{"title":"How treatment choices influence the onset and outcomes of uveitis in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Sinan Işık, Selen Duygu Arık, Özlem Akgün, Vafa Guliyeva, Gülşah Kavrul Kayaalp, Şeyma Türkmen, Betül Sözeri, Nuray Aktay Ayaz","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2025.2545520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Uveitis is a prevalent complication of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), leading to ocular morbidity. This study aimed to evaluate uveitis frequency in JIA patients on biologics and explore the impact of biologic selection on its occurrence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Among 2,385 JIA patients reviewed, 101 patients who developed uveitis were analyzed. This patients were categorized based on their uveitis development: under methotrexate, after discontinuation of methotrexate, and under biologics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Uveitis frequency among all reviewed JIA patients was 6.3%. Among those who developed uveitis while receiving biologics, 30 were on etanercept and one on infliximab at the time of onset. When the entire cohort of JIA patients treated with biologics for joint symptoms was evaluated, it was observed that out of 365 patients using etanercept, uveitis developed in 30 individuals, in one out of 39 patients using infliximab, while no cases of uveitis were observed among 285 patients using adalimumab.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this study we observed a larger frequency of new onset uveitis in JIA patients treated with TNF receptor fusion proteins than those treated with anti-TNF monoclonal antibodies. Monoclonal anti-TNF-α agents may remain the preferred options. This study highlights the necessity of integrating uveitis risk assessment into JIA treatment strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1025-1033"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2025.2545520","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Uveitis is a prevalent complication of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), leading to ocular morbidity. This study aimed to evaluate uveitis frequency in JIA patients on biologics and explore the impact of biologic selection on its occurrence.
Methods: Among 2,385 JIA patients reviewed, 101 patients who developed uveitis were analyzed. This patients were categorized based on their uveitis development: under methotrexate, after discontinuation of methotrexate, and under biologics.
Results: Uveitis frequency among all reviewed JIA patients was 6.3%. Among those who developed uveitis while receiving biologics, 30 were on etanercept and one on infliximab at the time of onset. When the entire cohort of JIA patients treated with biologics for joint symptoms was evaluated, it was observed that out of 365 patients using etanercept, uveitis developed in 30 individuals, in one out of 39 patients using infliximab, while no cases of uveitis were observed among 285 patients using adalimumab.
Conclusion: In this study we observed a larger frequency of new onset uveitis in JIA patients treated with TNF receptor fusion proteins than those treated with anti-TNF monoclonal antibodies. Monoclonal anti-TNF-α agents may remain the preferred options. This study highlights the necessity of integrating uveitis risk assessment into JIA treatment strategies.
期刊介绍:
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy (1471-2598; 1744-7682) is a MEDLINE-indexed, international journal publishing peer-reviewed research across all aspects of biological therapy.
Each article is structured to incorporate the author’s own expert opinion on the impact of the topic on research and clinical practice and the scope for future development.
The audience consists of scientists and managers in the healthcare and biopharmaceutical industries and others closely involved in the development and application of biological therapies for the treatment of human disease.
The journal welcomes:
Reviews covering therapeutic antibodies and vaccines, peptides and proteins, gene therapies and gene transfer technologies, cell-based therapies and regenerative medicine
Drug evaluations reviewing the clinical data on a particular biological agent
Original research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on biological agents and biotherapeutic-based studies with a strong link to clinical practice
Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Collection format and includes the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results;
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.