Empirical Treatment of Community‐Acquired Pneumonia and the Development of Fluoroquinolone‐Resistant Tuberculosis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND" Fluoroquinolone (FLQ) antibiotics are not uncommonly prescribed for community-acquired pneumonia that is later proven to be pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). Such FLQ monotherapy may result in FLQ-resistant pulmonary TB. METHODS: To assess outpatient FLQ use by patients with culture-proven pulmonary TB before diagnosis, TB registries in Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada, were linked with provincial and federal drug benefit plans. To assess FLQ resistance, a case-control study was performed. RESULTS: Of 428 patients with pulmonary TB who were covered by a drug benefit plan, 74 (17.3%) had received > or = 1 FLQ prescription during the 6 months immediately before receipt of the diagnosis. Older patients (age, >64 years) were more likely than younger patients (age, 15-64 years) to be prescribed an FLQ (P < .05). Patients who were prescribed an FLQ received a total of 103 prescriptions. Most (54 [73.0%] of 74) patients who were prescribed an FLQ received a single prescription. Most (69 [67.0%] of 103) FLQ prescriptions were written within 90 days before the diagnosis of pulmonary TB. Patients who were prescribed an FLQ were not statistically significantly more likely than matched patients who were not prescribed an FLQ (control subjects) to be infected with FLQ-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Of 148 isolates of M. tuberculosis from patients and control subjects, 3 were FLQ resistant; all of these isolates were from patients who had received multiple FLQ prescriptions. Patients who had received multiple FLQ prescriptions were more likely than patients who had received a single FLQ prescription to be infected with FLQ-resistant M. tuberculosis (15.0% vs. 0.0%; odds ratio, 11.4; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient FLQ use, ostensibly for community-acquired pneumonia, is not uncommon among patients with pulmonary TB, especially older patients. Single FLQ prescriptions were not associated with FLQ-resistant M. tuberculosis, whereas multiple FLQ prescriptions were associated with FLQ resistance.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».