ArticleEye (London, England)2023
Six-month outcomes of infliximab and tocilizumab therapy in non-infectious retinal vasculitis.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emerging therapeutic targets in non-infectious uveitis and scleritis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Long-term effects of tocilizumab on retinal and choroidal inflammation in Birdshot uveitis.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2024Article
- Human retinal endothelial cells express functional interleukin-6 receptor.Journal of ophthalmic inflammation and infection · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy of infliximab (IFX, 5-10 mg/kg) (Group 1) and tocilizumab (TCZ, 4-8 mg/kg) (Group 2) infusions in non-infectious retinal vasculitis (RV) using Angiographic Scoring for the Uveitis Working Group fluorescein angiography (FA) scoring system.
methodsRecords of 14 patients (24 eyes) in Group 1 and 8 patients (11 eyes) in Group 2 were retrospectively evaluated to assess visual acuity (VA), anterior chamber cell and flare, vitreous haze, central subfield thickness (CST), and FA scoring at baseline and 6 months of follow-up. The measurements were employed to grade in each group.
resultsIn Group 1 and 2, respectively, there was no underlying disease in 9 (60%) and 3 (42.9%) patients. Three (42.9%) patients in Group 2 had juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) as the most common identified cause. Mean improvement in VA (log MAR) and CST were 0.04 ± 0.14 and 40.3 ± 78.5 µm in Group 1; 0.04 ± 0.09 and 47.3 ± 82.3 µm in Group 2, respectively. Mean FA scores were significantly reduced from 12.4 ± 5.2 and 11.6 ± 4.4 at baseline to 6.4 ± 5.0 and 5.8 ± 3.9 at 6-month in Group 1 and 2, respectively. In Group 2, 9 eyes of 6 patients (75%) had the history of IFX use prior to TCZ initiation. There was no significant safety concern requiring treatment discontinuation during the follow-up in either group.
conclusionIFX and TCZ infusions showed statistically significant improvement of non-infectious RV as shown by ASUWOG FA Scoring System. TCZ, as well as IFX, appeared to be effective treatment options for non-infectious RV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.