Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Therapeutic drug monitoring guides the management of patients with chronic non-infectious uveitis treated with adalimumab: a retrospective study
  1. Lucas Sejournet1,
  2. Sebastien Kerever2,
  3. Thibaud Mathis3,
  4. Laurent Kodjikian3,
  5. Yvan Jamilloux4,
  6. Pascal Seve4,5
  1. 1 Hopital de La Croix-Rousse Ophtalmologie, Lyon, France
  2. 2 Hospital Lariboisière Anaesthesiology and Resuscitation Unit, Paris, France
  3. 3 Ophthalmology, Hopital de La Croix-Rousse Ophtalmologie, Lyon, France
  4. 4 Internal Medicine, Hopital de la Croix-Rousse Service de Medecine Interne, Lyon, France
  5. 5 Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Research on Healthcare Performance (RESHAPE), INSERM U1290, Lyon, France
  1. Correspondence to Professor Pascal Seve, Internal Medicine, Hopital de la Croix-Rousse Service de medecine interne, Lyon 69317, France; pascal.seve{at}


Aim To assess the relevance of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of adalimumab (ADA) treatment for the control of intraocular inflammation and treatment adjustment in chronic non-infectious uveitis (CNIU).

Methods Retrospective study of CNIU patients treated with ADA and for whom at least one dosage of serum ADA level and an antibodies against ADA (AAA) serology were performed, between June 2003 and July 2019.

Results A total of 44 ADA-treated patients benefited from a TDM. A total of 48/79 (61%) TDM were performed in responders, 11/79 (14%) in primary non-responders, and 20/79 (25%) in secondary non-responders. Responders had significantly higher ADA levels than non-responders (p=0.0004). AAA were detectable in six patients, they were primary non-responders (n=2), secondary non-responders (n=3) or responders (n=1). In the five non-responders and immunised patients, ADA was switched (to golimumab or methotrexate). Among non-responders, TDM led to an increased frequency of injections 12/31 (38%), increased dose 1/31 (3%) and switch of treatment 10/31 (32%) (one missing data). No modification of biotherapy was performed 7/31 (22%) and only local or oral corticotherapy was adjusted. In 24/31 cases of therapeutic adjustment in non-responders, an improvement was observed in 87% of cases. Among responders for whom the ADA level was above the efficacy threshold, the frequency of injections was decreased for 15/31 (48.4%) cases and no relapse was observed in 12/15 (80%) cases.

Conclusion TDM of ADA treatment proved relevant to provide CNIU patients with a personalised and optimised treatment course (in terms of frequency and type of drug).

  • inflammation
  • pharmacology
  • treatment medical
  • drugs

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.

View Full Text


  • Contributors LS and PS designed this study, collected the data and wrote the manuscript. SK performed the statistical analysis. All coauthors participated in the data collection and reviewed the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests PS, YJ and LK conflicts of interest: Abbvie.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Linked Articles

  • Highlights from this issue
    Frank Larkin