How Safe are Fluoroquinolones for Diabetic Patients? A Systematic Review of Dysglycemic and Neuropathic Effects of Fluoroquinolones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The US Food and Drug Administration issued safety warnings about neuropathy in 2013 and dysglycemia in 2018 caused by fluoroquinolone use, mainly based on case reports and case series. We conducted this systematic review to evaluate the safety of fluoroquinolones in diabetic patients by investigating their dysglycemic and neuropathic effects. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies published from inception till September 2019 evaluating the safety of fluoroquinolones. Efficacy studies of fluoroquinolones reporting these adverse effects were also included. Primary outcomes were hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and neuropathy among patients with or without diabetes and treated with fluoroquinolones compared with placebo or other antibiotics. The Cochrane Collaboration tool for randomized controlled trials and modified Newcastle-Ottawa quality-assessment scale were used for assessment of the included studies. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 725 studies were identified in the initial search. After screening of titles and abstracts and full-text review, 16 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The sampled patients were aged 30-78 years. Hyperglycemia was reported in 1,588 patients that received fluoroquinolone among eight studies with 4,663 patients, and hypoglycemia was reported in 2,179 patients that received fluoroquinolones among eleven studies with 6,208 patients. Dysglycemia was not generally associated with diabetes mellitus per se. Nevertheless, patients with more comorbidities, especially those with chronic kidney disease, receiving antidiabetics and/or steroids had more glycemic events when treated with fluoroquinolones. CONCLUSION: Moxifloxacin was found to be associated the most and ciprofloxacin the least with dysglycemia. fluoroquinolones must be used with great caution among diabetic patients who have comorbidities and are receiving antidiabetics and/or steroids. Further evidence is required from studies on neuropathy caused by fluoroquinolones.
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".