{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017172295363480253, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007441327990841442, 'mean_word_length': 5.909090909090909, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The use of biologic agents in the management of uveitis

The uveitides are a heterogenous group of ocular inflammatory disorders that account for the third highest cause of blindness worldwide, responsible for 5–10% of visual impairment globally. Up to 35% of patients with uveitis can suffer significant vision loss. To prevent irreversible structural damage and blindness, it is important that the diagnosis and commencement of appropriate therapy occurs promptly. Management includes topical and systemic corticosteroid therapy and conventional immunomodulatory agents, including methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporin. Significant progress has been made in the past decade in our understanding of the immunopathological pathways that drive intraocular inflammation, allowing the development of targeted therapy with biologic agents. These include TNF‐α inhibitors, such as infliximab, adalimumab and etanercept; interleukin blockers, such as tocilizumab and daclizumab; and other targeted therapies, such as rituximab and abatacept. The efficacy of these agents has been studied in cases of severe uveitis that are refractory to conventional immunomodulatory agents and provide exciting results that have revolutionised uveitis management. Though the biologic era has provided a large armamentarium to treat uveitis, ongoing challenges and cases of recalcitrant uveitis remain, posing a challenge to internal medicine physicians. This comprehensive review aims to construct an updated summary on the existing evidence pertaining to the use of biologic agents in the treatment of uveitis. Methods include a systematic search for studies between 2000 and 2018 using PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE and Cochrane libraries.