Cargando…
Comparing two types of macrolide antibiotics for the purpose of assessing population-based drug interactions
OBJECTIVE: Clarithromycin strongly inhibits enzyme cytochrome P450 3A4, preventing the metabolism of some other drugs, while azithromycin is a weak inhibitor. Accordingly, blood concentrations of other drugs increase with clarithromycin coprescription leading to adverse events. These macrolide antib...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3710981/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23847265 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002857 |
_version_ | 1782276920686149632 |
---|---|
author | Fleet, Jamie L Shariff, Salimah Z Bailey, David G Gandhi, Sonja Juurlink, David N Nash, Danielle M Mamdani, Muhammad Gomes, Tara Patel, Amit M Garg, Amit X |
author_facet | Fleet, Jamie L Shariff, Salimah Z Bailey, David G Gandhi, Sonja Juurlink, David N Nash, Danielle M Mamdani, Muhammad Gomes, Tara Patel, Amit M Garg, Amit X |
author_sort | Fleet, Jamie L |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Clarithromycin strongly inhibits enzyme cytochrome P450 3A4, preventing the metabolism of some other drugs, while azithromycin is a weak inhibitor. Accordingly, blood concentrations of other drugs increase with clarithromycin coprescription leading to adverse events. These macrolide antibiotics also differ on other properties that may impact outcomes. In this study, we compared outcomes in two groups of macrolide antibiotic users in the absence of potentially interacting drugs. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2010. PATIENTS: Patients (mean 74 years) prescribed clarithromycin (n=52 251) or azithromycin (referent group, n=46 618). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes were hospital admission within 30 days of a new antibiotic prescription with any of the 12 conditions examined separately (acute kidney injury, acute myocardial infarction, neuroimaging (proxy for delirium), hypotension, syncope, hyperkalaemia, hyponatraemia, hyperglycaemia, arrhythmia, ischaemic stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding and sepsis). The secondary outcome was mortality. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the two groups, including patient demographics, comorbid conditions, infection type and prescribing physician specialty, were nearly identical. The median daily dose was 1000 mg for clarithromycin and 300 mg for azithromycin and the median duration of dispensing antibiotics was 10 and 5 days, respectively. There was no difference between the groups in the risk of hospitalisation for any condition studied (relative risk ranged from 0.67 to 1.23). Compared with azithromycin, clarithromycin was associated with a slightly higher risk of all-cause mortality (0.46% vs 0.37%, relative risk 1.25, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.52). CONCLUSIONS: Clarithromycin can be used to assess drug interactions in population-based studies with azithromycin serving as a control group. However, any differences in mortality observed between the two antibiotic groups in the setting of other drug use may be partially attributable to factors beyond the inhibition of drug metabolising enzymes and transporters, as the difference for this outcome was significant. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3710981 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-37109812013-07-15 Comparing two types of macrolide antibiotics for the purpose of assessing population-based drug interactions Fleet, Jamie L Shariff, Salimah Z Bailey, David G Gandhi, Sonja Juurlink, David N Nash, Danielle M Mamdani, Muhammad Gomes, Tara Patel, Amit M Garg, Amit X BMJ Open Pharmacology and Therapeutics OBJECTIVE: Clarithromycin strongly inhibits enzyme cytochrome P450 3A4, preventing the metabolism of some other drugs, while azithromycin is a weak inhibitor. Accordingly, blood concentrations of other drugs increase with clarithromycin coprescription leading to adverse events. These macrolide antibiotics also differ on other properties that may impact outcomes. In this study, we compared outcomes in two groups of macrolide antibiotic users in the absence of potentially interacting drugs. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2010. PATIENTS: Patients (mean 74 years) prescribed clarithromycin (n=52 251) or azithromycin (referent group, n=46 618). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes were hospital admission within 30 days of a new antibiotic prescription with any of the 12 conditions examined separately (acute kidney injury, acute myocardial infarction, neuroimaging (proxy for delirium), hypotension, syncope, hyperkalaemia, hyponatraemia, hyperglycaemia, arrhythmia, ischaemic stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding and sepsis). The secondary outcome was mortality. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the two groups, including patient demographics, comorbid conditions, infection type and prescribing physician specialty, were nearly identical. The median daily dose was 1000 mg for clarithromycin and 300 mg for azithromycin and the median duration of dispensing antibiotics was 10 and 5 days, respectively. There was no difference between the groups in the risk of hospitalisation for any condition studied (relative risk ranged from 0.67 to 1.23). Compared with azithromycin, clarithromycin was associated with a slightly higher risk of all-cause mortality (0.46% vs 0.37%, relative risk 1.25, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.52). CONCLUSIONS: Clarithromycin can be used to assess drug interactions in population-based studies with azithromycin serving as a control group. However, any differences in mortality observed between the two antibiotic groups in the setting of other drug use may be partially attributable to factors beyond the inhibition of drug metabolising enzymes and transporters, as the difference for this outcome was significant. BMJ Publishing Group 2013-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC3710981/ /pubmed/23847265 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002857 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ |
spellingShingle | Pharmacology and Therapeutics Fleet, Jamie L Shariff, Salimah Z Bailey, David G Gandhi, Sonja Juurlink, David N Nash, Danielle M Mamdani, Muhammad Gomes, Tara Patel, Amit M Garg, Amit X Comparing two types of macrolide antibiotics for the purpose of assessing population-based drug interactions |
title | Comparing two types of macrolide antibiotics for the purpose of assessing population-based drug interactions |
title_full | Comparing two types of macrolide antibiotics for the purpose of assessing population-based drug interactions |
title_fullStr | Comparing two types of macrolide antibiotics for the purpose of assessing population-based drug interactions |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing two types of macrolide antibiotics for the purpose of assessing population-based drug interactions |
title_short | Comparing two types of macrolide antibiotics for the purpose of assessing population-based drug interactions |
title_sort | comparing two types of macrolide antibiotics for the purpose of assessing population-based drug interactions |
topic | Pharmacology and Therapeutics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3710981/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23847265 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002857 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fleetjamiel comparingtwotypesofmacrolideantibioticsforthepurposeofassessingpopulationbaseddruginteractions AT shariffsalimahz comparingtwotypesofmacrolideantibioticsforthepurposeofassessingpopulationbaseddruginteractions AT baileydavidg comparingtwotypesofmacrolideantibioticsforthepurposeofassessingpopulationbaseddruginteractions AT gandhisonja comparingtwotypesofmacrolideantibioticsforthepurposeofassessingpopulationbaseddruginteractions AT juurlinkdavidn comparingtwotypesofmacrolideantibioticsforthepurposeofassessingpopulationbaseddruginteractions AT nashdaniellem comparingtwotypesofmacrolideantibioticsforthepurposeofassessingpopulationbaseddruginteractions AT mamdanimuhammad comparingtwotypesofmacrolideantibioticsforthepurposeofassessingpopulationbaseddruginteractions AT gomestara comparingtwotypesofmacrolideantibioticsforthepurposeofassessingpopulationbaseddruginteractions AT patelamitm comparingtwotypesofmacrolideantibioticsforthepurposeofassessingpopulationbaseddruginteractions AT gargamitx comparingtwotypesofmacrolideantibioticsforthepurposeofassessingpopulationbaseddruginteractions |