The aim – to evaluate the effectiveness of various immunosuppressive therapy schemes for current uveitis used in real clinical practice in patients with Behçet’s disease (BD).Material and methods. The study included 531 patients with a reliable (ICBD criteria 2014) diagnosis of BD, observed in the V.A. Nasonova Research Institute of Rheumatology from 2006 to 2020. The majority were men (331 (62.3%)). The average age (M±SD) was 32.9±10.0 years, the median duration of BD (Me (25%; 75%)) – 96 (48; 174) months. 60.4% patients had uveitis, 70.7% – exacerbation of uveitis (EU). Uveitis activity was assessed by the BOS24 index (Behçet’s disease Ocular attack Score 24) in 202 patients with EU. The total activity of BD was evaluated according to BDCAF index (Behçet’s Disease Current Activity Form). Glucocorticoids (GC) was systematically received by 68.7% patients with EU, including 51.5% in the form of pulse therapy. 88.9% patients with EU received cytotoxics: 33.5% – cyclosporine (CS), 20.7% – azathioprine (AZA), 11.4% – AZA+COL, 8.8% – AZA+CS, 7.5% – colchicine (COL), 3.9% – cyclophosphamide (CPh). 11.9% patients with EU were prescribe Biologics, mainly i-TNF-α (11,4%: 8,8% – adalimumab, 2.2% – infliximab, 0.4% – golimumab) and rituximab (0.4%). The effectiveness of therapy was evaluated on average after 18.0 (8.0; 36.0) months.Results. According to the dynamics of BDCAF, by the end of follow-up, BD activity significantly decreased in all groups, with the exception of patients who received COL. A more significant decrease in BDCAF was observed in the combination therapy groups: AZA+CS (ΔBDCAF=–4.08±3.60), AZA+COL (ΔBDCAF=–3.57±2.50), as well as in the CS group (ΔBDCAF=–3.57±3.39), but no statistically significant differences in ΔBDCAF between the groups were obtained, which does not allow us to speak about a significant advantage of a particular drug. There were no significant differences in ΔBDCAF between patients who received (ΔBDCAF=–3.41±3.89) and those who did not receive (ΔBDCAF=–3.59±3.23) Biologics. According to the dynamics of BOS24, the most effective for relieving symptoms of intraocular inflammation were CS (ΔBOS24=–7.0 (–12.0; –3.0)), AZA (ΔBOS24=–7.0 (–15.0; –2.0)), a combination of CS+AZA (ΔBOS24=–5.0 (–8.0; –2.0)) and CPh (ΔBOS24=–4.0 (–14.0; –2.0). The differences between BOS24 before and after treatment in these groups were statistically significant. When assigning AZA+COL (ΔBOS24=–1.0 (–4.0; 0)) or COL (ΔBOS24=–0.5 (–2.0; 0)) uveitis activity decreased during therapy, but not significantly. According to ΔBOS24, uveitis therapy by CS was statistically significantly more effective compared to AZA+COL and COL; and AZA treatment, compared to COL. Biologics, mainly adalimumab, significantly and rapidly reduce the severity of intraocular inflammation (ΔBOS24=–7.0 (–18.0; 0)) compared with GC and cytotoxics (ΔBOS24=–4,0 (–9,0; –1,0)), however statistically significant differences between the groups were not obtained due to the small number of Biologics groups.Conclusion. CS, AZA and their combination, as well as i-TNF-α (mainly adalimumab) are more effective for relieving uveitis symptoms in patients with BD. BOS24 is a reliable tool for quantifying the activity of uveitis in BD patients and its dynamics against the background of anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive therapy.
AB0553 Updated systematic review 2016: efficacy and safety of biological therapy compared to synthetic immunosuppressants or placebo in the treatment of uveitis associated with behÇet's disease
