Safety of an oral combination of moxidectin, afoxolaner, and pyrantel pamoate in dogs.

NexGard®PLUS (moxidectin, afoxolaner, and pyrantel pamoate), is an oral combination product for dogs indicated for the prevention of heartworm disease, the treatment and prevention of flea and tick infestations, and the treatment of gastro-intestinal nematode infections. The safety of this product in dogs was evaluated in three studies. Study #1 was a margin-of-safety study conducted in puppies, dosed six times at 28-day intervals at 1X, 3X, or 5X multiples of the maximum exposure dose (equivalent to 24 µg/kg moxidectin, 5 mg/kg afoxolaner, and 10 mg/kg pyrantel). In Study #2, the product was administered to ABCB1-deficient collie dogs at a 1X dose twice at a 28-day interval, and at a 3X or 5X dose once. Study #3 evaluated the safety of the product at 1X and 3X doses administered three times at 4-week intervals, to dogs harboring adult Dirofilaria immitis. In the three studies, the safety was evaluated on the basis of multiple clinical observations and physical examinations, including a complete assessment of toxicity to macrocyclic lactones, and on comprehensive clinical and anatomical pathology evaluations in Study #1. No clinically significant combination product-related effects were observed in any of the three studies. No signs of macrocyclic lactone toxicity were observed in the ABCB1-deficient collie dogs. Some mild and self-resolving instances of emesis or diarrhea were occasionally observed in the 3X and 5X dosed dogs. NexGard® PLUS was demonstrated to be safe following multiple administrations in puppies, in ABCB1-deficient collie dogs, and in microfilaremic dogs infected with adult D. immitis.

Inadvertent antibiotic exposure during pregnancy may increase the risk for neural tube defects in offspring.

BACKGROUND: As emerging environmental contaminants, antibiotics pose potential threats to human health, in particular to pregnant women and infants. However, the potential harm of inadvertent antibiotic exposure (IAE) is often disregarded in light of the focus on intentional antibiotic use during pregnancy. Currently, little is known about the effects of IAE during pregnancy on fetal neural tube development. METHODS: In this case-control study, we used questionnaire data from 855 subjects to investigate the effects of intentional antibiotic use in early pregnancy on neural tube defects (NTDs). Then we tested for placental antibiotics in mothers who had not intentionally used antibiotics, and the compounds were detected in 379 subjects; these were considered IAE cases. We assessed the association between IAE during pregnancy and fetal NTDs using both multivariable logistic and multi-pollutant exposure models. We also analyzed the correlation between maternal dietary habits and placental antibiotics to explore possible sources of IAE. RESULTS: Only 50 of 855 participants (5.8%) intentionally used antibiotics and such use showed no significant association with NTD risk (odds ratio [OR] = 1.92, confidence interval [95%CI] = [0.66, 5.59]). However, 14 of 15 placental antibiotics were detected in 378 of 379 subjects (99.7%) and multivariable logistic analysis indicated that high levels of placental macrolides were significantly associated with increased NTD risk (4.42 [2.01-10.45]). Multi-pollutant exposure analysis suggested an increase in NTD risk with an increase in exposure to a mixture of placental antibiotics, among which macrolides were the most important contributor. In addition, the level of placental macrolides was positively correlated with the intake frequency of milk. Finally, mothers who drank river, well, or pond water had higher levels of placental macrolides than those who drank only tap water. CONCLUSIONS: Intentional antibiotic use during early pregnancy may not be associated with NTDs, while IAE during pregnancy is associated with higher NTD risk in offspring. Macrolides are crucial risk factors. Milk, and river, well, or pond water may be important sources of IAE.

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).

Analysis of the effectiveness of combination antimicrobial therapy for Legionnaires' disease: A nationwide inpatient database study.

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of monotherapy and combination therapy with quinolones and macrolides for treating Legionnaires' disease remains uncertain; this study aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of three treatment approaches. METHODS: Using a nationwide inpatient database, we analyzed 3560 eligible patients hospitalized for Legionnaires' disease between April 1, 2014, and March 31, 2021; patients were divided into combination therapy, quinolone monotherapy, and macrolide monotherapy groups according to the antibiotics administered within 2 days of admission. We compared in-hospital mortality, total hospitalization costs, and length of stay across these groups using multiple propensity score analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Of the 3560 patients, there were 564 (15.8%), 2221 (62.4%), and 775 (21.8%) patients in the combination therapy, quinolone monotherapy, and macrolide monotherapy groups, respectively. No significant differences were observed in in-hospital mortality between combination therapy and quinolone monotherapy groups, and between combination therapy and macrolide monotherapy groups. There were no significant differences in total hospitalization costs or length of stay among the three groups. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that there may not be a significant advantage in using a combination of quinolones and macrolides over monotherapy for the treatment of Legionnaires' disease. Given the potential for increased side effects, careful consideration is advised when choosing this combination therapy.

Comparison of Empiric Antibiotic Treatment Regimens for Hospitalized, Non-severe Community-acquired Pneumonia: A Retrospective, Multicenter Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Consensus guidelines for hospitalized, non-severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) recommend empiric macrolide + ß-lactam or respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy in patients with no risk factors for resistant organisms. In patients with allergies or contraindications, doxycycline + ß-lactam is a recommended alternative. The purpose of this study was to compare differences in outcomes among guideline-recommended regimens in this population. METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included patients ≥18 years of age with CAP who received respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy, empiric macrolide + ß-lactam, or doxycycline + ß-lactam. Major exclusion criteria included patients with immunocompromising conditions, requiring vasopressors or invasive mechanical ventilation within 48 hours of admission, and receiving less than 2 days of total antibiotic therapy. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included clinical failure, 14- and 30-day hospital readmission, and hospital length of stay. Safety outcomes included incidence of new Clostridioides difficile infection and aortic aneurysm ruptures. FINDINGS: Of 4685 included patients, 1722 patients received empiric respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy, 159 received empiric doxycycline + ß-lactam, and 2804 received empiric macrolide + ß-lactam. Incidence of in-hospital mortality was not observed to be significantly different among empiric regimens (doxycycline + ß-lactam group: 1.9% vs macrolide + ß-lactam: 1.9% vs respiratory fluoroquinolone monotherapy: 1.5%, P = 0.588). No secondary outcomes were observed to differ significantly among groups. IMPLICATIONS: We observed no differences in clinical or safety outcomes among three guideline-recommended empiric CAP regimens. Empiric doxycycline + ß-lactam may be a safe empiric regimen for hospitalized CAP patients with non-severe CAP, although additional research is needed to corroborate these observations with larger samples.

Efficacy and safety of macrolide therapy for adult asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for macrolide therapy in adult asthma is not properly established and remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of macrolide therapy for adult asthma. METHODS: We searched randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE via the PubMed, CENTRAL, and Ichushi Web databases. The primary outcome was asthma exacerbation. The secondary outcomes were serious adverse events (including mortality), asthma-related quality of life (symptom scales, Asthma Control Questionnaire, and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire), rescue medication (puffs/day), respiratory function (morning peak expiratory flow, evening peak flow, and forced expiratory volume in 1 s), bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and minimum oral corticosteroid dose. Of the 805 studies, we selected seven studies for the meta-analysis, which was conducted using a random-effects model. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000050824). RESULTS: No significant difference between macrolide and placebo for asthma exacerbations was observed (risk ratio 0.71, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.46-1.09; p = 0.12). Macrolide therapy for adult asthma showed a significant improvement in rescue medication with short-acting beta-agonists (mean difference -0.41, 95 % CI -0.78 to -0.04; p = 0.03). Macrolide therapy did not show more serious adverse events (odd ratio 0.61, 95 % CI 0.34-1.10; p = 0.10) than those with placebo. The other secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the macrolide and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Macrolide therapy for adult asthma may be more effective than placebo and could be a treatment option.

Increased risk of hearing loss associated with macrolide use: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The increased risk of hearing loss with macrolides remains controversial. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze data on the clinical risk of hearing loss, tinnitus, and ototoxicity following macrolide use. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase databases from database inception to May 2023. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and text keywords were utilized, without any language restrictions. In addition to the electronic databases, two authors manually and independently searched for relevant studies in the US and European clinical trial registries and Google Scholar. Studies that involved (1) patients who had hearing loss, tinnitus, or ototoxicity after macrolide use, (2) intervention of use of macrolides such as azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, fidaxomicin, roxithromycin, spiramycin, and/or telithromycin, (3) comparisons with specified placebos or other antibiotics, (4) outcomes measured as odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), hazard ratio (HR), and mean difference for ototoxicity symptoms using randomized control trial (RCT)s and observational studies (case-control, cross-section, and cohort studies) were included. Data extraction was performed independently by two extractors, and a crosscheck was performed to identify any errors. ORs along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random-effects models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guidelines for RCTs and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines for observational studies were followed. We assessed the hearing loss risk after macrolide use versus controls (placebos and other antibiotics). Based on data from 13 studies including 1,142,021 patients (n = 267,546 for macrolide and n = 875,089 for controls), the overall pooled OR was 1.25 (95% CI 1.07-1.47). In subgroup analysis by study design, the ORs were 1.37 (95% CI 1.08-1.73) for RCTs and 1.33 (95% CI 1.24-1.43) for case-control studies, indicating that RCT and case-control study designs showed a statistically significant higher risk of hearing loss. The group with underlying diseases such as multiple infectious etiologies (OR, 1.16 [95% CI 0.96-1.41]) had a statistically significant lower risk than the group without (OR, 1.53 [95% CI 1.38-1.70] P = .013). The findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that macrolide antibiotics increase the risk of hearing loss and that healthcare professionals should carefully consider this factor while prescribing macrolides.

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 antibiotic treatment for meibomian gland dysfunction-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To review the efficacy and safety of oral doxycycline antibiotics versus macrolides in the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of electronic databases for all peer-reviewed published studies which included clinical outcomes of oral antibiotic MGD treatment. Individual study data were extracted and evaluated in a weighted pooled analysis, including total sign and symptom scores, meibomian gland secretion score, tear break-up time (TBUT), fluorescein staining score and rate of complications. RESULTS: Two thousand nine hundred and thirty-three studies were found, of which 54 were eligible for the systematic review, and six prospective studies were ultimately included for analysis, reporting on 563 cases from three countries. Age of affected patients ranged between 12 and 90 years. Overall, both treatment methods induced improvement in MGD signs and symptoms. In pooled analysis, macrolides were significantly superior in the total signs score (pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.99 to -0.03), meibomian gland secretion score (pooled SMD -0.25, 95%CI: [-0.48, -0.03]), TBUT (SMD -0.31, 95%CI: [-0.50, -0.13]) and fluorescein staining score (SMD -1.01, 95%CI: [-1.72, -0.29]). Moreover, while no severe complications were reported for both treatments, the macrolide group exhibited significantly less adverse events (pooled odds ratio 0.24 with a 95% CI of 0.16 to 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Both macrolides and tetracyclines are effective treatments for MGD. In this study, macrolides exhibited better efficacy and safety profile compared to tetracyclines.

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.

Oral fluoroquinolones and risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection: A nationwide population-based propensity score-matched cohort study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection in patients using oral fluoroquinolones compared to those using macrolides in real-world clinical practice among a large US general population. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study design. DATA SOURCE: MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental databases. PATIENTS: Adults patients with at least one prescription fill for fluoroquinolone or macrolide antibiotics. INTERVENTION: Fluoroquinolone or macrolide antibiotics. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was estimated incidence of aortic aneurysm or dissection associated with the use of fluoroquinolones compared with macrolides during a 60-day follow-up period in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort. We identified 3,174,620 patients (1,587,310 in each group) after 1:1 propensity score matching. Crude incidence of aortic aneurysm or dissection was 1.9 cases per 1000 person-years among fluoroquinolone users and 1.2 cases per 1000 person-years among macrolide users. In multivariable Cox regression, compared with macrolides, the use of fluoroquinolones was associated with an increased risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection (aHR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.17-1.54). The association was primarily driven by a high incidence of aortic aneurysm cases (95.8%). Results of sensitivity (e.g., fluoroquinolone exposure ranging from 7 to 14 days (aHR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.26-1.71)) and subgroup analyses (e.g., ciprofloxacin (aHR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.07-1.49) and levofloxacin (aHR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.19-1.52)) remained consistent with main findings. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroquinolone use was associated with a 34% increased risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection compared with macrolide use among a general US population.

Epidemiology and prevalence of mutations associated with resistance to macrolides and fluoroquinolones in Mycoplasma genitalium in a tertiary hospital from Madrid, Spain / Epidemiología y prevalencia de mutaciones asociadas a la resistencia a macrólidos y fluoroquinolonas en Mycoplasma genitalium en un hospital terciario de Madrid, España

Objectives: Mycoplasma genitalium causes persistent sexually transmitted infections. The aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of resistances to macrolides and fluoroquinolones in M. genitalium and the sexually transmitted coinfections in patients at Hospital Universitario La Paz (Madrid, Spain). Material and methods: Patients attended between January and October 2021 were studied. Screening for sexually transmitted pathogens and detection of 23S rRNA and parC genes mutations were performed by real-time PCR (Allplex,SeegeneTM). Results: A total of 1,518 females and 1,136 males were studied. The prevalence of M. genitalium was 2.1%. The macrolides resistance rate was 51.8%. The mutations found were A2059G, A2058T and A2058G. The rate of resistance to fluoroquinolones was 17.8% being the G248T mutation (S83I) the most frequent. Seven males had some sexual transmitted coinfection. Conclusions: Although the percentage of M. genitalium infections is low, the high rate of resistance to macrolides makes it necessary to revise the protocols for diagnosis and empirical treatment of sexually transmitted infections. The use of fluoroquinolones is appropriate after screening of macrolide resistance profile. (AU)

Objetivos: Mycoplasma genitalium causa infecciones de transmisión sexual persistentes. Los objetivos de este trabajo fueron estimar la prevalencia de resistencias a macrólidos y fluoroquinolonas en M. genitalium así como las coinfecciones de transmisión sexual en pacientes del Hospital Universitario La Paz (Madrid, España). Material y métodos: Se estudiaron pacientes atendidos entre enero y octubre de 2021. El cribado de patógenos de transmisión sexual y la detección de mutaciones de los genes ARNr 23S y parC se realizaron por PCR en tiempo real (Allplex, SeegeneTM). Resultados: Se estudiaron 1.518 mujeres y 1.136 hombres. La prevalencia de M. genitalium fue del 2,1%. La tasa de resistencia a macrólidos fue del 51.8%. Las mutaciones encontradas fueron A2059G, A2058T y A2058G. La tasa de resistencias a fluoroquinolonas fue del 17.8% siendo la mutación G248T (S83I) la más frecuente. Siete hombres presentaron alguna coinfección de transmisión sexual. Conclusiones: Aunque el porcentaje de infecciones por M. genitalium es bajo, la elevada tasa de resistencias frente a macrólidos hace necesario modificar los protocolos de diagnóstico y tratamiento empírico de las infecciones de transmisión sexual. El uso de fluoroquinolonas es adecuado tras testar previamente el perfil de resistencia a macrólidos. (AU)

Efficacy and safety of macrolides in the treatment of children with bronchiectasis: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study summarized the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy and safety of macrolides on pathogens, lung function, laboratory parameters, and safety in children with bronchiectasis. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for available papers published up to June 2021. The outcomes were the pathogens, adverse events (AEs), and the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1%) predicted. RESULTS: Seven RCTs (633 participants) were included. The long-term use of macrolides reduced the risk of the presence of Moraxella catarrhalis (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.30-1.50, P = 0.001; I2 = 0.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.433), but not Haemophilus influenza (RR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.08-0.49, P = 0.333; I2 = 57.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.040), Streptococcus pneumonia (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.61-1.35, P = 0.635; I2 = 0.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.515), Staphylococcus aureus (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.36-2.84, P = 0.986; I2 = 61.9%, Pheterogeneity = 0.033), and any pathogens present (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.29-1.29, P = 0.195; I2 = 80.3%, Pheterogeneity = 0.006). Long-term macrolides had no effect on FEV1% predicted (WMD = 2.61, 95% CI: -1.31, 6.53, P = 0.192; I2 = 0.0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.896). Long-term macrolides did not increase the risk of AEs or serious AEs. CONCLUSION: Macrolides do not significantly reduce the risk of pathogens present (except for Moraxella catarrhalis) or increase FEV1% predicted among children with bronchiectasis. Moreover, macrolides were not associated with AEs. Considering the limitations of the meta-analysis, further larger-scale RCTs are needed to confirm the findings. IMPACT: Macrolides do not significantly reduce the risk of pathogens present (except for Moraxella catarrhalis) among children with bronchiectasis. Macrolides do not significantly increase FEV1% predicted among children with bronchiectasis. This meta-analysis reports on the efficacy and safety of macrolides in the treatment of children with bronchiectasis, providing evidence for the management of children with bronchiectasis. This meta-analysis does not support the use of macrolides in the management of children with bronchiectasis unless the presence of Moraxella catarrhalis is provenor suspected.

Safety of Simparica Trio® (sarolaner, pyrantel, moxidectin) in heartworm-infected dogs.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the safety of heartworm preventatives in dogs with pre-existing patent heartworm (Dirofilaria immitis) infections is necessary because rapid adult worm and microfilarial death can lead to severe clinical complications, including thromboembolism and anaphylactic shock in dogs. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical safety of Simparica Trio® (sarolaner, pyrantel, moxidectin) in heartworm-infected dogs and the degree of microfilaricidal and adulticidal activity of three consecutive monthly treatments of Simparica Trio. METHODS: Twenty-four laboratory Beagle dogs were implanted with 10 male and 10 female D. immitis (ZoeKY isolate), and once infection was patent, they were randomized equally among three groups to receive no treatment, 1× or 3× the maximum recommended label dose of Simparica Trio. Dogs in the treated groups received Simparica Trio on days 0, 28 and 56. In-life assessments included body weight, physical examinations, clinical observations, daily general health observations, a quantitative estimate of food consumption and blood collections for pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis, microfilariae (MF) counts and D. immitis antigen testing. At the end of the study the heart, lungs and pleural and peritoneal cavities were examined for adult D. immitis worms. RESULTS: Simparica Trio was generally well tolerated. Emesis occurred at low frequency in all groups including control. Abnormal stool occurred occasionally in the 1× and 3× groups throughout the 3-month study. Fever (> 104 °F/40 °C) was recorded in one 1× and one 3× dog 1 day after the first dose and resolved by the following day. No severe hypersensitivity reactions occurred. The mean number of circulating microfilariae (MF) counts in the control group increased from 12,000/ml at study start (Day 0) to > 20,000/ml at Day 28 and remained > 20,000/ml for the duration of the study. The least squares means of circulating MF were reduced by 69.8% on Day 1 and 97.4% on Day 7 for the 1× group and remained at > 99% lower than the control group for the remainder of the study. Similarly, least squares means of circulating MF were reduced by 85.3% on Day 1 and 93.9% on Day 7 for the 3× group and remained > 98% lower than the control group for the remainder of the study. At the end of the study, the mean number of implanted adult worms recovered was < 10 per sex in all groups with 90%, 85% and 75% of live adult heartworms recovered in control, 1× and 3× treatment groups, respectively. Low numbers of dead adult worms were recovered in 1× and 3×, with none in control. Following each dose, the moxidectin and sarolaner AUC and Cmax had close to dose proportional increases. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that Simparica Trio (sarolaner, pyrantel, moxidectin) was well tolerated when administered to heartworm-positive dogs at 1× and 3× the maximum recommended dose at 28-day intervals for 3 consecutive months. Simparica Trio significantly reduced microfilaria counts in both treatment groups, without significant clinical consequences. At the doses administered, Simparica Trio had minor adulticidal activity but resulted in no clinical sequelae.

Infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis: maternal diabetes and perinatal exposure to non-macrolide antibiotics.

OBJECTIVE: Infant exposure to macrolide antibiotics is a risk factor for infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (IHPS). The aim of the study was to establish whether perinatal exposure to non-macrolide antibiotics was a risk factor for IHPS. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective matched case-control study was performed using a database including all children born at Soroka University Medical Centre between 2006 and 2018. Cases and controls were compared using Student T-test and multiple logistic regression. RESULT: Of 189 461 children in the database, 63 infants were diagnosed with IHPS and underwent pyloromyotomy. There was no association between non-macrolide antibiotic exposure and IHPS. Maternal diabetes (DM) had an adjusted odds ratio for infants developing IHPS of 4.53 (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The lack of association between exposure to non-macrolide antibiotics and IHPS suggests a quality unique to macrolides. An association between DM and IHPS may suggest elevated levels of IGF-1 have a role.

Pregnancy outcomes following maternal macrolide use: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To determine whether gestational use of all or specific macrolides (azithromycin, clarithromycin, roxithromycin or erythromycin) lead to an increase in rates of overall major congenital malformations, organ-specific malformations, and other adverse pregnancy outcomes in infants. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Reprotox® databases were searched. Dichotomous outcomes or calculated log odds ratios and standard errors from observational studies are combined using the random-effects method in Review Manager 5.3. No significant increased risks for major congenital malformation (OR 1.06 [95% CI 0.99, 1.13]) and congenital heart defect (OR 1.05 [95% CI 0.92, 1.19]) following all macrolides use during the first trimester were detected. Prenatal azithromycin use was associated with a significantly increased risk of major congenital malformations in the analysis of cohort studies (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.08-1.36]). This significance was also present in the sensitivity analysis. There were no statistically significant associations between the risk of organ specific malformations and all or specific macrolide exposures except for the decreased risk in hypospadias following erythromycin use in the meta-analysis of case-control studies (OR 0.38 [95% CI 0.18, 0.81]. Also, a significant 1.5-fold increased risk for spontaneous abortion following macrolide use was detected. A slight yet significantly increased rate of major congenital malformation with azithromycin exposure during pregnancy may be associated with maternal confounders. Nevertheless, level II ultrasound can be suggested following maternal azithromycin use during the first trimester. Future studies should take into account the inclusion of a disease-matched control group and accurate classification of the malformations.

Association of fluoroquinolones or cephalosporin plus macrolide with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) after treatment for community-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is the most common cause of gastroenteritis, and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the most common infection treated in hospitals. American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) CAP guidelines recommend empiric therapy with a respiratory fluoroquinolone or cephalosporin plus macrolide combination, but the CDI risk of these regimens is unknown. We examined the association between each antibiotic regimen and the development of hospital-onset CDI. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from 638 US hospitals contributing administrative including 177 also contributing microbiologic data to Premier, Inc. We included adults admitted with pneumonia and discharged from July 2010 through June 2015 with a pneumonia diagnosis code who received ≥3 days of either empiric regimen. Hospital-onset CDI was defined by a diagnosis code not present on admission and positive laboratory test on day 4 or later or readmission for CDI. Mixed propensity-weighted multiple logistic regression was used to estimate the associations of CDI with antibiotic regimens. RESULTS: Our sample included 58,060 patients treated with either cephalosporin plus macrolide (36,796 patients) or a fluoroquinolone alone (21,264 patients) and with microbiological data; 127 (0.35%) patients who received cephalosporin plus macrolide and 65 (0.31%) who received a fluoroquinolone developed CDI. After adjustment for patient demographics, comorbidities, risk factors for antimicrobial resistance, and hospital characteristics, CDI risks were similar for fluoroquinolones versus cephalosporin plus macrolide (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.38). CONCLUSION: Among patients with CAP at US hospitals, CDI was uncommon, occurring in ∼0.33% of patients. We did not detect a significant association between the choice of empiric guideline recommended antibiotic therapy and the development of CDI.