Adverse events associated with pyrazinamide and levofloxacin in the treatment of latent multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current Canadian and US guidelines for the treatment of multidrug-resistant latent tuberculosis infection advocate the use of pyrazinamide and a fluoroquinolone as a first-line treatment option. However, there is very little information in the literature that describes the use of these agents together. This case series describes the probable association between multiple adverse events and the use of pyrazinamide and levofloxacin in the treatment of individuals with suspected latent multidrug-resistant tuberculosis infection. METHODS: We studied a case series of 17 individuals with suspected latent multidrug-resistant tuberculosis infection in Hamilton, Ont., who were being treated with pyrazinamide and levofloxacin. The Naranjo scale was used to assess patients for musculoskeletal, central nervous system, gastrointestinal and dermatological adverse events. Hepatocellular events were assessed and defined using criteria established by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. Laboratory abnormalities and adverse events that were documented during combination drug therapy were evaluated to determine the likelihood of an association. RESULTS: Fourteen individuals developed musculoskeletal adverse effects (11 were deemed to be probably related to combination therapy). There were 8 reports of central nervous system effects (5 of which were assessed as being probably associated with therapy). Hyperuricemia and gastrointestinal and dermatological effects were also common; the use of pyrazinamide and levofloxacin was believed to be probably responsible for the emergence of these adverse effects. There were 5 cases of hepatocellular injury. Therapy was discontinued in all individuals. INTERPRETATION: The combination of pyrazinamide and levofloxacin appears to be a poorly tolerated regimen. The mechanism of a possible interaction is not yet understood. Given the severity of some of the adverse events, a better understanding of dosing and clearer guidelines for monitoring therapy are imperative if these drugs are to be prescribed together.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".