Validation of UVEDAI: An Index for Evaluating the Level of Inflammatory Activity in Uveitis.

INTRODUCTION: Uveitis is the inflammation of the middle layer of the eye, the uvea, and is a major cause of blindness. None of the instruments used in clinical practice are, in themselves, sufficient to evaluate the course of uveitis. Therefore, it is necessary to develop instruments enabling standardized measurement of inflammatory activity. We developed a composite disease activity index for patients with uveitis known as UVEDAI, which considers the overall activity of the eye. The objective of this study was to validate the composite index of ocular inflammation, UVEDAI. METHODS: A multicenter cross-sectional study involving eight Spanish tertiary hospitals. Sixty-two patients aged ≥ 18 years with acute uveitis were recruited. Participants gave informed consent before participating in the study. A full ophthalmological examination was performed by two ophthalmologists to determine inflammatory activity: one used the UVEDAI score and the other used clinical judgment. The ophthalmologists did not share their findings with each other to avoid introducing bias into the analysis. Construct validity was established by means of factor analysis. The criterion validity of the index was determined using an ordinal multivariate regression model, in which the dependent variable was the degree of uveal inflammation (mild, moderate, or high/severe). Cut-off points were determined for the UVEDAI and for the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were included. Total variance with the three components accounted for 80.32% of the construct validity. Each of the three components identified one type of eye involvement. The discriminatory capacity of UVEDAI was 0.867 (95% CI 0.778; 0.955 p < 0.001) for mild versus moderate-high and 0.946 (95% CI 0.879; 1.000 p < 0.001) for high versus mild-moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The variables included in UVEDAI enable ocular inflammatory activity to be described with a high degree of accuracy. The index may be used to evaluate and classify this activity with considerable discriminatory power.

Adalimumab for Treatment of Noninfectious Uveitis: Immunogenicity and Clinical Relevance of Measuring Serum Drug Levels and Antidrug Antibodies.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the rate of immunogenicity induced by adalimumab and its relationship with drug serum levels and clinical responses in patients with noninfectious uveitis. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients from 1 referral center who initiated treatment with adalimumab for active noninfectious uveitis resistant to conventional therapy. METHODS: All patients received 40 mg adalimumab every other week. Patients were evaluated clinically and immunologically before and after 4, 8, and 24 weeks of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical evaluation included assessment of changes in visual acuity, degree of inflammation in the anterior chamber and vitreous cavity, central macular thickness, and retinal angiographic leakage. Immunologic evaluation included assessment of serum trough adalimumab and antibodies against adalimumab (AAA) levels and class II HLA typing. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled. Overall, 18 of 25 patients (72%) showed a favorable clinical response to adalimumab therapy. Eleven patients (44%) achieved a complete response and 7 (28%) achieved a partial response. However, 7 of 25 patients (28%) were considered nonresponders. Median trough adalimumab serum levels were higher in responders than in nonresponders (P < 0.001). We observed AAA positivity (AAA+) at least 1 time point in 8 of 25 patients (32%), including 4 with transitory AAA and 4 with permanent AAA. In all patients with permanent AAA+, trough adalimumab levels became undetectable (P < 0.001). However, in patients who demonstrated transitory AAA+, no correlation was observed between AAA titers and adalimumab trough levels (P = 0.2).Concomitant immunosuppression did not show any protective effect on adalimumab immunogenicity in our cohort. An association between the presence of AAA+ and a worse uveitis outcome was observed only in patients with permanent AAA+, which correlated with undetectable adalimumab trough levels (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of noninfectious uveitis with adalimumab is associated with high rates of favorable clinical response. Overall, adalimumab trough levels were higher in responder patients. Development of permanent AAA was associated with undetectable trough adalimumab levels and worse uveitis outcome. Immunogenicity was more common in patients in whom uveitis was associated with a systemic disease and was not influenced by concomitant immunosuppressors.

Drug-induced uveitis.

INTRODUCTION: Drug-induced uveitis is a well described but often overlooked and/or misdiagnosed adverse reaction to medication. There are an increasing number of medications that have been related to the onset of intraocular inflammation. Identification of these inciting agents may decisively help the diagnostic algorithm involving new cases of uveitis. AREAS COVERED: This review intends to be an updated comprehensive, practical guide for practitioners regarding the main drugs that have been associated with uveitis. A classification proposed by Naranjo et al. in 1981 for establishing potential causality is applied examining possible mechanisms of action. A guide for clinicians about the rationale of these observations when dealing with patients with uveitis is provided. EXPERT OPINION: Several agents with different routes of administration (systemic, topical and/or intraocular) may cause intraocular inflammation. The mechanism behind ocular inflammation is frequently unknown. Clinicians should be aware of the potential drug effect to optimize diagnosis and management of such patients.