Purpose

To conduct a Bayesian analysis of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) for non-infectious uveitis using expert opinion as a subjective prior belief.

Methods

A RCT was conducted to determine which antimetabolite, methotrexate or mycophenolate mofetil, is more effective as an initial corticosteroid-sparing agent for the treatment of intermediate, posterior, and pan-uveitis. Before the release of trial results, expert opinion on the relative effectiveness of these two medications was collected via online survey. Members of the American Uveitis Society executive committee were invited to provide an estimate for the relative decrease in efficacy with a 95% credible interval (CrI). A prior probability distribution was created from experts' estimates. A Bayesian analysis was performed using the constructed expert prior probability distribution and the trial's primary outcome.

Results

A total of 11 of the 12 invited uveitis specialists provided estimates. Eight of 11 experts (73%) believed mycophenolate mofetil is more effective. The group prior belief was that the odds of treatment success for patients taking mycophenolate mofetil were 1.4-fold the odds of those taking methotrexate (95% CrI 0.03-45.0). The odds of treatment success with mycophenolate mofetil compared to methotrexate was 0.4 from the RCT (95% confidence interval 0.1-1.2) and 0.7 (95% CrI 0.2-1.7) from the Bayesian analysis.

Conclusions

A Bayesian analysis combining expert belief with the trial's result did not indicate preference for one drug. However, the wide credible interval leaves open the possibility of a substantial treatment effect. This suggests clinical equipoise necessary to allow a larger, more definitive RCT.

Purpose

To evaluate the changes in quality of life in noninfectious uveitis patients treated with 2 of the most commonly prescribed antimetabolite treatments.

Design

Secondary analysis of a multicenter, block-randomized clinical trial.

Methods

Eighty patients at Aravind Eye Hospitals in Madurai and Coimbatore, India, with noninfectious intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis were randomized to receive oral methotrexate, 25 mg weekly, or oral mycophenolate mofetil, 1 g twice daily, and were followed up monthly for 6 months. Best-corrected visual acuity, Indian Vision Function Questionnaire (IND-VFQ), and Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) were obtained at enrollment and at 6 months (or prior, in the event of early treatment failure).

Results

IND-VFQ scores, on average, increased by 9.2 points from trial enrollment to 6 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.9, 13.5, P = .0001). Although the SF-36 physical component summary score did not significantly differ over the course of the trial, the mental component summary score decreased by 2.3 points (95% CI: -4.4, -0.1, P = .04) and the vitality subscale decreased by 3.5 points (95% CI: -5.6, -1.4, P = .001). Quality-of-life scores did not differ between treatment arms. Linear regression modeling showed a 3.2-point improvement in IND-VFQ score for every 5-letter improvement in visual acuity (95% CI: 1.9, 4.3; P < .001).

Conclusions

Although uveitis treatment was associated with increased vision and vision-related quality of life, patient-reported physical health did not change after 6 months of treatment, and mental health decreased. Despite improved visual outcomes, uveitis patients receiving systemic immunosuppressive therapy may experience a deterioration in mental health-related quality of life.

Purpose

To report outcomes of Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada (VKH) disease from a clinical trial of antimetabolite therapies.

Design

Subanalysis from an observer-masked randomized clinical trial for noninfectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis.

Methods

setting: Clinical practice at Aravind Eye Hospitals, India.

Patient population

Forty-three of 80 patients enrolled (54%) diagnosed with VKH.

Intervention

Patients were randomized to either 25 mg oral methotrexate weekly or 1 g mycophenolate mofetil twice daily, with a corticosteroid taper.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome was corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation at 5 and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included visual acuity, central subfield thickness, and adverse events. Patients were categorized as acute (diagnosis ≤3 months prior to enrollment) or chronic (diagnosis >3 months prior to enrollment).

Results

Twenty-seven patients were randomized to methotrexate and 16 to mycophenolate mofetil; 30 had acute VKH. The odds of achieving corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation with methotrexate were 2.5 times (95% CI: 0.6, 9.8; P = .20) the odds with mycophenolate mofetil, a difference that was not statistically significant. The average improvement in visual acuity was 12.5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters. On average, visual acuity for patients with acute VKH improved by 14 more ETDRS letters than those with chronic VKH (P < .001), but there was no difference in corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation (P = .99). All 26 eyes with a serous retinal detachment at baseline resolved, and 88% achieved corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation.

Conclusions

The majority of patients treated with antimetabolites and corticosteroids were able to achieve corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation by 6 months. Although patients with acute VKH gained more visual improvement than those with chronic VKH, this did not correspond with a higher rate of controlled inflammation.

Objective

To compare the relative effectiveness of methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil for noninfectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, or panuveitis.

Design

Multicenter, block-randomized, observer-masked clinical trial.

Participants

Eighty patients with noninfectious intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis requiring corticosteroid-sparing therapy at Aravind Eye Hospitals in Madurai and Coimbatore, India.

Intervention

Patients were randomized to receive 25 mg weekly oral methotrexate or 1 g twice daily oral mycophenolate mofetil and were monitored monthly for 6 months. Oral prednisone and topical corticosteroids were tapered.

Main outcome measures

Masked examiners assessed the primary outcome of treatment success, defined by achieving the following at 5 and 6 months: (1) ≤0.5+ anterior chamber cells, ≤0.5+ vitreous cells, ≤0.5+ vitreous haze and no active retinal/choroidal lesions in both eyes, (2) ≤10 mg of prednisone and ≤2 drops of prednisolone acetate 1% a day, and (3) no declaration of treatment failure because of intolerability or safety. Additional outcomes included time to sustained corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation, change in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, resolution of macular edema, adverse events, subgroup analysis by anatomic location, and medication adherence.

Results

Forty-one patients were randomized to methotrexate and 39 to mycophenolate mofetil. A total of 67 patients (35 methotrexate, 32 mycophenolate mofetil) contributed to the primary outcome. Sixty-nine percent of patients achieved treatment success with methotrexate and 47% with mycophenolate mofetil (P = 0.09). Treatment failure from adverse events or tolerability was not different by treatment arm (P = 0.99). There were no differences between treatment groups in time to corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation (P = 0.44), change in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (P = 0.68), or resolution of macular edema (P = 0.31).

Conclusions

There was no statistically significant difference in corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation between patients receiving methotrexate or mycophenolate mofetil. However, there was a 22% difference in treatment success favoring methotrexate.