Search

This study outlines a scenario involving unilateral periocular inflammation exhibited resistance to conventional immunomodulatory therapy (IMT) and biologic response modifying agents, which was successfully managed with oral cyclophosphamide monotherapy. A 39-year-old male visited our clinic, expressing discomfort and swelling in his left upper eyelid for six months. All multidisciplinary consultations and imaging yielded normal results. He remained consistently on a dosage of 50 mg oral prednisone. Blood tests yielded results within the normal range or were negative, with the exception of the antinuclear antibody. He did not respond to conventional IMT and biological response modifier agents. Ultimately, the patient began oral cyclophosphamide. One month after commencing cyclophosphamide treatment, the oral prednisone dosage was gradually reduced without any flare-up. oral cyclophosphamide can serve as a valuable treatment for periocular inflammation that does not respond to standard conventional IMT and biologic response modifier agents.

Abstract Objective To obtain physicians’ “real-world” perspectives on early experiences with triamcinolone acetonide suprachoroidal injection (SCS-TA) for treatment of patients with uveitic macular edema (UME). Results Twelve retina/uveitis specialists in the United States were surveyed about SCS-TA injection procedure and patient outcomes. Survey participants administered ≥ 291 SCS-TA injections to 243 patients with UME with various disease characteristics (etiologies, chronicity, and anatomical subtypes). Commonly reported reasons for SCS-TA adoption included potential for lowering the risk of steroid-associated intraocular pressure elevations versus intravitreal injections or implants (100%), potential for longer duration of action versus intravitreal steroid injections or implants (92%), and desire to use a new delivery modality (83%). Nearly all participants (92%) found injection procedure relatively easy post-training, with most (75%) procedurally comfortable after completing 2–5 injections. 58% of participants indicated that their patients gained 2–3 lines of vision by first follow-up visit, and 92% reported having patients who experienced 100–150 μm or greater reduction in central subfield thickness. Overall, 92% of participants were satisfied with SCS-TA treatment outcomes. Findings from this survey of early adopters of SCS-TA indicate that the suprachoroidal injection technique was easy to learn and resulted in favorable patient outcomes consistent with clinical trial data.

Purpose: To show whether subcutaneous repository corticotropin injection (RCI, Acthar® Gel, a repository corticotropin injection, can be an effective potential therapeutic agent for noninfectious retinal vasculitis. Methods: Patients with active retinal vasculitis were followed with serial ultra-wide-field fluorescein angiograms and treated with 80 units of subcutaneous repository corticotropin injection twice weekly. Results: Primary outcome of ≥ 50% improvement in response level (RL) for retinal vasculitis and percent improvement in retinal vasculitis severity scoring (RVSS) by more than one quartile ( ≥ 25%) at week 12 was met in 15 and 16 of the 30 total eyes, respectively, including 1 eye with severe retinal vasculitis in each group. Complete resolution of retinal vasculitis was seen in seven eyes with a mean time of 17.1 weeks. Intraocular pressure elevation requiring therapy and cataract progression were noted in two and three eyes, respectively. One patient stopped medication due to side effects (injection site reaction). Conclusion: Repository corticotropin injection was well-tolerated overall. Repository corticotropin injection may be an effective therapeutic agent in the treatment of noninfectious retinal vasculitis.

Abstract Purpose: To study whether rituximab and bortezomib combination therapy is more effective than rituximab monotherapy in the treatment of non-paraneoplastic autoimmune retinopathy (npAIR). Methods: Retrospective case series involving six patients with npAIR, taking either rituximab and bortezomib combination therapy (three cases) or rituximab monotherapy (one case and two historical patients). Results: Patients on both treatment regimens showed stability in most of the visual function parameters during the one year of follow-up. Combination therapy resulted in improvement of scotopic combined rod and cone a-wave and b-wave amplitudes in all eyes where they were available (four eyes); however, rituximab monotherapy resulted in only two eyes with stable scotopic combined rod and cone a-wave and b-wave amplitudes, while four eyes showed a decrease in both a- and b-wave amplitudes. The average improvement in b-wave amplitude (50.7% ± 29.4% [range, 25–90%]) was higher than the average improvement in a-wave amplitude (35.7% ± 9.74 [range, 25–63%]). No severe adverse effects were reported. Conclusion: Rituximab and bortezomib combination therapy may not be more effective than rituximab monotherapy in npAIR patients for most of the visual function parameters; however, this combination therapy may be more effective in improving scotopic combined rod and cone a- and b-wave amplitudes. This may indicate the higher efficacy of combination therapy when there is involvement of the inner retina.

Purpose: To study whether rituximab and bortezomib combination therapy is more effective than rituximab monotherapy in the treatment of non-paraneoplastic autoimmune retinopathy (npAIR)., Methods: Retrospective case series involving six patients with npAIR, taking either rituximab and bortezomib combination therapy (three cases) or rituximab monotherapy (one case and two historical patients)., Results: Patients on both treatment regimens showed stability in most of the visual function parameters during the one year of follow-up. Combination therapy resulted in improvement of scotopic combined rod and cone a-wave and b-wave amplitudes in all eyes where they were available (four eyes); however, rituximab monotherapy resulted in only two eyes with stable scotopic combined rod and cone a-wave and b-wave amplitudes, while four eyes showed a decrease in both a- and b-wave amplitudes. The average improvement in b-wave amplitude (50.7% ± 29.4% [range, 25-90%]) was higher than the average improvement in a-wave amplitude (35.7% ± 9.74 [range, 25-63%]). No severe adverse effects were reported., Conclusion: Rituximab and bortezomib combination therapy may not be more effective than rituximab monotherapy in npAIR patients for most of the visual function parameters; however, this combination therapy may be more effective in improving scotopic combined rod and cone a- and b-wave amplitudes. This may indicate the higher efficacy of combination therapy when there is involvement of the inner retina., Competing Interests: None of the authors have any conflict of interest with the content of this manuscript., (Copyright © 2022 Maleki et al.)