; for the FAST Research Group IMPORTANCE Methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil are commonly used immunomodulatory therapies for achieving corticosteroid-sparing control of noninfectious uveitis, but there is uncertainty about which drug is more effective. OBJECTIVE To compare the effect of methotrexate and mycophenolate for achieving corticosteroid-sparing control of noninfectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, and panuveitis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The First-line Antimetabolites as Steroid-sparing Treatment (FAST) uveitis trial screened 265 adults with noninfectious uveitis requiring corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy from 9 referral eye centers in India, the

Objective To compare the relative effectiveness of methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil for non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, or panuveitis. Design Multicenter, block-randomized, observer-masked clinical trial Participants Eighty patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis requiring corticosteroid-sparing therapy at Aravind Eye Hospitals in Madurai and Coimbatore, India. Intervention Patients were randomized to receive 25mg weekly oral methotrexate or 1g twice daily oral mycophenolate mofetil and were monitored monthly for 6 months. Oral prednisone and topical corticosteroids were tapered. Main Outcome Measures Masked examiners assessed the primary outcome of treatment success, defined by achieving the following at 5 and 6 months: (1) ≤0.5+ anterior chamber cells, ≤0.5+ vitreous cells, ≤0.5+ vitreous haze and no active retinal/choroidal lesions in both eyes, (2) ≤ 10 mg of prednisone and ≤ 2 drops of prednisolone acetate 1% a day and (3) no declaration of treatment failure due to intolerability or safety. Additional outcomes included time to sustained corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation, change in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, resolution of macular edema, adverse events, subgroup analysis by anatomic location, and medication adherence. Results Forty-one patients were randomized to methotrexate and 39 to mycophenolate mofetil. A total of 67 patients (35 methotrexate, 32 mycophenolate mofetil) contributed to the primary outcome. Sixty-nine percent of patients achieved treatment success with methotrexate and 47% with mycophenolate mofetil (p=0.09). Treatment failure due to adverse events or tolerability was not significantly different by treatment arm (p=0.99). There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in time to corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation (p=0.44), change in best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (p=0.68), and resolution of macular edema (p=0.31). Conclusions There was no statistically significant difference in corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation between patients receiving methotrexate or mycophenolate mofetil. However, there was a 22% difference in treatment success favoring methotrexate.

Purpose To report outcomes of Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada (VKH) disease from a clinical trial of antimetabolite therapies. Design Subanalysis from an observer-masked randomized clinical trial for non-infectious intermediate, posterior, and pan- uveitis. Methods Setting clinical practice at Aravind Eye Hospitals, India Patient Population Forty-three of 80 patients enrolled (54%) diagnosed with VKH. Intervention Patients were randomized to either 25mg oral methotrexate weekly or 1g mycophenolate mofetil twice daily, with a corticosteroid taper. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation at 5 and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included visual acuity, central subfield thickness, and adverse events. Patients were categorized as acute (diagnosis ≤3 months prior to enrollment) or chronic (diagnosis >3 months prior to enrollment). Results Twenty-seven patients were randomized to methotrexate and 16 to mycophenolate mofetil; 30 had acute VKH. The odds of achieving corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation with methotrexate were 2.5 times (95% CI: 0.6, 9.8; P=0.20) the odds with mycophenolate mofetil, a difference which was not statistically significant. The average improvement in visual acuity was 12.5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters. On average, visual acuity for patients with acute VKH improved by 14 more ETDRS letters than those with chronic VKH (P<0.001), but there was no difference in corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation (P=0.99). All 26 eyes with a serous retinal detachment at baseline resolved, and 88% achieved corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation. Conclusions The majority of patients treated with antimetabolites and corticosteroids were able to achieve corticosteroid-sparing control of inflammation by 6 months. Although patients with acute VKH gained more visual improvement than those with chronic VKH, this did not correspond with a higher rate of controlled inflammation.

Purpose To evaluate the changes in quality of life in noninfectious uveitis patients treated with two of the most commonly prescribed antimetabolite treatments. Design Secondary analysis of a multicenter, block-randomized, clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01232920). Methods Eighty patients at Aravind Eye Hospitals in Madurai and Coimbatore, India, with noninfectious intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis were randomized to receive oral methotrexate, 25 mg weekly, or oral mycophenolate mofetil, 1 g twice daily, and were followed up monthly for 6 months. Best-corrected visual acuity, IND-VFQ, and SF-36 were obtained at enrollment and at 6 months (or prior in the event of early treatment failure). Results IND-VFQ scores, on average, increased by 9.2 points from trial enrollment to 6 months (95% CI: 4.9, 13.5, P =0.0001). While the SF-36 physical component summary score did not significantly differ over the course of the trial, the mental component summary score decreased by 2.3 points (95% CI: −4.4, −0.1, P=0.04) and the vitality subscale decreased by 3.5 points (95% CI: −5.6, −1.4, P=0.001). Quality of life scores did not differ between treatment arms. Linear regression modeling showed a 3.2 point improvement in IND-VFQ score for every 5 letter improvement in visual acuity (95% CI: 1.9, 4.3; P<0.001). Conclusions Although uveitis treatment was associated with increased vision and vision-related quality of life, patient-reported physical health did not change after 6 months of treatment, and, mental health decreased. Despite improved visual outcomes, uveitis patients receiving systemic immunosuppressive therapy may experience a deterioration in mental health-related quality of life.

Purpose To conduct a Bayesian analysis of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) for non-infectious uveitis using expert opinion as a subjective prior belief. Methods A RCT was conducted to determine which antimetabolite, methotrexate or mycophenolate mofetil, is more effective as an initial corticosteroid-sparing agent for the treatment of intermediate, posterior, and pan- uveitis. Before the release of trial results, expert opinion on the relative effectiveness of these two medications was collected via online survey. Members of the American Uveitis Society executive committee were invited to provide an estimate for the relative decrease in efficacy with a 95% credible interval (CrI). A prior probability distribution was created from experts’ estimates. A Bayesian analysis was performed using the constructed expert prior probability distribution and the trial’s primary outcome. Results 11 of 12 invited uveitis specialists provided estimates. Eight of 11 experts (73%) believed mycophenolate mofetil is more effective. The group prior belief was that the odds of treatment success for patients taking mycophenolate mofetil were 1.4-fold the odds of those taking methotrexate (95% CrI 0.03 – 45.0). The odds of treatment success with mycophenolate mofetil compared to methotrexate was 0.4 from the RCT (95% confidence interval 0.1–1.2) and 0.7 (95% CrI 0.2–1.7) from the Bayesian analysis. Conclusions A Bayesian analysis combining expert belief with the trial’s result did not indicate preference for one drug. However, the wide credible interval leaves open the possibility of a substantial treatment effect. This suggests clinical equipoise necessary to allow a larger, more definitive RCT.