Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 149 No. 2526 (2019)

Pharmacovigilance in ophthalmology in Switzerland: an analysis of the most frequently reported ocular adverse drug reactions within the last 25 years

  • Julia E. Karrer
  • Luis Giovannoni
  • Gerd A. Kullak-Ublick
  • Stefan Weiler
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2019.20085
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2019;149:w20085
Published
30.06.2019

Summary

AIMS OF THE STUDY

Although systemic drugs can exert local effects on the eye, ophthalmology is a medical specialty with perhaps the fewest assessed adverse drug reactions (ADRs), representing a particular challenge in pharmacovigilance. Our aim was to quantify ADRs in ophthalmology in Switzerland, with a focus on angiogenesis inhibitors.

METHODS

Individual case safety reports (ICSRs) on suspected ADRs reported in Switzerland from January 1991 to June 2016 were extracted from the WHO Global ICSR database, VigiBase™. ICSRs were analysed in relation to treatment duration, patient age, route of administration, patient sex and reported symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 80,515 ICSRs were reported in Switzerland during the reference period. Reactions linked to eye disorders accounted for 2793 (3.5%) cases. The main Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical / Defined Daily Dose drug classes associated with eye disorders were drugs acting on the nervous system (27.7%) followed by drugs “acting on sensory organs” (20.2%) and antineoplastic agents (18.0%). Most cases involved adult patients (70.6%). Patients over 60 years accounted for 815 (29.2%) ICSRs, and reactions in children were significantly less frequent (8.2%). Older patients were exposed to a higher number of drugs, and the majority of serious reactions involved children and older patients. A significant positive correlation between polypharmacy and seriousness of reported reactions was observed. The reported drugs were categorised as “suspected” in 51.1%, “concomitant” in 43.3% and “interacting” in 2.6% of cases. “Visual impairment” was the most commonly reported adverse reaction, experienced by 635 (22.7%) of patients (7.2% of all reported eye-related symptoms). The majority of reactions were transient, as 4173 (47.1%) completely resolved. Severe reactions included fatal outcome in 18 patients (0.6%) and blindness in 78 patients (2.6%). Since 2000, the intravitreous vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors bevacizumab, aflibercept and ranibizumab accounted for 99 ICSRs. Retinal haemorrhage (reporting odds ratio [ROR] 10.36, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2.65–40.50; p <0.001), blindness (ROR 3.73, 95% CI 1.08–12.96; p = 0.04) and uveitis (ROR 6.91, 95% CI 1.64–29.13; p = 0.01) were significantly more frequently reported for aflibercept than for bevacizumab and ranibizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

ADRs that affect the eye represented 3.5% of all pharmacovigilance reports during the reporting period. Whereas retinal haemorrhage and uveitis are known adverse reactions to angiogenesis inhibitors, the reported cases of blindness and death should heighten awareness of potential safety issues associated with VEGF inhibitors for the treatment of proliferative eye disorders.

References

  1. Miguel A, Henriques F, Azevedo LF, Pereira AC. Ophthalmic adverse drug reactions to systemic drugs: a systematic review. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23(3):221–33. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.3566
  2. Yayla EM, Yavuz E, Bilge U, Keskin A, Binen E. Drugs with anticholinergic side-effects in primary care. Niger J Clin Pract. 2015;18(1):18–21.
  3. Selvin BL. Systemic effects of topical ophthalmic medications. South Med J. 1983;76(3):349–58. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/00007611-198303000-00020
  4. Köberlein J, Beifus K, Schaffert C, Finger RP. The economic burden of visual impairment and blindness: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2013;3(11):e003471. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003471
  5. Biagi C, Conti V, Montanaro N, Melis M, Buccellato E, Donati M, et al. Comparative safety profiles of intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab and pegaptanib: the analysis of the WHO database of adverse drug reactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;70(12):1505–12. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-014-1755-1
  6. van der Reis MI, La Heij EC, De Jong-Hesse Y, Ringens PJ, Hendrikse F, Schouten JS. A systematic review of the adverse events of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections. Retina. 2011;31(8):1449–69. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182278ab4
  7. Lu X, Ng DS, Zheng K, Peng K, Jin C, Xia H, et al. Risk factors for endophthalmitis requiring evisceration or enucleation. Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):28100. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28100
  8. Wang W, Zhang X. Systemic adverse events after intravitreal bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e109744. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109744
  9. Caster O, Conforti A, Viola E, Edwards IR. Methylprednisolone-induced hepatotoxicity: experiences from global adverse drug reaction surveillance. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;70(4):501–3. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-013-1632-3
  10. Petronijevic M, Ilic K. Associations of gender and age with the reporting of drug-induced hepatic failure: data from the VigiBase™. J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;53(4):435–43. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.3
  11. Blaser LS, Tramonti A, Egger P, Haschke M, Krähenbühl S, Rätz Bravo AE. Hematological safety of metamizole: retrospective analysis of WHO and Swiss spontaneous safety reports. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71(2):209–17. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-014-1781-z
  12. Masnoon N, Shakib S, Kalisch-Ellett L, Caughey GE. What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17(1):230. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0621-2
  13. van Puijenbroek E, Diemont W, van Grootheest K. Application of quantitative signal detection in the Dutch spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf. 2003;26(5):293–301. doi:.https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200326050-00001
  14. McGee HT, Fraunfelder FW. Toxicities of topical ophthalmic anesthetics. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2007;6(6):637–40. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1517/14740338.6.6.637
  15. Cumberland PM, Russell-Eggitt I, Rahi JS. Active surveillance of visual impairment due to adverse drug reactions: findings from a national study in the United Kingdom. Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2015;3(1):e00107. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.107
  16. Saum KU, Schöttker B, Meid AD, Holleczek B, Haefeli WE, Hauer K, et al. Is polypharmacy associated with frailty in older people? Results from the ESTHER cohort study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(2):e27–32. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.14718
  17. Davies EC, Green CF, Taylor S, Williamson PR, Mottram DR, Pirmohamed M. Adverse drug reactions in hospital in-patients: a prospective analysis of 3695 patient-episodes. PLoS One. 2009;4(2):e4439. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004439
  18. Alves C, Penedones A, Mendes D, Batel Marques F. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between systemic fluoroquinolones and retinal detachment. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94(5):e251–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.12931
  19. Glading JA, Lake SR, Craig JE, Supramaniam D. Delayed onset panuveitis following intravitreal aflibercept injection. BMJ Case Rep. 2014;2014(jun11 1):bcr2013202515. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2013-202515
  20. Heier JS, Brown DM, Chong V, Korobelnik JF, Kaiser PK, Nguyen QD, et al.; VIEW 1 and VIEW 2 Study Groups. Intravitreal aflibercept (VEGF trap-eye) in wet age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(12):2537–48. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.09.006
  21. Gonzalez S, Rosenfeld PJ, Stewart MW, Brown J, Murphy SP. Avastin doesn’t blind people, people blind people. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;153(2):196–203.e1. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2011.11.023
  22. Biagi C, Montanaro N, Buccellato E, Roberto G, Vaccheri A, Motola D. Underreporting in pharmacovigilance: an intervention for Italian GPs (Emilia-Romagna region). Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69(2):237–44. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-012-1321-7
  23. Huang L, Guo T, Zalkikar JN, Tiwari RC. A review of statistical methods for safety surveillance. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2014;48(1):98–108. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479013514236
  24. Motola D, Donati M, Biagi C, Calamelli E, Cipriani F, Melis M, et al. Safety profile of H1-antihistamines in pediatrics: an analysis based on data from VigiBase. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26(10):1164–71. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4246
  25. Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH. Optimising drug treatment for elderly people: the prescribing cascade. BMJ. 1997;315(7115):1096–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7115.1096