Search

Objective Evaluate the association between cancer incidence and immunosuppressive treatment in patients with ocular inflammatory disease (OID).Methods and analysis We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients from 10 US OID subspecialty practices. Patients with non-infectious OID were included; HIV-infected patients were excluded. Time-dependent exposure to drug classes (ie, antimetabolites, calcineurin inhibitors, alkylating agents, tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors) and drugs were evaluated. Cancer incidence was ascertained by linkage to 12 state cancer registries from 1996 to 2015. Cancer incidence was analysed using Cox regression survival analysis, using 0-year, 3-year and 5-year lags after immunosuppression began.Results The cancer incidence cohort comprised 10 872 individuals at risk of incident cancer and residing in one of the 12 states covered; 812 primary cancers were identified through cancer incidence tracing with median follow-up time of 10 years. Neither TNF inhibitor, antimetabolite, calcineurin inhibitor nor alkylating agent classes were associated with statistically significant increases in cancer incidence adjusting for covariates. We found statistically significant reduced hazards in the systemic inflammatory disease (SID)-including cohort for adalimumab and chlorambucil, increased hazards for tacrolimus and etanercept in the non-SID cohort and reduced hazards for methotrexate in both. Other immunosuppressive drugs were not associated with overall cancer incidence.Conclusions We found no increased risk of overall or site-specific cancer incidence associated with short-term (non-transplant) therapy with most commonly used immunosuppressive drug classes and many specific drugs. Further research may clarify potentially protective or harmful effects of specific agents that were not consistently associated with reduced or increased cancer incidence.Trial registration number NCT00116090.

Purpose: The recent exponential growth in teleophthalmology has been limited in part by the lack of a validated method to measure visual acuity (VA) remotely. We investigated the validity of a self-administered Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) home VA test. We hypothesized that a home VA test with a printout ETDRS chart is equivalent to a standard technician-administered VA test in clinic. Design: Prospective cohort study. Participants: Two hundred nine eyes from 108 patients who had a scheduled in-person outpatient ophthalmology clinic visit at an academic medical center. Methods: Enrolled patients were sent a .pdf document consisting of instructions and a printout ETDRS vision chart calibrated for 5 feet. Patients completed the VA test at home before the in-person appointment, where their VA was measured by an ophthalmic technician using a standard ETDRS chart. Survey questions about the ease of testing and barriers to completion were administered. For the bioequivalence test with a 5% nominal level, the 2 1-sided tests procedure was used, and an equivalent 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed and compared with the prespecified 7-letter equivalence margin. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the mean adjusted letter score difference between the home and clinic tests. Secondary outcomes included the unadjusted letter difference, absolute letter difference, and survey question responses. Results: The mean adjusted VA letter score difference was 4.1 letters (90% CI, 3.2–4.9 letters), well within the 7-letter equivalence margin. Average unadjusted VA scores in clinic were 3.9 letters (90% CI, 3.1–4.7 letters) more than scores at home. The absolute difference was 5.2 letters (90% CI, 4.6–5.9 letters). Ninety-eight percent of patients agreed that the home test was easy to perform. Conclusions: An ETDRS VA test self-administered at home following a standardized protocol was equivalent to a standard technician-administered VA test in clinic in the examined population.