4.3 Review

Risk of Ophthalmic Adverse Effects in Patients Treated with MEK Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

OPHTHALMIC RESEARCH
Volume 57, Issue 1, Pages 60-69

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000446845

Keywords

MEK inhibitors; Ophthalmic toxicity; Meta-analysis; Systematic review; Drug safety

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the risk of ophthalmic adverse effects associated with MEK inhibitors. Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) which have been designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MEK inhibitors. Overall risk of ophthalmic adverse effects, chorioretinopathy, retinal detachment, blurred vision, uveitis, and eye haemorrhage were the assessed outcomes. Peto odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using 12 statistics. Results: Thirteen RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, MEK inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of ophthalmic adverse effects (OR 2.24; 95% CI 1.75-2.87; p < 0.0001; I-2 = 86.5%). An increased risk was also estimated for chorioretinopathy (OR 5.44; 95% CI 2.89-10.23; p < 0.0001; I-2 = 0%), retinal detachment (OR 6.54; 95% CI 3.28-13.03; p < 0.0001; I-2 = 0%), and blurred vision (OR 2.30; 95% CI 1.50-3.54; p < 0.0001; I-2 = 60.1%), but not for uveitis (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.14-7.03; p = 0.991;I-2 = 2.9%) or eye haemorrhage (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.04-12.39; p = 0.824; I-2 = 29.8%). Conclusions: Treatment with MEK inhibitors seems to increase the risk of ophthalmic adverse effects. A need for monitoring the safety of this class of drugs exists. Regulators, clinicians, and other health care professionals must, together, be involved in this process. (C) 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available