Macrolide antibiotics and the risk of ventricular arrhythmia in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many respiratory tract infections are treated with macrolide antibiotics. Regulatory agencies warn that these antibiotics increase the risk of ventricular arrhythmia. We examined the 30-day risk of ventricular arrhythmia and all-cause mortality associated with macrolide antibiotics relative to nonmacrolide antibiotics. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study involving older adults (age > 65 yr) with a new prescription for an oral macrolide antibiotic (azithromycin, clarithromycin or erythromycin) in Ontario from 2002 to 2013. Our primary outcome was a hospital encounter with ventricular arrhythmia within 30 days after a new prescription. Our secondary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. We matched patients 1:1 using propensity scores to patients prescribed nonmacrolide antibiotics (amoxicillin, cefuroxime or levofloxacin). We used conditional logistic regression to measure the association between macrolide exposure and outcomes, and repeated the analysis in 4 subgroups defined by the presence or absence of chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease and concurrent use of a drug known to prolong the QT interval. RESULTS: Compared with nonmacrolide antibiotics, macrolide antibiotics were not associated with a higher risk of ventricular arrhythmia (0.03% v. 0.03%; relative risk [RR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.36) and were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (0.62% v. 0.76%; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.86). These associations were similar in all subgroups. INTERPRETATION: Among older adults, macrolide antibiotics were not associated with a higher 30-day risk of ventricular arrhythmia than nonmacrolide antibiotics. These findings suggest that current warnings from the US Food and Drug Administration may be overstated.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".