Comparative Safety Profile of Levofloxacin in 2523 Children With a Focus on Four Specific Musculoskeletal Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fluoroquinolones, including levofloxacin, have not been recommended for use in children largely because studies in juvenile laboratory animals suggest there may be an increased risk of fluoroquinolone-associated cartilage lesions. A large prospective trial is needed to assess the risks associated with using levofloxacin in children. OBJECTIVE: Assess the safety and tolerability of levofloxacin therapy in children based on observations for 1 year after therapy. METHODS: Safety data were collected in children who participated in 1 of 3 efficacy trials (N = 2523) and a subset of these children who also subsequently participated in a long-term 1-year surveillance trial (N = 2233). Incidence of adverse events in children randomized to receive levofloxacin versus nonfluoroquinolone antibiotics was compared. Based on assessments by treating physicians and an independent data safety monitoring committee, events related to the musculoskeletal system were further categorized as 1 of 4 predefined musculoskeletal disorders (arthralgia, arthritis, tendinopathy, gait abnormality) considered most likely clinical correlates of fluoroquinolone-associated cartilage lesions observed in laboratory animals. RESULTS: Levofloxacin was well tolerated during and for 1 month after therapy as evidenced by similar incidence and character of adverse events compared with nonfluoroquinolone antibiotics. However, incidence of at least 1 of the 4 predefined musculoskeletal disorders (largely due to reports of arthralgia) was greater in levofloxacin-treated compared with nonfluoroquinolone-treated children at 2 months (2.1% vs. 0.9%; P = 0.04) and 12 months (3.4% vs. 1.8%; P = 0.03) after starting therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of 1 or more of the 4 predefined musculoskeletal disorders identified in nonblinded, prospective evaluations, was statistically greater in levofloxacin-treated compared with comparator-treated children.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".