POS1350 UVEITIS DUE TO IMMUNE-MEDIATED INFLAMMATORY DISEASES TREATED WITH CERTOLIZUMAB PEGOL. MULTICENTER STUDY OF 80 PATIENTS

Autor: J. L. Martín-Varillas, L. Sanchez-Bilbao, V. Calvo-Río, A. Adan, I. Hernanz Rodriguez, E. Beltrán, S. Castro, P. Fanlo Mateo, A. García Martos, I. Torre-Salaberri, M. Cordero-Coma, J. De Dios-Jiménez Aberásturi, Á. García-Aparicio, M. Hernández-Garfella, A. Sanchez-Andrade, A. García-Valle, R. Miguélez, O. Maiz, S. Rodríguez Montero, A. Urruticoechea-Arana, R. Veroz Gonzalez, A. Conesa, C. Fernández-Carballido, V. Jovani, O. Martínez González, P. Moya, S. Romero-Yuste, P. Rubio Muñoz, E. Peña Sainz-Pardo, M. Garijo Bufort, J. L. Hernández, R. Blanco
Rok vydání: 2022
Předmět:
Zdroj: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 81:1013.2-1014
ISSN: 1468-2060
0003-4967
0140-6736
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2022-eular.3049
Popis: BackgroundAdalimumab remains the only biologic approved by the EMA and FDA for the treatment of non-infectious uveitis [1-6]. The reports on efficacy of other anti-TNF drugs such as Certolizumab Pegol (CZP) are scarce.Objectivesto determine the efficacy and safety of CZP in refractory uveitis secondary to Immune-mediated Inflammatory Diseases (IMIDs).Methodsnational multicenter study of 80 patients with uveitis due to IMID refractory to glucocorticoids and conventional immunosuppressants treated with CZP. Efficacy was assessed with the following ocular parameters: best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anterior chamber cells, vitritis, macular thickness and presence of retinal vasculitis. The efficacy of CZP was compared between the baseline visit, 1st week, 1st and 6th month, and 1st year. Statistical analysis was performed with IBM SPSS Statistics v.23.Resultswe studied 80 patients/111 affected eyes (33 men/47 women) with a mean age of 41.6±11.7 years. The IMIDs included were: spondyloarthritis (n=43), Behçet’s disease (10), psoriatic arthritis (8), Crohn’s disease (4), sarcoidosis (2), JIA (1), reactive arthritis (1), rheumatoid arthritis (1), relapsing polychondritis (1), TINU (1), pars planitis (1), Birdshot (1) and idiopathic uveitis (6). Anterior was the most frequent uveitis pattern (n=61).In 20 patients, besides the presence of refractory uveitis, desire of pregnancy was the reason for CZP initiation.Prior to CZP, patients had received: methotrexate (n=38), sulfasalazine (28), azathioprine (14), cyclosporine (10), leflunomide (3), mycophenolate mofetil (4), and cyclophosphamide (1). Previous biologic therapy was administered in 52 patients (63%), with a median [IQR] of 2 [1-3] drugs per patient. The most used biologic was adalimumab (n=48), followed by infliximab (32), golimumab (15), tocilizumab (5), etanercept (7), rituximab (1), anakinra (1) and secukinumab (1). CZP was administered as monotherapy in 39 patients.After 24 [12-36] months of follow-up, all parameters analyzed showed a rapid and maintained improvement (Table 1). A decrease in the mean number of uveitis flares was observed before and after CZP, (2.6±2.3 vs. 0.6±0.4, pTable 1.main ocular parameters analyzed in 80 patients with uveitis due to IMID and treated with CZP.Baseline1st week1st month3rd month6th month1st yearBCVA (mean±SD)0.68±0.270.73±0.26*0.79±0.26*0.82±0.25*0.85±0.24*0.86±0.23*Tyndall improvement, n (%)Patients with Tyndall + at baseline (n=57)-23 (40.3)45 (78.9)47 (82.4)57 (100)57 (100)Vitritis improvement, n (%)Patients with Vitritis at baseline (n=14)-5 (35.7)8 (57.1)13 (92.8)14 (100)14 (100)OCT (µm) (mean±SD)297.5±48.1297.1±45.5286.5±39.8*277.6±43.3*271.5±38.6*269.0±38.8*Choroiditis, affected eyes, n (%)3 (2.4)3 (2.4)2 (1.6)2 (1.6)1 (0.8)1 (0.8)Retinal vasculitis, affected eyes, n (%)3 (2.4)2 (1.6)1 (0.8)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)*pConclusionCZP seems to be effective and safe in the control of uveitis associated to different IMIDs.References[1]Jaffe GJ, et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:932-43. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1509852.[2]Nguyen QD, et al. Lancet 2016;388:1183-92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31339-3.[3]Martín-Varillas JL, et al. Ophthalmology 2018; 125:1444-1451 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.02.020[4]Martín-Varillas JL, et al. J Rheumatol. 2021;48:741-750. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.200300[5]Atienza-Mateo B. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71:2081-2089. doi: 10.1002/art.41026.[6]Vegas-Revenga N et al Am J Ophthalmol. 2019;200:85-94. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.12.019Disclosure of InterestsNone declared
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: