Cochrane · systematic review · CD014831
Non‐biologic, steroid‐sparing therapies for non‐infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis in adults
Edwards Mayhew, RG, Li, T, McCann, P, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · Cochrane Library
Eyes and VisionAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
18
current version
GRADE rated
12
No studies
6
Included studies
NR
No studies 6 · 33.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 8 · 44.4%Low 1 · 5.6%Moderate 3 · 16.7%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Non‐biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) versus steroid for NIIPPU
Population: NIIPPU
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation (higher number of events is better) Non‐biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) vs steroid | RR 2.81 [1.1, 7.17] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Change in BCVA (lower logMAR indicate better vision) Non‐biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) vs steroid | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 82 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of participants achieving a 2‐line improvement in visual acuity (Snellen chart) (higher scores indicate better vision) Â Non‐biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) vs steroid | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants with confirmed macular edema (lower number of events is better) Non‐biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) vs steroid | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants achieving steroid‐sparing control (higher number of events is better) Non‐biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) vs steroid | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants experiencing complications or requiring cessation of medication (lower number of events is better) Non‐biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) vs steroid | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Methotrexate versus mycophenolate for NIIPPU
Population: NIIPPU
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation§ (higher number of events is better) Methotrexate vs mycophenolate | RR 1.23 [1.01, 1.5] | 2 studies · 261 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Change in BCVA (lower logMAR indicate better vision) Methotrexate vs mycophenolate | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 490 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Proportion of participants achieving a 2‐line improvement in visual acuity (Snellen chart) (higher scores indicate better vision) Methotrexate vs mycophenolate | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants with confirmed macular edema (lower number of events is better) Methotrexate vs mycophenolate | RR 0.49 [0.19, 1.3] | 1 study · 35 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Proportion of participants achieving steroid‐sparing control§ (higher number of events is better) Methotrexate vs mycophenolate | RR 1.23 [1.01, 1.5] | 2 studies · 261 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Proportion of participants experiencing complications or requiring cessation of medication (lower number of events is better) Methotrexate vs mycophenolate | RR 0.99 [0.43, 2.27] | 2 studies · 296 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Steroids with or without azathioprine versus cyclosporine A for NIIPPU
Population: NIIPPU
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation (higher number of events is better) Steroids with or without azathioprine vs cyclosporine A | RR 0.84 [0.7, 1.02] | 2 studies · 112 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Change in BCVA (lower logMAR indicate better vision) Steroids with or without azathioprine vs cyclosporine A | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 91 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Proportion of participants achieving a 2‐line improvement in visual acuity (Snellen chart) (higher scores indicate better vision) Steroids with or without azathioprine vs cyclosporine A | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants with confirmed macular edema (lower number of events is better) Steroids with or without azathioprine vs cyclosporine A | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Proportion of participants achieving steroid‐sparing control (higher number of events is better) Steroids with or without azathioprine vs cyclosporine A | RR 0.64 [0.33, 1.25] | 1 study · 21 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Proportion of participants experiencing complications or requiring cessation of medication (lower number of events is better) Steroids with or without azathioprine vs cyclosporine A | RR 0.85 [0.21, 3.45] | 2 studies · 91 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |