Evidence Hub

Retrospective cohort study of ocular adverse reactions to systemic drugs: insights from a multi-country spontaneous reporting database

Wu SN, Huang C, Chen XD, Liu QT, Chen L, Wang SP, Hu J, Liu Z

International journal of surgery (London, England), 2026

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the rise in long-term medication use, assessing ocular adverse reactions (OARs) from systemic drugs has gained importance. Using large real-world databases like the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) offers valuable clinical and pharmacovigilance insights.

METHODS: Disproportionality analysis, including the ratio of reported odds (ROR), was performed on all OAR reports related to systemic medications in the FAERS database from 2004 Q1 to 2024 Q3. The OARs were categorized into disease-based and symptom-based classifications to identify systemic medications with positive signals.

RESULTS: In the FAERS database, the most common OARs were cataract, dry eye, and glaucoma, with blurred vision, visual impairment, and eye pain as the leading symptoms. Through disproportionality analysis, 141 systemic medications with positive signal drugs for OAR risks were identified, which were concentrated in the following categories: antineoplastic medication [30 drugs, belantamab mafodotin ROR (95% confidence interval): 59.59 (56.25-63.13)], central nervous system medication [21 drugs, fingolimod, 2.69 (2.63-2.75)], anti-infective medication [15 drugs, moxifloxacin, 6.52 (6.21-6.84)], immunological and inflammation-related medication [15 drugs, dupilumab, 4.74 (4.7-4.79)], cardiovascular system medication [10 drugs, ivabradine, 3.06 (2.61-3.58)], endocrine and metabolic disease medication [10 drugs, insulin lispro, 3.63 (3.4-3.89)], respiratory system medication [6…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free