In vitro activity and pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic parameters of clarithromycin and azithromycin: why they matter in the treatment of respiratory tract infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ross J Davidson1–4 1Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Division of Microbiology, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center, Halifax, NS, Canada; 2Department of Medicine, 3Department of Pathology, 4Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Abstract: Clarithromycin and azithromycin are second-generation macrolides established and widely used for treating a range of upper and lower respiratory tract infections. Extensive clinical trials data indicate that these drugs are highly effective in these applications and broadly comparable in their clinical and microbiological effectiveness. However, consideration of pharmacokinetic, metabolic, and tissue-penetration data, including the significant antibacterial activity of the metabolite 14-hydroxy-clarithromycin, plus the findings of pharmacodynamic modeling, provide evidence that the long half-life and lower potency of azithromycin predispose this agent to select for resistant isolates. Comparison of the “mutant-prevention concentrations” of clarithromycin and azithromycin, and examination of large-scale epidemiological data from Canada, also support the view that these drugs differ materially in their propensity to promote resistance among bacterial strains implicated in common respiratory infections, and that clarithromycin may offer important advantages over azithromycin that should be considered when choosing a macrolide to treat these conditions. Keywords: azithromycin, clarithromycin, 14-hydroxy-clarithromycin, mutant prevention concentration, pharmacokinetics, tissue-penetration, upper respiratory tract infection, lower respiratory tract infection
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".