Intermittent azithromycin treatment for respiratory symptoms in patients with chronic chlamydia pneumoniae infection

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Azithromycin: mechanisms of action and their relevance for clinical applications

Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic which inhibits bacterial protein synthesis, quorum-sensing and reduces the formation of biofilm. Accumulating effectively in cells, particularly phagocytes, it is delivered in high concentrations to sites of infection, as reflected in rapid plasma clearance and extensive tissue distribution. Azithromycin is indicated for respiratory, urogenital, dermal and other bacterial infections, and exerts immunomodulatory effects in chronic inflammatory disorders, including diffuse panbronchiolitis, post-transplant bronchiolitis and rosacea. Modulation of host responses facilitates its long-term therapeutic benefit in cystic fibrosis, non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and non-eosinophilic asthma. Initial, stimulatory effects of azithromycin on immune and epithelial cells, involving interactions with phospholipids and Erk1/2, are followed by later modulation of transcription factors AP-1, NFκB, inflammatory cytokine and mucin release. Delayed inhibitory effects on cell function and high lysosomal accumulation accompany disruption of protein and intracellular lipid transport, regulation of surface receptor expression, of macrophage phenotype and autophagy. These later changes underlie many immunomodulatory effects of azithromycin, contributing to resolution of acute infections and reduction of exacerbations in chronic airway diseases. A sub-group of post-transplant bronchiolitis patients appears to be sensitive to azithromycin, as may be patients with severe sepsis. Other promising indications include chronic prostatitis and periodontitis, but weak activity in malaria is unlikely to prove crucial. Long-term administration of azithromycin must be balanced against the potential for increased bacterial resistance. Azithromycin has a very good record of safety, but recent reports indicate rare cases of cardiac torsades des pointes in patients at risk.

Randomized placebo-controlled trial on azithromycin to reduce the morbidity of bronchiolitis in Indigenous Australian infants: rationale and protocol

BACKGROUND

Acute lower respiratory infections are the commonest cause of morbidity and potentially preventable mortality in Indigenous infants. Infancy is also a critical time for post-natal lung growth and development. Severe or repeated lower airway injury in very young children likely increases the likelihood of chronic pulmonary disorders later in life. Globally, bronchiolitis is the most common form of acute lower respiratory infections during infancy. Compared with non-Indigenous Australian infants, Indigenous infants have greater bacterial density in their upper airways and more severe bronchiolitis episodes. Our study tests the hypothesis that the anti-microbial and anti-inflammatory properties of azithromycin, improve the clinical outcomes of Indigenous Australian infants hospitalised with bronchiolitis.

METHODS

We are conducting a dual centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial in northern Australia. Indigenous infants (aged ≤ 24-months, expected number = 200) admitted to one of two regional hospitals (Darwin, Northern Territory and Townsville, Queensland) with a clinical diagnosis of bronchiolitis and fulfilling inclusion criteria are randomised (allocation concealed) to either azithromycin (30 mg/kg/dose) or placebo administered once weekly for three doses. Clinical data are recorded twice daily and nasopharyngeal swab are collected at enrollment and at the time of discharge from hospital. Primary outcomes are 'length of oxygen requirement' and 'duration of stay,' the latter based upon being judged as 'ready for respiratory discharge'. The main secondary outcome is readmission for a respiratory illness within 6-months of leaving hospital. Descriptive virological and bacteriological (including development of antibiotic resistance) data from nasopharyngeal samples will also be reported.

DISCUSSION

Two published studies, both involving different patient populations and settings, as well as different macrolide antibiotics and treatment duration, have produced conflicting results. Our randomised, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin in Indigenous infants hospitalised with bronchiolitis is designed to determine whether it can reduce short-term (and potentially long-term) morbidity from respiratory illness in Australian Indigenous infants who are at high risk of developing chronic respiratory illness. If azithromycin is efficacious in reducing the morbidly of Indigenous infants hospitalised with bronchiolitis, the intervention would lead to improved short term (and possibly long term) health benefits.

Chlamydia pneumoniae-specific serum immune complexes in patients with multiple sclerosis

The significance of Chlamydia pneumoniae infection in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is unclear. We determined the frequency of serum C. pneumoniae-specific immune complexes in patients with MS, neurological (OND) and healthy controls in a blinded, cross-sectional study. C. pneumoniae immune complexes were detected in 24% (38/156) of MS patients, 16% (11/69) of OND and 15% (77/499) of healthy controls. The odds ratio for all MS patients was 3.95 (95% CI: 2.15 to 7.24; P < 0.0001) accounting for the covariates: sex, age, socio-economic status and area of residence. The odds ratio for recently diagnosed MS patients was 4.33 (95% CI: 1.76 to 10.64; P = 0.001). Systemic C. pneumoniae infection is more frequent in MS patients than the healthy population and occurs early in the course of the disease. Multiple Sclerosis 2007; 14: 292—299. http://msj.sagepub.com