492–513, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. R. I. Fox, M. L. Herrmann, C. G. Frangou et al., “Mechanism of action for leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis,” Clinical Immunology, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 198–208, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. J. Tedesco Silva H. and R. E. Morris, “Leflunomide and malononitriloamides,” Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 51–64, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. Anon, Leflunomide ADIS R&D Insight ADIS International, 1998.
  55. J. S. Smolen, P. Emery, J. R. Kalden et al., “The efficacy of leflunomide monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis: towards the goals of disease modifying antirheumatic drug therapy,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 13–20, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. H. M. Roussel, Summary of Product Characteristics For Arava, Hoechst Marion Roussel, Uxbridge, UK, 1999.
  57. S. Cohen, G. W. Cannon, M. Schiff et al., “Two-year, blinded, randomized, controlled trial of treatment of active rheuma- toid arthritis with leflunomide compared with methotrexate,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1984–1992, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  58. A. S. Fauci, S. M. Wolff, and J. S. Johnson, “Effect of cyclophosphamide upon the immune response in Wegener's granulomatosis,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 285, no. 27, pp. 1493–1496, 1971. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. C. E. Buckley III and J. P. Gills Jr., “Cyclophosphamide therapy of Behçet's disease,” Journal of Allergy, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 273–283, 1969. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. C. S. Foster, L. A. Wilson, and M. B. Ekins, “Immunosuppressive therapy for progressive ocular cicatricial pemphigoid,” Ophthalmology, vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 340–353, 1982. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. W. M. Fosdick, J. L. Parsons, and D. F. Hill, “Long-term cyclophosphamide therapy in rheumatoid arthritis,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 151–161, 1968. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. R. Brubaker, R. L. Font, and E. M. Shepherd, “Granulomatous sclerouveitis. Regression of ocular lesions with cyclophosphamide and prednisone,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 86, no. 5, pp. 517–524, 1971. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. A. S. Fauci, J. L. Doppman, and S. M. Wolff, “Cyclophosphamide-induced remissions in advanced polyarteritis nodosa,” American Journal of Medicine, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 890–894, 1978. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. T. Hoang-Xuan, C. S. Foster, and B. A. Rice, “Scleritis in relapsing polychondritis. Response to therapy,” Ophthalmology, vol. 97, no. 7, pp. 892–898, 1990. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. B. A. Chabner, P. C. Amrein, B. Druker et al., “Antineoplastic agents,” in Goodman & Gilman's the Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, L. S. Goodman, A. Gilman, L. L. Brunton, J. S. Lazo, and K. L. Parker, Eds., pp. 1315–1404, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  66. E. Miserocchi, S. Baltatzis, A. Ekong, M. Roque, and C. S. Foster, “Efficacy and safety of chlorambucil in intractable noninfectious uveitis: the Massachusetts eye and ear infirmary experience,” Ophthalmology, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 137–142, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. A. B. Mudun, A. Ergen, Ş. U. Ipcioglu, E. Y. Burumcek, Y. Durlu, and M. O. Arslan, “Short-term chlorambucil for refractory uveitis in Behçet's disease,” Ocular Immunology and Inflammation, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 219–229, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. G. W. Cannon, C. G. Jackson, and C. O. Samuelson, “Chlorambucil therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: clinical experience in 28 patients and literature review,” Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 106–118, 1985. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. K. F. Tabbara, “Chlorambucil in Behçet's disease. A reappraisal,” Ophthalmology, vol. 90, no. 8, pp. 906–908, 1983. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. D. A. Gerber, C. A. Bonham, and A. W. Thomson, “Immunosuppressive agents: recent developments in molecular action and clinical application,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1573–1579, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. A. G. Palestine, R. B. Nussenblatt, and M. Gelato, “Therapy for human autoimmune uveitis with low-dose cyclosporine plus bromocriptine,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 20, no. 3, supplement 4, pp. 131–135, 1988. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. A. T. Vitale, A. Rodriguez, and C. S. Foster, “Low-dose cyclosporine therapy in the treatment of birdshot retinochoroidopathy,” Ophthalmology, vol. 101, no. 5, pp. 822–831, 1994. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. J. Liu, J. D. Farmer Jr., W. S. Lane, J. Friedman, I. Weissman, and S. L. Schreiber, “Calcineurin is a common target of cyclophilin-cyclosporin A and FKBP-FK506 complexes,” Cell, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 807–815, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. D. J. Kilmartin, J. V. Forrester, and A. D. Dick, “Tacrolimus (FK506) in failed cyclosporin A therapy in endogenous posterior uveitis,” Ocular Immunology and Inflammation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 101–109, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. C. M. L. Sloper, R. J. Powell, and H. S. Dua, “Tacrolimus (FK506) in the treatment of posterior uveitis refractory to cyclosporine,” Ophthalmology, vol. 106, no. 4, pp. 723–728, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. M. Naesens, D. R. J. Kuypers, and M. Sarwal, “Calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity,” Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 481–508, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. Y. Miwa, T. Isozaki, K. Wakabayashi et al., “Tacrolimus-induced lung injury in a rheumatoid arthritis patient with interstitial pneumonitis,” Modern Rheumatology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 208–211, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. M. M. O'Donnell, J. P. Williams, R. Weinrieb, and L. Denysenko, “Catatonic mutism after liver transplant rapidly reversed with lorazepam,” General Hospital Psychiatry, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 280–281, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. V. A. Shanmuganathan, E. M. Casely, D. Raj et al., “The efficacy of sirolimus in the treatment of patients with refractory uveitis,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 666–669, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. B. N. Phillips and K. J. Wroblewski, “A retrospective review of oral low-dose sirolimus (rapamycin) for the treatment of active uveitis,” Journal of Ophthalmic Inflammation and Infection, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 29–34, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  81. S. B. Desai and D. E. Furst, “Problems encountered during anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy,” Best Practice and Research, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 757–790, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  82. N. Scheinfeld, “A comprehensive review and evaluation of the side effects of the tumor necrosis factor alpha blockers etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab,” Journal of Dermatological Treatment, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 280–294, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. J. Lin, D. Ziring, S. Desai et al., “TNFα blockade in human diseases: an overview of efficacy and safety,” Clinical Immunology, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 13–30, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. L. H. Calabrese, “Molecular differences in anticytokine therapies,” Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 241–248, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. B. Bodaghi, E. Bui Quoc, B. Wechsler et al., “Therapeutic use of infliximab in sight threatening uveitis: retrospective analysis of efficacy, safety, and limiting factors,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 962–964, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  86. R. P. Baughman, D. A. Bradley, and E. E. Lower, “Infliximab in chronic ocular inflammation,” International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 7–11, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. P. Kahn, M. Weiss, L. F. Imundo, and D. M. Levy, “Favorable response to high-dose infliximab for refractory childhood uveitis,” Ophthalmology, vol. 113, no. 5, pp. 864.e2–864.e2, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  88. L. Niccoli, C. Nannini, M. Benucci et al., “Long-term efficacy of infliximab in refractory posterior uveitis of Behçet's disease: a 24-month follow-up study,” Rheumatology, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 1161–1164, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  89. E. B. Suhler, J. R. Smith, T. R. Giles et al., “Infliximab therapy for refractory uveitis: 2-year results of a prospective trial,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 127, no. 6, pp. 819–822, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  90. J. Braun, J. Brandt, J. Listing et al., “Long-term efficacy and safety of infliximab in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: an open, observational, extension study of a three-month, randomized, placebo-controlled trial,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 2224–2233, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  91. J. J. Gómez-Reino, L. Carmona, V. Rodríguez Valverde, E. M. Mola, and M. D. Montero, “Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors may predispose to significant increase in tuberculosis risk: a multicenter active-surveillance report,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 2122–2127, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  92. Z. Kaymakcalan, P. Sakorafas, S. Bose et al., “Comparisons of affinities, avidities, and complement activation of adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept in binding to soluble and membrane tumor necrosis factor,” Clinical Immunology, vol. 131, no. 2, pp. 308–316, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  93. M. Rudwaleit, E. Rødevand, P. Holck et al., “Adalimumab effectively reduces the rate of anterior uveitis flares in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis: results of a prospective open-label study,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 696–701, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  94. J. A. Singh, G. A. Wells, R. Christensen et al., “Adverse effects of biologics: a network meta-analysis and Cochrane overview,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 2, Article ID CD008794, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  95. A. Alonso-Ruiz, J. I. Pijoan, E. Ansuategui, A. Urkaregi, M. Calabozo, and A. Quintana, “Tumor necrosis factor alpha drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and metaanalysis of efficacy and safety,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, vol. 9, article 52, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  96. H. Yang, J. Wang, J. Du et al., “Structural basis of immunosuppression by the therapeutic antibody daclizumab,” Cell Research, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 1361–1371, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  97. L. Sobrin, J. J. Huang, W. Christen, C. Kafkala, P. Choopong, and C. S. Foster, “Daclizumab for treatment of birdshot chorioretinopathy,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 126, no. 2, pp. 186–191, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  98. H. N. Sen, G. Levy-Clarke, L. J. Faia et al., “High-dose daclizumab for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated active anterior uveitis,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 148, no. 5, pp. 696.e1–703.e1, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  99. M. Gallagher, K. Quinones, R. A. Cervantes-Castañeda, T. Yilmaz, and C. S. Foster, “Biological response modifier therapy for refractory childhood uveitis,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 91, no. 10, pp. 1341–1344, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  100. P. Bhat, R. A. Castañeda-Cervantes, P. P. Doctor, and C. S. Foster, “Intravenous daclizumab for recalcitrant ocular inflammatory disease,” Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 247, no. 5, pp. 687–692, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  101. M. A. Rojas, N. G. Carlson, T. L. Miller, and J. W. Rose, “Long-term daclizumab therapy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis,” Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 291–297, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  102. L. Lim, E. B. Suhler, and J. R. Smith, “Biologic therapies for inflammatory eye disease,” Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 365–374, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  103. P. Quartier, O. Tournilhac, C. Archimbaud et al., “Enteroviral meningoencephalitis after anti-CD20 (rituximab) treatment,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. e47–e49, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  104. Genentech, Products-Product Information-Immunology—Rituxan RA Full Prescribing Information, 2007.
  105. H. Haruta, N. Ohguro, M. Fujimoto et al., “Blockade of interleukin-6 signaling suppresses not only th17 but also interphotoreceptor retinoid binding protein-specific Th1 by promoting regulatory T cells in experimental autoimmune uveoretinitis,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 3264–3271, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  106. V. Dinnendahl and U. Fricke, Arzneistoff-Profile, vol. 4, Govi Pharmazeutischer, Eschborn, Germany, 32 edition, 2010.
  107. S. Dhillon, V. Oldfield, and G. L. Plosker, “Tocilizumab a review of its use in the management of rheumatoid arthritis,” Drugs, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 609–632, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  108. C. M. E. Deuter, M. Zierhut, A. Möhle, R. Vonthein, N. Stübiger, and I. Kötter, “Long-term remission after cessation of interferon-α treatment in patients with severe uveitis due to Behçet's disease,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 2796–2805, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  109. I. Kotter, I. Günaydin, M. Zierhut, and N. Stübiger, “The use of interferon alpha in Behçet disease: review of the literature,” Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 320–335, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar