Journal of autoimmunity · 2025
Treatment of uveitis in Blau syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Maccora Ilaria, Wouters Carine, Rosè Carlos D, Maniscalco Valerio, de Masi Salvatore, Mastrolia Maria Vincenza, Marrani Edoardo, Pagnini Ilaria, Simonini Gabriele
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Blau syndrome (BS) is a rare autoinflammatory disease caused by gain of function variants in NOD2. Uveitis is one of the triad features with arthritis and dermatitis. Management of uveitis is challenging, and uncontrolled uveitis may lead to blindness. We aim to evaluate the evidence regarding effectiveness of systemic treatments, including conventional Disease Modifying anti-Rheumatic drugs(cDMARDs) and biologic DMARDs(bDMARDs), for the management of uveitis in BS.
METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Papers were selected if they reported patients with BS and uveitis who received systemic treatment. Papers were selected if reporting efficacy according to Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) criteria.
RESULTS: We identified 1205 papers with 11 selected for systematic review and meta-analysis. Among the 11 selected papers, we identified 88 treatments. Among these, 53 were cDMARDs (36 methotrexate, 7 azathioprine, 5 mycophenolate, 3 thalidomide, 1 tacrolimus and 1 cyclosporine) and 35 bDMARDs (23 adalimumab, 6 infliximab, 4 etanercept, 1 golimumab and 1 canakinumab). The proportion of children showing improvement of uveitis was 20 % (95 % CI 2-46) and 22 % (95 % CI3-47) for cDMARDs and bDMARDs respectively (χ20.23, p = 0.631). No differences were observed among the administered drugs (χ27.21, p = 0.706).
CONCLUSION: The data show that there is not enough evidence to establish a preferred treatment for managing uveitis in BS. Considering the rarity, the potential severity and refractoriness to current treatments of the disease, there is a critical need for better understanding of pathophysiology and expert driven treatment guidelines for of BS-uveitis.
METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Papers were selected if they reported patients with BS and uveitis who received systemic treatment. Papers were selected if reporting efficacy according to Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) criteria.
RESULTS: We identified 1205 papers with 11 selected for systematic review and meta-analysis. Among the 11 selected papers, we identified 88 treatments. Among these, 53 were cDMARDs (36 methotrexate, 7 azathioprine, 5 mycophenolate, 3 thalidomide, 1 tacrolimus and 1 cyclosporine) and 35 bDMARDs (23 adalimumab, 6 infliximab, 4 etanercept, 1 golimumab and 1 canakinumab). The proportion of children showing improvement of uveitis was 20 % (95 % CI 2-46) and 22 % (95 % CI3-47) for cDMARDs and bDMARDs respectively (χ20.23, p = 0.631). No differences were observed among the administered drugs (χ27.21, p = 0.706).
CONCLUSION: The data show that there is not enough evidence to establish a preferred treatment for managing uveitis in BS. Considering the rarity, the potential severity and refractoriness to current treatments of the disease, there is a critical need for better understanding of pathophysiology and expert driven treatment guidelines for of BS-uveitis.