A novel mutation in hERG gene associated with azithromycin-induced acquired long QT syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in human ether-à-go-go-related gene (hERG) potassium channels are closely associated with long QT syndrome (LQTS). Previous studies have demonstrated that macrolide antibiotics increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases. To date, the mechanisms underlying acquired LQTS remain elusive. METHODS: A novel hERG mutation I1025N was identified in an azithromycin-treated patient with acquired long QT syndrome via Sanger sequencing. The mutant I1025N plasmid was transfected into HEK-293 cells, which were subsequently incubated with azithromycin. The effect of azithromycin and mutant I1025N on the hERG channel was evaluated via western blot, immunofluorescence, and electrophysiology techniques. RESULTS: The protein expression of the mature hERG protein was down-regulated, whereas that of the immature hERG protein was up-regulated in mutant I1025N HEK-293 cells. Azithromycin administration resulted in a negative effect on the maturation of the hERG protein. Additionally, the I1025N mutation exerted an inhibitory effect on hERG channel current. Moreover, azithromycin inhibited hERG channel current in a concentration-dependent manner. The I1025N mutation and azithromycin synergistically decreased hERG channel expression and hERG current. However, the I1025N mutation and azithromycin did not alter channel gating dynamics. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that hERG gene mutations might be involved in the genetic susceptibility mechanism underlying acquired LQTS induced by azithromycin.

Efficacy and safety of antibiotics for treatment of leptospirosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Leptospirosis, an important zoonotic bacterial disease, commonly affects resource-poor populations and results in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. The value of antibiotics in leptospirosis remains unclear, as evidenced by the conflicting opinions published. METHODS: We conducted a search in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for studies. These studies included clinical trials and retrospective studies that evaluated the efficacy or safety of antibiotics for leptospirosis treatment. The primary outcomes assessed were defervescence time, mortality rate, and hospital stays. Subgroup analyses were performed based on whether there were cases involving children and whether there were cases of severe jaundice. Safety was defined as the prevalence of adverse events associated with the use of antibiotics. p scores were utilized to rank the efficacy of the antibiotics. RESULTS: There are included 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 control trial (CT), and 3 retrospective studies (RS) involving 920 patients and 8 antibiotics. Six antibiotics resulted in significantly shorter defervescence times compared to the control, namely cefotaxime (MD, - 1.88; 95% CI = - 2.60 to - 1.15), azithromycin (MD, - 1.74; 95% CI = - 2.52 to - 0.95), doxycycline (MD, - 1.53; 95% CI = - 2.05 to - 1.00), ceftriaxone (MD, - 1.22; 95% CI = - 1.89 to - 0.55), penicillin (MD, - 1.22; 95% CI = - 1.80 to - 0.64), and penicillin or ampicillin (MD, - 0.08; 95% CI = - 1.01 to - 0.59). The antibiotics were not effective in reducing the mortality and hospital stays. Common adverse reactions to antibiotics included Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction, rash, headache, and digestive reactions (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and others). CONCLUSIONS: Findings recommend that leptospirosis patients be treated with antibiotics, which significantly reduced the leptospirosis defervescence time. Cephalosporins, doxycycline, and penicillin are suggested, and azithromycin may be a suitable alternative for drug-resistant cases. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022354938.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for leptospirosis.

BACKGROUND: Leptospirosis is a global zoonotic and waterborne disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are used as a strategy for prevention of leptospirosis, in particular in travellers and high-risk groups. However, the clinical benefits are unknown, especially when considering possible treatment-associated adverse effects. This review assesses the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in leptospirosis and is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Library (2009, Issue 3). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis for human leptospirosis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised clinical trials through electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and other resources. We searched online clinical trial registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. We checked reference lists of the retrieved studies for further trials. The last date of search was 17 April 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included ⁠⁠randomised clinical trials of any trial design, assessing antibiotics for prevention of leptospirosis, and with no restrictions on age, sex, occupation, or comorbidity of trial participants. We looked for trials assessing antibiotics irrespective of route of administration, dosage, and schedule versus placebo or no intervention. We also included trials assessing antibiotics versus other antibiotics using these criteria, or the same antibiotic but with another dose or schedule. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane methodology. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (inclusive of asymptomatic cases), clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation, clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (exclusive of asymptomatic cases), and serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were quality of life and the proportion of people with non-serious adverse events. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using the RoB 2 tool and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a random-effects model for our main analyses and the fixed-effect model for sensitivity analyses. Our primary outcome analyses included trial data at the longest follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five randomised clinical trials comprising 2593 participants that compared antibiotics (doxycycline, azithromycin, or penicillin) with placebo, or one antibiotic compared with another. Four trials assessed doxycycline with different durations, one trial assessed azithromycin, and one trial assessed penicillin. One trial had three intervention groups: doxycycline, azithromycin, and placebo. Three trials assessed pre-exposure prophylaxis, one trial assessed postexposure prophylaxis, and one did not report this clearly. Four trials recruited residents in endemic areas, and one trial recruited soldiers who experienced limited time exposure. The participants' ages in the included trials were 10 to 80 years. Follow-up ranged from one to three months. Antibiotics versus placebo Doxycycline compared with placebo may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.83; 1 trial, 782 participants; low-certainty evidence). Prophylactic antibiotics may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.26; 5 trials, 2593 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics may result in little to no difference in the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of laboratory confirmation (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.08; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis with laboratory confirmation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.26; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics compared with placebo may increase non-serious adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 10.13, 95% CI 2.40 to 42.71; 3 trials, 1909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One antibiotic versus another antibiotic One trial assessed doxycycline versus azithromycin but did not report mortality. Compared to azithromycin, doxycycline may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.32; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), and on non-serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.48; 1 trial, 137 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. None of the five included trials reported serious adverse events or assessed quality of life. One study is awaiting classification. Funding Four of the five trials included statements disclosing their funding/supporting sources, and the remaining trial did not include this. Three of the four trials that disclosed their supporting sources received the supply of trial drugs directly from the same pharmaceutical company, and the remaining trial received financial support from a governmental source. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo or another antibiotic has little or have no effect on all-cause mortality or leptospirosis infection because the certainty of evidence is low or very low. We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo may increase the overall risk of non-serious adverse events because of very low-certainty evidence. We lack definitive rigorous data from randomised trials to support the use of antibiotics for the prophylaxis of leptospirosis infection. We lack trials reporting data on clinically relevant outcomes.

Macrolide antibiotics (including azithromycin) for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting genetic condition, affecting over 90,000 people worldwide. CF affects several organs in the body, but airway damage has the most profound impact on quality of life (QoL) and survival. Causes of lower airway infection in people with CF are, most notably, Staphylococcus aureus in the early course of the disease and Pseudomonas aeruginosa at a later stage. Macrolide antibiotics, e.g. azithromycin and clarithromycin, are usually taken orally, have a broad spectrum of action against gram-positive (e.g. S aureus) and some gram-negative bacteria (e.g. Haemophilus influenzae), and may have a modifying role in diseases involving airway infection and inflammation such as CF. They are well-tolerated and relatively inexpensive, but widespread use has resulted in the emergence of resistant bacteria. This is an updated review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential effects of macrolide antibiotics on clinical status in terms of benefit and harm in people with CF. If benefit was demonstrated, we aimed to assess the optimal type, dose and duration of macrolide therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals, and abstract books of conference proceedings. We last searched the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register on 2 November 2022. We last searched the trial registries WHO ICTRP and clinicaltrials.gov on 9 November 2022. We contacted investigators known to work in the field, previous authors and pharmaceutical companies manufacturing macrolide antibiotics for unpublished or follow-up data, where possible. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of macrolide antibiotics in adults and children with CF. We compared them to: placebo; another class of antibiotic; another macrolide antibiotic; or the same macrolide antibiotic at a different dose or type of administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies (1467 participants) lasting 28 days to 36 months. All the studies assessed azithromycin: 11 compared oral azithromycin to placebo (1167 participants); one compared a high dose to a low dose (47 participants); one compared nebulised to oral azithromycin (45 participants); and one looked at weekly versus daily dose (208 participants). Oral azithromycin versus placebo There is a slight improvement in forced expiratory volume (FEV1 % predicted) in one second in the azithromycin group at up to six months compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) 3.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74 to 6.19; high-certainty evidence), although there is probably no difference at three months, (MD 2.70%, 95% CI -0.12 to 5.52), or 12 months (MD -0.13, 95% CI -4.96 to 4.70). Participants in the azithromycin group are probably at a decreased risk of pulmonary exacerbation with a longer time to exacerbation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.75; moderate-certainty evidence). Mild side effects were common, but there was no difference between groups (moderate-certainty evidence). There is no difference in hospital admissions at six months (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.04; high-certainty evidence), or in new acquisition of P aeruginosa at 12 months (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.55; moderate-certainty evidence). High-dose versus low-dose azithromycin We are uncertain whether there is any difference in FEV1 % predicted at six months between the two groups (no data available) or in the rate of exacerbations per child per month (MD -0.05 (95% CI -0.20 to 0.10)); very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes. Only children were included in the study and the study did not report on any of our other clinically important outcomes. Nebulised azithromycin versus oral azithromycin We were unable to include any of the data into our analyses and have reported findings directly from the paper; we graded all evidence as being of very low certainty. The authors reported that there was a greater mean change in FEV1 % predicted at one month in the nebulised azithromycin group (P < 0.001). We are uncertain whether there was a change in P aeruginosa count. Weekly azithromycin versus daily azithromycin There is probably a lower mean change in FEV1 % predicted at six months in the weekly group compared to the daily group (MD -0.70, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.45) and probably also a longer period of time until first exacerbation in the weekly group (MD 17.30 days, 95% CI 4.32 days to 30.28 days). Gastrointestinal side effects are probably more common in the weekly group and there is likely no difference in admissions to hospital or QoL. We graded all evidence as moderate certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Azithromycin therapy is associated with a small but consistent improvement in respiratory function, a decreased risk of exacerbation and longer time to exacerbation at six months; but evidence for treatment efficacy beyond six months remains limited. Azithromycin appears to have a good safety profile (although a weekly dose was associated with more gastrointestinal side effects, which makes it less acceptable for long-term therapy), with a relatively minimal treatment burden for people with CF, and it is inexpensive. A wider concern may be the emergence of macrolide resistance reported in the most recent study which, combined with the lack of long-term data, means we do not feel that the current evidence is strong enough to support azithromycin therapy for all people with CF. Future research should report over longer time frames using validated tools and consistent reporting, to allow for easier synthesis of data. In particular, future trials should report important adverse events such as hearing impairment or liver disease. More data on the effects of azithromycin given in different ways and reporting on our primary outcomes would benefit decision-making on whether and how to give macrolide antibiotics. Finally, it is important to assess azithromycin therapy for people with CF who are established on the relatively new cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapies which correct the underlying molecular defect associated with CF (none of the trials included in the review are relevant to this population).

Single-dose azithromycin for infant growth in Burkina Faso: Prespecified secondary anthropometric outcomes from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic use during early infancy has been linked to childhood obesity in high-income countries. We evaluated whether a single oral dose of azithromycin administered during infant-well visits led to changes in infant growth outcomes at 6 months of age in a setting with a high prevalence of undernutrition in rural Burkina Faso. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Infants were enrolled from September 25, 2019, until October 22, 2022, in a randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of a single oral dose of azithromycin (20 mg/kg) compared to placebo when administered during well-child visits for prevention of infant mortality. The trial found no evidence of a difference in the primary endpoint. This paper presents prespecified secondary anthropometric endpoints including weight gain (g/day), height change (mm/day), weight-for-age Z-score (WAZ), weight-for-length Z-score (WLZ), length-for-age Z-score (LAZ), and mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC). Infants were eligible for the trial if they were between 5 and 12 weeks of age, able to orally feed, and their families were planning to remain in the study area for the duration of the study. Anthropometric measurements were collected at enrollment (5 to 12 weeks of age) and 6 months of age. Among 32,877 infants enrolled in the trial, 27,298 (83%) were followed and had valid anthropometric measurements at 6 months of age. We found no evidence of a difference in weight gain (mean difference 0.03 g/day, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to 0.18), height change (mean difference 0.004 mm/day, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.06), WAZ (mean difference -0.004 SD, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02), WLZ (mean difference 0.001 SD, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), LAZ (mean difference -0.005 SD, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02), or MUAC (mean difference 0.01 cm, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.04). The primary limitation of the trial was that measurements were only collected at enrollment and 6 months of age, precluding assessment of shorter-term or long-term changes in growth. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose azithromycin does not appear to affect weight and height outcomes when administered during early infancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03676764.

Long-Term Safety Profiles of Macrolides and Tetracyclines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Macrolides and tetracyclines are antibiotics that have a range of anti-inflammatory properties beyond their microbial capabilities. Although these antibiotics have been in widespread use, the long-term safety profiles are limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that compared macrolides or tetracyclines with placeboes to provide long-term safety information. We searched Medline and EMBASE from inception to October 2022 and identified studies that reported study drug-related death, serious adverse events (SAEs), or withdrawal rates, and common adverse effects of each drug. Relative risk (RR) and number needed to harm were calculated. Of the 52 randomized clinical trials included, there are 3151 participants on doxycycline, 2519 participants on minocycline, 3049 participants on azithromycin, 763 participants on clarithromycin, 262 participants on erythromycin, and 100 participants on roxithromycin. There was no death related to any study drugs and rates of SAE were not significantly different from placebo in any drug. Overall withdrawal rates were slightly higher than placebo in doxycycline (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.12-1.52) and minocycline (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.46). Withdrawal rates due to adverse events were higher in doxycycline (RR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.88-4.22), minocycline (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-1.98), and azithromycin (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.13-2.08). Gastrointestinal disturbances are the most common tolerable adverse effects for every drug. Photosensitivity and rash are the second most common adverse effects for doxycycline and minocycline. We found no evidence that long-term use up to 2 years of macrolides or tetracyclines was associated with increased risk of SAEs.

Systemic azithromycin versus amoxicillin/metronidazole as an adjunct in the treatment of periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of systemic azithromycin (AZT) and amoxicillin/metronidazole (AMX/MTZ) as adjuncts provided additional clinical and microbiological benefits over subgingival instrumentation alone. However, the superiority of one antibiotic regimen over another has not been proven. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of subgingival instrumentation (SI) in conjunction with the systemic use of AZT or AMX/MTZ for the treatment of periodontitis from current published literature. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, prospective and retrospective human studies that compared the adjunctive use of systemic AZT to AMX/MTZ with SI in the treatment of periodontitis. The eligibility criteria were defined based on the participant (who had periodontitis), intervention (SI with adjunctive use of systemic AZT), comparison (SI with adjunctive use of systemic AMX/MTZ), outcomes (primary outcome: changes in probing pocket). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. Data were analysed using a statistical software program. RESULTS: Five studies with 151 participants with periodontitis were included in the present review. Of these, 74 participants received adjunctive AZT, while the remaining participants received AMX/MTZ as an adjunct to SI. The adjunctive use of AZT and AMX/MTZ had comparable changes in probing pocket depths at 1-3 months with no statistically significant difference (mean difference (MD) 0.01; 95% CI -0.20 to 0.22; P = 0.94). The adjunctive use of AZT had significantly fewer number of residual sites with probing pocket depths of ≥5 mm at 1-3 months compared to the adjunctive use of AMX/MTZ (MD -3.41; 95% CI -4.73 to -2.10; P < 0.0001). The prevalence rates of adverse events among participants who received AZT and AMX/MTZ were 9.80% and 14.8%, respectively. The meta-analysis showed that the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (risk ratio 0.69; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.72; P = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of this review, there was no superiority between AZT and AMX/MTZ in terms of mean changes in probing pocket depths, clinical attachment level, bleeding on probing at 1-3 months. AZT seem to be associated with less sites with residual probing pocket depths of ≥5 mm at 1-3 months and fewer adverse events compared with AMX/MTZ. © 2023 Australian Dental Association.

Latency Antibiotics in Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: A Comparison of Azithromycin Regimens.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with antibiotics at the time of preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM) has been shown to prolong pregnancy. Due to the recurrent shortage of erythromycin, azithromycin has been substituted in the traditional regimen; however, there are little data on optimal dosing. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in latency from onset of PPROM to delivery in patients who received a single dose of azithromycin compared with a 5-day course. METHODS: This was a single-center, multisite, retrospective, IRB approved analysis of patients admitted with a diagnosis of PPROM. Patients were included if rupture occurred between 22 0/7 and 33 6/7 weeks of gestation and received either a single dose or a 5-day course of azithromycin along with a beta lactam. RESULTS: A total of 376 patients were reviewed with 296 patients included in the final analysis. There was no statistical difference in the primary outcome of latency days in patients who received the 5-day versus the single-dose course (4 vs 5 days, P = 0.641). There was a significantly higher rate of histologic chorioamnionitis in the single-dose course of azithromycin (46.4% vs 62.6%, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There was no difference in latency for patients who received a 5-day course of azithromycin versus a single dose for the treatment of PPROM. A higher rate of histologic chorioamnionitis was observed in those who received the single-day course. Prospective follow-up studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Cardiovascular Safety of Azithromycin in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Prespecified Pooled Analysis of the COALITION I and COALITION II Randomized Clinical Trials.

The cardiovascular safety from azithromycin in the treatment of several infectious diseases has been challenged. In this prespecified pooled analysis of 2 multicenter randomized clinical trials, we aimed to assess whether the use of azithromycin might lead to corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation or clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias. In the COALITION COVID Brazil I trial, 667 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, or standard of care. In the COALITION COVID Brazil II trial, 447 patients with severe COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine alone versus hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin. The principal end point for the present analysis was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ventricular arrhythmias. The addition of azithromycin to hydroxychloroquine did not result in any prolongation of the QTc interval (425.8 ± 3.6 ms vs 427.9 ± 3.9 ms, respectively, mean difference -2.1 ms, 95% confidence interval -12.5 to 8.4 ms, p = 0.70). The combination of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine compared with hydroxychloroquine alone did not result in increased risk of the primary end point (proportion of patients with events at 15 days 17.2% vs 16.0%, respectively, hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.49, p = 0.65). In conclusion, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 already receiving standard-of-care management (including hydroxychloroquine), the addition of azithromycin did not result in the prolongation of the QTc interval or increase in cardiovascular adverse events. Because azithromycin is among the most commonly prescribed antimicrobial agents, our results may inform clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04322123, NCT04321278.

Safety profiles and adverse reactions of azithromycin in the treatment of pediatric respiratory diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Azithromycin (AZM) is an antimicrobial agent and frequently used in the treatment of pediatric respiratory diseases due to its well-recognized clinical efficacy. Despite some favorable findings from many studies, there is a lack of research reports focusing on the safety profiles and adverse reactions. METHODS: The randomized controlled trials of AZM in the treatment of pediatric respiratory diseases on internet databases were searched. The search databases included Chinese CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Two researchers of this study independently assessed the eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted the data. The included literature was meta-analyzed and subgroup analyzed by revman 5.1 software. RESULTS: A total of 14 eligible studies were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the incidence of adverse reactions after AZM treatment was 24.20%, which was lower than 48.05% in the control group (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.12-0.72, P < .001). In the subgroup of sequential therapy, AZM had a lower incidence of adverse reactions in sequential therapy (OR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.09-0.60, P < .001). In the subgroup of intravenous administration, AZM had a lower the incidence of adverse reactions (OR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.12-0.84, P = .003). In the subgroup of oral administration, AZM had a lower the incidence of adverse reactions (OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.13-0.69 P < .001). Overall, it was also found that the incidence of adverse reactions in the AZM subgroup was significantly lower than that in other treatment subgroup. CONCLUSION: AZM has fewer adverse reactions and better safety profiles, which make AZM a more attractive option in the treatment of pediatric respiratory diseases.

Doxycycline vs azithromycin in patients with scrub typhus: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Scrub typhus is a bacterial mite-borne disease associated with poor clinical outcomes if not treated adequately. The study aimed to compare the time to defervescence, clinical failure, mortality and treatment-related adverse effects of two common drugs (doxycycline and azithromycin) used for its treatment. METHODOLOGY: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. All studies up to 20.03.2023 were screened for eligibility in Pubmed and Embase using a search string containing terms related to scrub typhus, doxycycline and azithromycin. After two phases of screening, all comparative studies where doxycycline and azithromycin were used to treat scrub typhus were included. The studies were critically appraised using standardised tools, and a meta-analysis was performed for time to defervescence (primary outcome), clinical failure, mortality and treatment-related adverse effects. RESULTS: Of 744 articles from two databases, ten were included in the meta-analysis. All but two studies had a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis for time to defervescence had a high heterogeneity and did not show any significant difference between doxycycline and azithromycin arms [Mean difference of -3.37 hours (95%CI: -10.31 to 3.57), p=0.34]. When the analysis was restricted to studies that included only severe scrub typhus, doxycycline was found to have a shorter time to defervescence [mean difference of -10.15 (95%CI: -19.83 to -0.46) hours, p=0.04]. Additionally, there was no difference between the two arms concerning clinical failure, mortality and treatment-related adverse effects. CONCLUSION: The current data from studies with a high risk of bias did not find statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes between doxycycline and azithromycin for scrub typhus.

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although their effectiveness increases in people with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated. This is an update of a review first published in 2010, and updated in 2013, 2016, and 2021. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing clinical relapse (i.e. recurrence of symptoms after initial resolution); and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2023, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Elsevier, and Web of Science (Clarivate) up to 19 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics, and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, or complications and/or adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias in the included studies according to the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes. We reported the intention-to-treat analysis, and also performed an analysis of evaluable participants to explore the robustness of the intention-to-treat results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 trials reported in 18 publications (5839 randomised participants): six trials compared penicillin with cephalosporins; six compared penicillin with macrolides; three compared penicillin with carbacephem; one compared penicillin with sulphonamides; one compared clindamycin with ampicillin; and one compared azithromycin with amoxicillin in children. All participants had confirmed acute GABHS tonsillopharyngitis, and ages ranged from one month to 80 years. Nine trials included only, or predominantly, children. Most trials were conducted in an outpatient setting. Reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding was poor in all trials. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to lack of (or poor reporting of) randomisation or blinding, or both, heterogeneity, and wide confidence intervals. Cephalosporins versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference in symptom resolution (at 2 to 15 days) for cephalosporins versus penicillin (odds ratio (OR) for absence of symptom resolution 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12; 5 trials, 2018 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results of the sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants differed (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 5 trials, 1660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Based on an analysis of evaluable participants, we are uncertain if clinical relapse may be lower for cephalosporins compared with penicillin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; 4 trials, 1386 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence showed no difference in reported adverse events. Macrolides versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference between macrolides and penicillin for resolution of symptoms (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; 6 trials, 1728 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants resulted in an OR of 0.79 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.09; 6 trials, 1159 participants). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be different (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.03; 6 trials, 802 participants; low-certainty evidence). Children treated with macrolides seemed to experience more adverse events than those treated with penicillin (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.15; 1 trial, 489 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the test for subgroup differences between children and adults was not significant. Azithromycin versus amoxicillin Based on one unpublished trial in children, we are uncertain if resolution of symptoms is better with azithromycin in a single dose versus amoxicillin for 10 days (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; 1 trial, 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis for per-protocol analysis resulted in an OR of 0.29 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; 1 trial, 482 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain if there was a difference in relapse between groups (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82; 1 trial, 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were more common with azithromycin compared to amoxicillin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.99; 1 trial, 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Carbacephem versus penicillin There is low-certainty evidence that compared with penicillin, carbacephem may provide better symptom resolution post-treatment in adults and children (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14.3; 3 trials, 795 participants). Studies did not report on long-term complications, so it was unclear if any class of antibiotics was better at preventing serious but rare complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if there are clinically relevant differences in symptom resolution when comparing cephalosporins and macrolides with penicillin in the treatment of GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Low-certainty evidence in children suggests that carbacephem may be more effective than penicillin for symptom resolution. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the other comparisons in this review. Data on complications were too scarce to draw conclusions. Antibiotics have a limited effect in the treatment of GABHS pharyngitis and the results do not demonstrate that other antibiotics are more effective than penicillin. In the context of antimicrobial stewardship, penicillin can be used if treatment with an antibiotic is indicated. All studies were conducted in high-income countries with a low risk of streptococcal complications, so there is a need for trials in low-income countries and disadvantaged populations, where the risk of complications remains high.

Azithromycin Treatment for Acne Vulgaris: A Case Report on the Risk of Clostridioides difficile Infection.

BACKGROUND Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) is a gram-positive, anaerobic, spore-forming bacillus. It can lead to pseudomembranous colitis characterized by electrolyte disturbances, toxic megacolon, and septic shock. The risk of C. difficile infection is higher with use of certain classes of antibiotics, or when an antibiotic used for a long time. Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic known to be safe, with few adverse effects such as diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. Azithromycin is currently used for the treatment of acne, with different dosing regimens for patients who cannot receive traditional treatment based on practice guidelines. CASE REPORT A 41-year-old woman was treated with a course of azithromycin 500 mg by mouth 3 times weekly for 6 weeks for acne vulgaris. This was her second antibiotic course of acne treatment within 10 months. A few days after completion of the second azithromycin course, she presented to the clinic with worsening abdominal pain and frequent soft bloody stool. A complete blood count test, C. difficile toxin test, stool culture, and colonoscopy were ordered. She was diagnosed with C. difficile infection confirmed by C. difficile toxin and symptoms. CONCLUSIONS Despite the safety profile of azithromycin, our patient was predisposed to a non-severe case of C. difficile-associated diarrhea, most likely due to the repeated course of the azithromycin regimen that was used to treat her acne vulgaris. This report highlights the importance of managing patients with acne vulgaris according to current practice guidelines, and to report a link between the use of azithromycin as an acne treatment and the occurrence of C. difficile colitis.

ß-Lactams plus doxycycline versus azithromycin for treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVES: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a significant source of hospital admissions and mortality. Atypical organisms are implicated in up to 40% of cases of CAP diagnoses. We studied the difference in outcomes of severe CAP patients treated with doxycycline versus azithromycin in addition to ß-lactam therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study from March 2020 to July 2022 in a medical ICU (MICU) of an academic quaternary medical center. Adults ≥18 years admitted to the MICU receiving doxycycline or azithromycin in addition to ß-lactam therapy for the treatment of CAP were included for analysis. The primary outcomes were in-hospital and 30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital length-of-stay, 30 day readmission, days of mechanical ventilation, escalation and duration of antibiotics, adverse effects such as Clostridioides difficile infection and QTc prolongation. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were in the azithromycin group and eighty-six patients in the doxycycline group. Both groups had similar APACHE IV and CURB-65 scores. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score was higher for the doxycycline group compared with the azithromycin group (P = 0.04). There was no statistically significant difference in in-hospital and 30 day mortality between the groups (P = 0.53, P = 0.57). There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: MICU patients with severe CAP who received doxycycline versus azithromycin in addition to ß-lactam treatment showed no significant differences in outcomes. These data offer support for inclusion of doxycycline as an alternative regimen in current IDSA recommendations.

The possible effect of topically applied azithromycin and moxifloxacin on the alleviation of uveitis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the inhibitory effect of topically administered azithromycin (AZM), and moxifloxacin (MXF) against tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) production in a rat model of endotoxin-induced uveitis (EIU). METHODS: Thirty-six Wistar albino rats were divided into 6 equal groups. Groups 1, 2 and 3 were determined as sham, control group for topical AZM application and control group for topical MXF application, respectively. Sterile saline, topical AZM 1.5%, and topical MXF 0.5% were instilled 5 times daily for totally 6 days on both eyes of the rats in Group 4, Group 5, and Group 6, before and after inducing EIU by intravitreal injections of lipopolysaccharide, respectively. At 24 h after intravitreal injections, aqueous humor was collected from both eyes of each rat for the assessment of TNF-α concentration. Also, density of nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) in ciliary body, and the number of cells infiltrating the posterior segment of EIU rat eyes was assessed in one eye of each rat. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in mean aqueous humor concentration of TNF-α in EIU rats pretreated with topical AZM in comparison with those pretreated with sterile saline (139 ± 38.6 in Group 4 vs. 72 ± 12.6 in Group 5, p = 0.006). There was also a marked decrease in mean aqueous humor concentration of TNF-α in EIU rats pretreated with topical MXF (139 ± 38.6 in Group 4 vs.86.1 ± 35.5 in Group 6, p = 0.025). Also, evident suppressions were determined in mean density of NF-κB, and in mean number of cells in EIU rats pretreated either with topical AZM, or topical MXF. CONCLUSIONS: Topically applied AZM or MXF may be beneficial in the suppression of TNF-α production in aqueous humor.

Relationship Between Azithromycin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Unvaccinated Patients With COVID-19 and Preexisting Cardiovascular Disease.

Background Empiric antimicrobial therapy with azithromycin is highly used in patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19, despite prior research suggesting that azithromycin may be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events. Methods and Results This study was conducted using data from the ISACS-COVID-19 (International Survey of Acute Coronavirus Syndromes-COVID-19) registry. Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection were eligible for inclusion. The study included 793 patients exposed to azithromycin within 24 hours from hospital admission and 2141 patients who received only standard care. The primary exposure was cardiovascular disease (CVD). Main outcome measures were 30-day mortality and acute heart failure (AHF). Among 2934 patients, 1066 (36.4%) had preexisting CVD. A total of 617 (21.0%) died, and 253 (8.6%) had AHF. Azithromycin therapy was consistently associated with an increased risk of AHF in patients with preexisting CVD (risk ratio [RR], 1.48 [95% CI, 1.06-2.06]). Receiving azithromycin versus standard care was not significantly associated with death (RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.69-1.28]). By contrast, we found significantly reduced odds of death (RR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.42-0.79]) and no significant increase in AHF (RR, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.75-2.04]) in patients without prior CVD. The relative risks of death from the 2 subgroups were significantly different from each other (Pinteraction=0.01). Statistically significant association was observed between AHF and death (odds ratio, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.34-3.90]). Conclusions These findings suggest that azithromycin use in patients with COVID-19 and prior history of CVD is significantly associated with an increased risk of AHF and all-cause 30-day mortality. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05188612.

Value of the Lymphocyte Transformation Test for the Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Hypersensitivity Reactions in Hospitalized Patients with Severe COVID-19.

In the first wave of COVID-19, up to 20% of patients had skin lesions with variable characteristics. There is no clear evidence of the involvement of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in all cases; some of these lesions may be secondary to drug hypersensitivity. To analyze the possible cause of the skin lesions, we performed a complete allergology study on 11 patients. One year after recovery from COVID-19, we performed a lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) and Th1/Th2 cytokine secretion assays for PBMCs. We included five nonallergic patients treated with the same drugs without lesions. Except for one patient who had an immediate reaction to azithromycin, all patients had a positive LTT result for at least one of the drugs tested (azithromycin, clavulanic acid, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and ritonavir). None of the nonallergic patients had a positive LTT result. We found mixed Th1/Th2 cytokine secretion (IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and IFN-γ) in patients with skin lesions corresponding to mixed drug hypersensitivity type IVa and IVb. In all cases, we identified a candidate drug as the culprit for skin lesions during SARS-CoV-2 infection, although only three patients had a positive drug challenge. Therefore, it would be reasonable to recommend avoiding the drug in question in all cases.