ABSTRACT
Fluoroquinolones are a commonly prescribed class of antibiotics due to their broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity, favorable pharmacokinetic properties, ability to switch from parenteral to oral administration, and global availability. After beta-lactams, they are the second most common antibiotic class associated with drug allergies. The mechanism of fluoroquinolone-induced hypersensitivity reactions has not yet been fully understood, so the true incidence of hypersensitivity reactions remains unknown. Cross-reactivity between fluoroquinolones has been the subject of conflicting and limited clinical research. Due to their similar chemical structure, some argue for close cross-reactivity within the group. However, recent studies have produced contradictory results. We present the case of a young patient who had an anaphylactic reaction to ciprofloxacin but was tolerant to levofloxacin, as determined via a skin prick test followed by a drug provocation test. Our findings support the notion that there is little cross-reactivity between fluoroquinolones. Consequently, exposure to another fluoroquinolone in a hospital setting may be beneficial, particularly for patients who lack adequate antibiotic alternatives. However, additional research on this subject is required.
Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , Levofloxacin , Humans , Levofloxacin/adverse effects , Ciprofloxacin/adverse effects , Anaphylaxis/chemically induced , Anaphylaxis/diagnosis , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Fluoroquinolones/pharmacologyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Clinical assessment (CA) is frequently used for the evaluation of volume status in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients despite its subjectivity. Multiple-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MF-BIA) is objective, accurate, and quick, proving to be a promising technique for measuring volume status. The aim of this study was to assess volume status in PD patients using CA and MF-BIA and to compare results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Incident PD patients were prospectively analyzed between January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2016, at the Clinical Hospital Center of -Rijeka, Croatia. Volume status measurements were performed once a month for 6 consecutive months. The presence of symptoms and signs associated with hyper- or hypovolemia were detected by CA. Euvolemia was defined as a symptom-free state or up to 2 symptoms maximum. Patients lacking up to 1.2 L of volume or with up to 1.2 L in excess were considered euvolemic, as measured by MF-BIA. RESULTS: A total of 45 PD patients were analyzed; 51% were men, 27% were diabetic, the mean age was 52 ± 26 years, and PD duration was 11.5 ± 6.5 months. In comparison to MF-BIA, CA showed a significant difference in detected hypervolemia between baseline and follow-up (p = 0.708 vs. p = 0.01, respectively) and among all measurements (p < 0.01). Contrary to CA, volume status measured by MF-BIA correlated significantly with systolic and diastolic blood pressure (R = 0.29; p ≤ 0.01 and R = 0.26; p ≤ 0.01, respectively). CA showed low sensitivity (0.24) and high specificity (0.92) in detecting hypervolemia. CONCLUSION: MF-BIA is an effective, objective, and safe method for assessing volume status in PD patients. Longitudinal monitoring of body composition changes - including hydration state - leading to adequate therapeutic intervention is a promising and potential application of MF-BIA along with CA.
