ABSTRACT
AIM: To evaluate the frequency of side effects associated with intake of metronidazole (MTZ) + amoxicillin (AMX) in periodontal treatment, and to explore associations between these events and patients' features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data of five randomized clinical trials testing MTZ + AMX adjunctive to mechanical therapy were evaluated. Volunteers answered an adverse event questionnaire. RESULTS: Information from 656 subjects was assessed. The frequency of side effects in the antibiotic- and placebo-treated groups ranged from 1.0% to 17.7% and 0.9% to 13.7%, respectively. The events more frequently observed in the antibiotic than in the placebo group were diarrhoea and metallic taste (p < .05). Diabetes significantly raised the odds of a patient reporting discomfort (odds ratio [OR] = 2.6), diarrhoea (OR = 4.0), weakness (OR = 6.0) and excessive sleepiness (OR = 2.9). In systemically healthy volunteers, using antibiotics 3 months post-mechanical treatment (healing phase) (OR = 3.0), being a woman (OR = 3.9) and aged ≤49 (OR = 4.5) significantly increased the chances of reporting adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of side effects during MTZ + AMX treatment ranged from uncommon (1%) to very common (17.7%). The main factors raising the chances of a patient reporting adverse events were diabetes and taking antibiotics in the healing phase, instead of in the active phase of treatment. Patients ≤ 49 years old and females also tend to report more side effects.
Subject(s)
Amoxicillin , Chronic Periodontitis , Amoxicillin/adverse effects , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Chronic Periodontitis/therapy , Dental Scaling , Diarrhea/chemically induced , Diarrhea/drug therapy , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Metronidazole/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
The impact of clinical trials on patient care depends on the outcomes that they evaluate. In Dentistry, many trials use outcomes that are important to clinicians, but not to the patients. Thus, the aim of the present manuscript is to present an overview of the limitations, challenges, and proposals on the use of clinically relevant outcomes (CRO) in dental trials. Clinically relevant outcomes are variables that directly measure how the patient feels, functions, or survives. Some CROs, such as tooth loss, implant failure, and restorations failure require many years to occur and the number of events is low. The adoption of these variables as primary outcomes results in challenges for the researchers, such as use of large sample sizes and long follow-up periods. Surrogate outcomes, such as biomarkers, radiographic measurements and indexes, are frequently used to replace CROs. However, they present many limitations, since the effect of the treatment on a surrogate does not necessarily reflect a change in the clinical outcome. Some proposals for the adoption of CROs are presented, such as the development of core outcome sets within each dental specialties and the organization of multi-center clinical trials.
Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , Dental Restoration Failure , Humans , Stomatognathic Diseases , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Abstract The impact of clinical trials on patient care depends on the outcomes that they evaluate. In Dentistry, many trials use outcomes that are important to clinicians, but not to the patients. Thus, the aim of the present manuscript is to present an overview of the limitations, challenges, and proposals on the use of clinically relevant outcomes (CRO) in dental trials. Clinically relevant outcomes are variables that directly measure how the patient feels, functions, or survives. Some CROs, such as tooth loss, implant failure, and restorations failure require many years to occur and the number of events is low. The adoption of these variables as primary outcomes results in challenges for the researchers, such as use of large sample sizes and long follow-up periods. Surrogate outcomes, such as biomarkers, radiographic measurements and indexes, are frequently used to replace CROs. However, they present many limitations, since the effect of the treatment on a surrogate does not necessarily reflect a change in the clinical outcome. Some proposals for the adoption of CROs are presented, such as the development of core outcome sets within each dental specialties and the organization of multi-center clinical trials.
