The drug in question is adalimumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that neutralises tumour necrosis factor alpha, or TNFα, a cytokine central to the inflammatory cascade that drives retinal tissue damage in uveitis by promoting mononuclear cell trafficking into ocular tissues. Adalimumab is the only non-corticosteroid drug licensed for immune-mediated non-infectious uveitis, and its efficacy was established in the landmark VISUAL I and VISUAL II trials, which showed that it delayed treatment failure in patients with active disease and in those with inactive but steroid-dependent disease. Yet those trials had design limitations with real-world consequences: they did not test adalimumab as an add-on to standard therapy, the most common clinical scenario when first-line agents fail; they excluded cystoid macular oedema, the leading cause of uveitis-related visual loss, from both inclusion and treatment-failure criteria; and they required high levels of vitreous inflammation for enrolment. Those restrictions translated into restrictive access criteria worldwide, including a recommendation from the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence that bars patients with unilateral disease without systemic inflammation, steroid-dependent inactive uveitis, or those new to standard immunosuppressive therapy.

The new study, called ASTUTE, was designed specifically to close those evidence gaps. Conducted at 18 NHS tertiary ophthalmology departments across the United Kingdom, it was a multi-centre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled randomised trial with an unusual twist: a 16-week treatment run-in before randomisation. All participants first received open-label adalimumab, delivered as fortnightly subcutaneous 40-milligram injections of a licensed biosimilar, Imraldi, while their oral prednisolone was tapered toward 5 milligrams per day or less, with the rate of reduction guided by disease activity and clinician judgement rather than a fixed schedule. Only participants who responded, defined as achieving prednisolone at or below 5 milligrams per day with no sign of active disease, were then randomised to continue adalimumab or switch to an identical placebo pen containing all excipients but no active drug. This enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal design, more often seen in industry-sponsored analgesia trials, served two purposes: it ensured the drug was only continued in patients in whom it was demonstrably working, and it provided an objective, biomarker-free criterion for stopping treatment, something absent from routine clinical practice.

The trial’s eligibility criteria were deliberately broad. Patients aged 18 or over could enter the run-in if they had active sight-threatening uveitis, marked by inflammatory chorioretinal lesions, central macular thickness above 320 microns, retinal vasculitis or vitreous haze greater than 0.5, and were taking more than 5 milligrams per day of oral prednisolone; or if they had controlled disease that still required more than 5 milligrams per day of prednisolone alongside conventional immunomodulatory drugs. Concomitant immunosuppression such as mycophenolate mofetil, methotrexate, azathioprine, ciclosporin or tacrolimus was permitted and recorded throughout. The result was a study population far more diverse than those in previous trials, spanning intermediate, posterior and panuveitis, with birdshot retinochoroiditis the single most common diagnosis, and including patients with cystoid macular oedema and mild to moderate vitreous inflammation who would previously have been turned away.

Between July 2021 and June 2024, 323 patients were screened, 202 enrolled in the treatment run-in, and 119, or 65.4 percent, responded well enough to be randomised. After four withdrawals, 115 participants entered the randomised phase, 60 receiving adalimumab and 55 placebo. The primary outcome was time to the first treatment failure, a composite endpoint capturing any of six signs of reactivated disease: a drop of 15 or more letters in best-corrected visual acuity on ETDRS charts, new active chorioretinal lesions, a greater than 20 percent increase in central macular thickness on optical coherence tomography, onset or worsening of retinal vasculitis on fluorescein angiography, a two-step worsening of vitreous haze on the Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature scale, or the need for prednisolone above 5 milligrams per day to maintain disease control. Topical steroids were allowed for anterior chamber activity, a pragmatic choice reflecting that isolated flare manageable with drops would not prompt withdrawal of a biologic in practice, while escalation to oral prednisolone was counted as failure.

The results were striking. At 12 months, an estimated 31.4 percent of participants on adalimumab had experienced treatment failure, compared with 59.0 percent on placebo, a hazard ratio of 0.42 with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.23 to 0.75 and a p-value of 0.003. In other words, adalimumab cut the hazard of treatment failure by more than half. The most frequently observed component of failure was the prescription of higher-dose prednisolone to maintain remission, underscoring how much of the drug’s benefit lies in enabling genuine corticosteroid sparing, an outcome patients strongly prefer given the substantial toxicity of long-term steroids. Adherence was high, with more than 90 percent of scheduled injections received in both groups, and a per-protocol sensitivity analysis produced nearly identical results.

Perhaps the most consequential finding came from a pre-specified subgroup analysis. Of the 115 randomised participants, 98, roughly 85 percent, would have been ineligible for adalimumab under the current NICE technology appraisal, whether because of steroid-dependent inactive disease, unilateral isolated uveitis, mild to moderate vitreous inflammation, macular oedema alone, or being new to standard immunosuppression. Yet these patients benefited at least as much as those who met the eligibility criteria: 30.0 percent of the NICE-ineligible group on adalimumab experienced treatment failure at 12 months versus 60.0 percent on placebo, a hazard ratio of 0.37. The benefit seen in this broader population was also of a similar magnitude to that reported in the VISUAL trials, and the biosimilar used reflects a class effect of adalimumab rather than a property of any single branded product.

Secondary outcomes painted a broadly favourable but nuanced picture. Patient-reported visual function improved more with adalimumab than placebo, with a statistically significant difference emerging after week 48; at week 80 the geometric mean ratio was 0.56, where a lower score indicates better vision-related quality of life. Other measures, including the EQ-5D utility score, visual acuity and central macular thickness, showed point estimates favouring adalimumab that did not reach statistical significance, a difficulty the investigators attribute to the fact that participants were not followed in the trial after treatment failure, so between-group comparisons drew predominantly on patients still in remission. Safety data were reassuring across two years: adverse event rates were actually lower on adalimumab than placebo for both infections and infestations, at 47.9 versus 73.2 per 100 person-years, and skin disorders, at 8.5 versus 11.7 per 100 person-years, though neither difference was statistically significant. There were no deaths and no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions.

The economics also favour wider access. From randomisation to first treatment failure, participants on adalimumab incurred £1,117 in additional NHS costs, driven mainly by the drug itself, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio worked out at £2,320 per treatment failure avoided. Set against the economic burden of a treatment failure, which typically demands intensive therapy with additional imaging, high-dose steroids, immunomodulatory drugs, intravitreal injections and frequent monitoring, alongside productivity losses and informal care, the investigators argue this represents good value for money. A recent systematic review reported annual direct medical costs of non-infectious uveitis ranging from $16,428 to $134,135 per patient in 2023 US dollars, rising more than fourfold in those who become blind, providing context for the economic weight of preventing relapse. A full cost-utility analysis incorporating quality-adjusted life years is still to come from the trial.

The trial was not without limitations. Recruitment fell short of the target of 174 randomised participants, largely because the COVID-19 pandemic delayed the start and hospitals later prioritised clinical backlogs over research, and recruitment had to stop early when the placebo pens neared expiry on 31 January 2025 and the manufacturer could not extend their shelf life or supply new stock. Participants then transitioned into an ongoing open-label extension, which should establish the durability of response and longer-term safety. Even so, the message is clear: adalimumab can be used effectively and safely as an add-on therapy for a substantially broader population of patients with non-infectious uveitis than current guidance recognises, and the authors argue the NICE recommendation should now be reviewed. Roughly 30 percent of treated patients still fail within a year, however, highlighting a continuing unmet need for additional and complementary treatments for those whose disease remains refractory even to TNFα blockade.

Subject of Research: Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab as add-on therapy for non-infectious uveitis in the ASTUTE randomised controlled trial

Article Title: Adalimumab versus placebo as add-on to standard therapy for non-infectious uveitis in the United Kingdom: the ASTUTE randomised controlled trial with treatment run-in

Article References: Dick, A. D., Reeves, B. C., Beare, N. A., Lui, M., Pike, K., Baos, S., Culliford, L., Zhu, X., Wordsworth, S., Folkard, A., Lanyon, K., Koleva-Kolarova, R., Brierley, R. C., Peto, T., Madhusudhan, S., Sharma, S. M., Epps, S., Naruganahalli, K., Clark, N., … Hamill, B. (2026). Adalimumab versus placebo as add-on to standard therapy for non-infectious uveitis in the United Kingdom: the ASTUTE randomised controlled trial with treatment run-in. eClinicalMedicine, 101, Article 104240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2026.104240

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: adalimumab, non-infectious uveitis, randomised controlled trial, TNF-alpha inhibitor, biosimilar, corticosteroid sparing, NICE guidelines, treatment failure, macular oedema, ophthalmology, cost-effectiveness, immunomodulatory therapy

The research team analysed data from participants who enrolled in Our Future Health between 2022 and 2025. Hypertension was defined according to World Health Organization criteria: a systolic blood pressure of 140 mmHg or greater, a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mmHg or greater, or the use of blood pressure-lowering medication. Using this standardised definition, the investigators assessed three linked questions: how many participants had high blood pressure, how many of those had been diagnosed and treated, and how many had their blood pressure actually brought under control. The answers reveal a cascade of missed opportunities running through every stage of care.

Overall, just over one-third of participants, 37 percent, had hypertension. That figure varied enormously with age, rising from around one in six people aged 18 to 39 to nearly three-quarters of those aged 80 or older. After age-standardisation, hypertension was almost 50 percent more common in men than in women, affecting 42 percent of men compared with 29 percent of women. These prevalence estimates alone are striking, but the more alarming numbers concern what happened next. For 59 percent of people with hypertension, the condition was undetected: they had never received a diagnosis and were not on any blood pressure-lowering medication.

Detection, however, is only the first hurdle. Among participants who were taking one or more blood pressure medications, half still had elevated readings of 140/90 mmHg or higher. In other words, even when the healthcare system succeeded in identifying hypertension and initiating treatment, it frequently failed to finish the job. Effective hypertension management typically requires titration of drug doses, combination therapy, adherence support and regular monitoring, and the data suggest that these follow-through steps are breaking down for a large share of treated patients. The result is a population in which millions of people carry a major, modifiable cardiovascular risk without knowing it, and many of those who do know remain inadequately protected.

The clinical stakes are difficult to overstate. Hypertension is one of the most important causes of stroke, heart disease and premature death, and, as the British Heart Foundation emphasises, it remains the leading modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, linked to around half of heart attacks and strokes in the United Kingdom. Because elevated blood pressure usually produces no symptoms, the first manifestation for many patients is a catastrophic vascular event. Every undetected case represents a person whose risk could have been reduced, often substantially, with timely diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Professor Bryan Williams, Chief Scientific and Medical Officer at the British Heart Foundation, described the study as painting a concerning picture of the scale of undetected high blood pressure and of the challenge of keeping the condition controlled in those already on treatment.

Perhaps the most provocative aspect of the analysis is the authors’ argument that the problem is not simply one of resources or public awareness, but of clinical policy. Despite longstanding guidance, current estimates of hypertension awareness, treatment and control in England have not improved in recent decades. The researchers contend that current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, which require multiple confirmatory blood pressure readings before a diagnosis is confirmed and recommend lifestyle advice ahead of drug treatment, contribute to many cases never being properly detected, treated or controlled. Each additional diagnostic hurdle, the argument runs, creates another point at which a patient can be lost to follow-up, and each delay in pharmacological intervention extends the period during which quietly damaging blood pressure levels go unaddressed.

Wenyu Liu, Medical Statistician at Oxford Population Health and lead author of the study, was blunt in her assessment. While hypertension is largely a silent killer, she said, the current approach to detecting and treating high blood pressure is not fit for purpose. She stressed that the problem is not confined to any particular demographic group but is substantial across almost every category the team examined. Even among younger adults, who are not currently eligible for the NHS Health Check programme, more than 15 percent already had high blood pressure. That finding, she argued, underscores the need for population-wide prevention strategies alongside targeted treatment for people at high cardiovascular risk, rather than relying solely on age-triggered screening.

Clinicians working on the front line say the findings mirror everyday reality in general practice. Iain Turnbull, Deputy Chief Medical Officer at Our Future Health, Clinical Research Fellow at Oxford Population Health and a working GP, noted that many patients with high blood pressure are undetected or sub-optimally treated, and that the study’s results reflect what doctors see day to day. He called for a more proactive approach to detection and suggested that treatment decisions should consider predicted cardiovascular risk in addition to measured blood pressure levels. Such a risk-based strategy would echo approaches used in cardiovascular prevention more broadly, where absolute risk calculators help determine who benefits most from intervention, rather than waiting for a single measurement to cross a fixed threshold.

The scale of the dataset lends unusual weight to these conclusions. Our Future Health is designed to recruit up to five million people and to reflect the diversity of the UK population, collecting and linking multiple sources of health information, including genetic data, within secure, accredited trusted research environments from which identifiable information is removed and stored separately. Standardised clinic blood pressure measurements taken at enrolment, rather than self-reported diagnoses, mean the study captures the true prevalence of hypertension rather than the smaller fraction known to the health system. That methodological strength is precisely what allows the researchers to quantify the detection gap so confidently, and it explains why the findings have resonated across the cardiology and public health communities.

What happens next will depend on whether the health system can translate these numbers into action. The options under discussion include broader and earlier screening, simplified diagnostic pathways that reduce the number of confirmatory visits required, greater use of community and pharmacy-based measurement, and treatment algorithms that weigh overall cardiovascular risk rather than blood pressure readings alone. The British Heart Foundation estimates that better detection and treatment could help tens of thousands of people avoid preventable heart attacks and strokes, but achieving that, Williams cautioned, will require rethinking how at-risk people are identified, treated and supported so that blood pressure checks and effective therapy reach everyone. With hypertension implicated in roughly half of the UK’s heart attacks and strokes, and with the majority of cases still slipping through undetected, the study stands as a data-driven warning that one of medicine’s oldest and simplest interventions is being delivered to far too few of the people who need it.

Subject of Research: Prevalence, detection, treatment and control of hypertension among adults in England

Article Title: Two-thirds of adults with high blood pressure do not know they have it

Article References: Two-thirds of adults with high blood pressure do not know they have it. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: hypertension, blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, Our Future Health, Oxford Population Health, screening, NICE guidelines, public health, stroke, heart disease, BMJ Public Health, England