ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Fluoroquinolones (FQs) are associated with increased risk of tendon injury but comparative risk versus other antibiotic options for the same indication has yet to be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: Describe the incidence (relative risk) of any tendon injury in patients receiving FQ compared with other (non-FQs) antibiotics for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: A retrospective propensity score weighted cohort study was performed to evaluate the association between FQ antibiotics and tendon injury risk at 2 time points (within 1 month and within 6 months of use) compared with non-FQ regimens for treatment of CAP. The evaluation was performed using the CCAE (MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters) and COB (Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits) databases from 2014 to 2020. Patients with ICD (International Classification of Diseases) 9/10 coding for outpatient pneumonia who were >18 years and without history of tendon injury were included. Patients with history of tendon injury, who received multiple antibiotic therapies for recurrent pneumonia, or who received both FQ and non-FQ regimens during the study period were excluded. Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for selection bias due to contributing risk factors, including demographics (age, sex), comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease), and concurrent medications (corticosteroids). RESULTS: At 1 month, the odds of tendon injury were estimated to be significantly higher (41.9%) in patients receiving FQs compared with those receiving a non-FQ-based regimen (odds ratio [OR] = 1.419, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.188-1.698]). The odds of tendon injury were also estimated to be higher (OR = 1.067, 95% CI = [0.975-1.173]) in the FQ population within 180 days, but this effect was not statistically significant. The most frequent sites of tendon injuries were rotator cuff, shoulder, and patellar tendon. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Prescribers should recognize the risk of tendon injury within 1 month of FQ use when considering treatment regimens for CAP and use alternative options with lower risk whenever possible.
ABSTRACT
The incidence of type 2 diabetes continues to increase at alarming rates. Prediabetes is a state of abnormal glycemic values that are not abnormal enough to result in the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. Significant interest in the prevention of diabetes has resulted in trials evaluating pharmacologic intervention and lifestyle intervention to prevent the development of diabetes. Controversy exists over the exact definition of diabetes prevention. Agents might possibly delay diagnosis of diabetes via pharmacologic lowering of blood glucose. Goals of diabetes prevention include decreased cardiovascular disease. Trials assessing diabetes prevention should assess 1) Impact of the study drug upon the incidence of diabetes, 2) Impact of the study drug upon diagnosis of diabetes after post-treatment washout phase, 3) Assessment of insulin sensitivity/@-cell function/insulin secretion and blood glucose, 4) Assessment of confounding factors, 5) Impact of the study drug on the occurrence of cardiovascular disease. The published studies were reviewed using these criteria. Six studies evaluating seven agents have been were reviewed. Six of the seven agents reduced diagnosis of diabetes during use, but only two demonstrated effect after washout phase. One of the two agents has been withdrawn from the market. The second agent had a short follow-up period making the results difficult to interpret. Assessment of insulin secretion at entry to trial was common, however ongoing reassessment was uncommon. All studies attempted to assess confounding factors, however stratification of drug benefit relative to amount of lifestyle modification benefit was not reported in trials. Cardiovascular benefit in the form of reduced hypertension was documented with three agents. Pharmacologic prevention of type 2 diabetes remains unproven, due in part to the difficulty distinguishing between prevention and delay. Reduction in cardiovascular benefit is unproven with most agents studied. Larger studies powered to detect cardiovascular endpoints are necessary to determine benefit of diabetes prevention.
