Background: The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics of patients with uveitis associated with an immunologic or idiopathic disease that requires immunosuppressive treatment and the response to such treatments in real clinical practice. Methods: An observational, descriptive, longitudinal, and retrospective study of a cohort of patients diagnosed with noninfectious uveitis was performed. To assess the response to treatment, we evaluated the change in visual acuity, vitritis, and the presence of macular edema. Results: We included 356 patients. Overall, 12% required treatment with systemic corticosteroids, and 66 patients (18.5%) required immunosuppressive/biological treatment, with methotrexate being the most used (55%). Immunosuppressive drugs were used in 59 cases (in 56 patients, as the first choice of treatment and for 3 patients as the second choice after treatment with biologics). Treatment with biologics was the first choice in 10 patients out of 66 (15%), and 34 (48%) required them at some time during the disease, with adalimumab being the most commonly used. Thirty-five patients (53%) needed to switch drugs due to a lack of response to the first one. There were no differences between different drugs in the resolution of vitritis and improvement in vision. Conclusions: The use of systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressive/biologics was necessary for a high number of patients with noninfectious uveitis. In our series, tocilizumab was significantly more effective in the resolution of macular edema.

To describe the characteristics of patients with uveitis associated with an immunologic or idio-pathic disease that requires immunosuppressive treatment and the response to such treatments in real clinical practice. Observational, descriptive, longitudinal, and retrospective study of a cohort of patients diagnosed with idiopathic uveitis or autoimmune disease-related uveitis. To assess the response to treatment we have evaluated the change in visual acuity and vitritis and the presence of macular edema. We included 356 patients. Twelve percent required treatment with systemic corticosteroids and 66 patients (18.5%) immunosuppressive/biological treatment, with metho-trexate being the most used (55%). Immunosuppressive drugs were used in 59 cases the least re-sponsive being mycophenolate mofetil. Ten patients of the 66 (15%) started treatment with bio-logics. Thirty-five patients (53%) needed to switch drugs due to a lack of response to the first one. There were no differences between different drugs in the resolution of vitritis and improvement of vision. The disappearance of macular edema was achieved in all patients treated with tocilizumab. The use of systemic corticosteroids and Immunosuppressive/biologics was necessary for a high number of patients with non-infectious uveitis. In our series tocilizumab was significantly more effective in the resolution of macular edema.

Introduction This was a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal, observational study involving eight Spanish tertiary hospitals to determine the interobserver reliability of an uveitis disease activity index, (UVEDAI) and assess its sensitivity to change in patients with receiving pharmacologic treatment. Methods Patients aged ≥ 18 years diagnosed with active noninfectious uveitis were included. A complete baseline assessment was performed by two ophthalmologists who determined ocular inflammatory activity using the UVEDAI index independently of each other. The principal ophthalmologist made a new visit at 4 weeks to determine the change in inflammatory activity. The interobserver reliability analysis was performed by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), with the values of the variables and the UVEDAI obtained by both ophthalmologists in the more active eye at the baseline visit. Sensitivity to change in the UVEDAI index was assessed at 4 weeks from the start of pharmacologic treatment by determining the clinically relevant change, defined as a change in UVEDAI of ≥ 0.8 points over baseline. The mean change between both measures was compared using the repeated-measures t-test. Results A total of 111 patients were included. In the interobserver reliability analysis, the ICC for the UVEDAI value was 0.9, and, when compared with the mean UVEDAI values obtained by the ophthalmologists, no statistically significant differences were found (p value > 0.05). As for the sensitivity to change in UVEDAI, statistically significant differences (p value = 0.00) were found for the mean values of the index compared with baseline. In all cases, the index value decreased by > 1 point at the 4-week visit. Conclusions The interobserver reliability of the UVEDAI was high in the total sample. Furthermore, the index was sensitive in determining the change in inflammatory activity after treatment. We believe that UVEDAI is a disease activity index that enables objective comparison of results in clinical practice and trials.