ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib versus adalimumab in patients with Behçet's uveitis: a real-world retrospective study.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo conduct a comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety profiles of Tofacitinib (Tofa) and Adalimumab (ADA) in individuals diagnosed with refractory Behçet's uveitis.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on the medical records of 64 patients who received Tofa (n = 30) or ADA (n = 34) in routine clinical practice. Treatment allocation was not randomized. The analysis focused on drug response rate, central macular thickness, ocular inflammation parameters, and best-corrected visual acuity at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment initiation.
resultsA total of 23 patients in the Tofa group (76.6%) and 24 patients in the ADA group (70.5%) achieved remission. Both groups exhibited improvements in mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA, Snellen chart, from baseline 0.33 ± 0.31 to 0.54 ± 0.27 in the ADA group, and from baseline 0.31 ± 0.27 to 0.57 ± 0.31 in the Tofa group), central macular thickness (CMT, from baseline 354.53 ± 101 μm to 199.71 ± 57 μm in the ADA group and from baseline 366.77 ± 120 μm to 203.67 ± 71 μm in the Tofa group), anterior chamber cell counts, and vitreous haze. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in these overall outcomes. In an exploratory subgroup analysis, Tofa showed a lower response rate in patients with central occlusive retinal vasculitis, with 1/7 patients responding, whereas 6/8 patients responded in the ADA group (P = 0.041).
conclusionsBoth ADA and Tofa demonstrated favorable efficacy in treating refractory Behçet's uveitis in this retrospective real-world study. The observed differences according to vasculitis phenotype should be interpreted cautiously and require confirmation in larger prospective studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42247158What 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.