Moiz Lakhani, Angela T H Kwan, Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, Marko M Popovic, Roger S McIntyre, Albert Y Wu
{"title":"Association of ocular adverse events with varenicline solution use: a population-based study.","authors":"Moiz Lakhani, Angela T H Kwan, Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, Marko M Popovic, Roger S McIntyre, Albert Y Wu","doi":"10.1080/14740338.2025.2460454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Approved by the FDA in 2021, varenicline solution is the first nasal spray specifically designed to enhance basal tear film production for treating dry eye disease (DED). However, there is a lack of data comprehensively comparing its safety profile to conventional DED therapies. Herein, we assess whether ocular adverse events (AEs) are disproportionately reported with the real-world use of varenicline solution.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>This observational, population-based pharmacovigilance study analyzed the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data (inception-April 2024) using reporting odds ratio (ROR), with significance defined as a 95% CI lower bound > 1.0. Nasal saline and systane were the controls.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,125 AE reports were associated with varenicline solution. No disproportionate reporting of specific ocular AEs was observed when comparing varenicline solution with nasal saline. However, when compared with systane, varenicline solution showed higher odds of lacrimation (ROR = 2.18, 95%CI = 1.46-3.26, <i>p</i> < 0.0001), visual impairment (ROR = 2.27, 95%CI = 1.24-4.16, <i>p</i> = 0.0085), and photophobia (ROR = 7.50, 95%CI = 3.68-15.27, <i>p</i> < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although a direct causal relationship for higher RORs cannot be established for varenicline solution compared to systane, our findings provide evidence for potential risk signals and highlight the crucial role of post-marketing pharmacovigilance in monitoring long-term safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":12232,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2025.2460454","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Approved by the FDA in 2021, varenicline solution is the first nasal spray specifically designed to enhance basal tear film production for treating dry eye disease (DED). However, there is a lack of data comprehensively comparing its safety profile to conventional DED therapies. Herein, we assess whether ocular adverse events (AEs) are disproportionately reported with the real-world use of varenicline solution.
Research design and methods: This observational, population-based pharmacovigilance study analyzed the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data (inception-April 2024) using reporting odds ratio (ROR), with significance defined as a 95% CI lower bound > 1.0. Nasal saline and systane were the controls.
Results: A total of 1,125 AE reports were associated with varenicline solution. No disproportionate reporting of specific ocular AEs was observed when comparing varenicline solution with nasal saline. However, when compared with systane, varenicline solution showed higher odds of lacrimation (ROR = 2.18, 95%CI = 1.46-3.26, p < 0.0001), visual impairment (ROR = 2.27, 95%CI = 1.24-4.16, p = 0.0085), and photophobia (ROR = 7.50, 95%CI = 3.68-15.27, p < 0.0001).
Conclusions: Although a direct causal relationship for higher RORs cannot be established for varenicline solution compared to systane, our findings provide evidence for potential risk signals and highlight the crucial role of post-marketing pharmacovigilance in monitoring long-term safety.
期刊介绍:
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety ranks #62 of 216 in the Pharmacology & Pharmacy category in the 2008 ISI Journal Citation Reports.
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety (ISSN 1474-0338 [print], 1744-764X [electronic]) is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international journal publishing review articles on all aspects of drug safety and original papers on the clinical implications of drug treatment safety issues, providing expert opinion on the scope for future development.