Fluoroquinolones and the risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection: A population-based propensity score-matched German cohort study.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Pharmacotherapy Pub Date : 2025-04-26 DOI:10.1002/phar.70020
Julia Wicherski, Jonas Peltner, Cornelia Becker, Katrin Schüssel, Gabriela Brückner, Andreas Schlotmann, Helmut Schröder, Winfried V Kern, Britta Haenisch
{"title":"Fluoroquinolones and the risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection: A population-based propensity score-matched German cohort study.","authors":"Julia Wicherski, Jonas Peltner, Cornelia Becker, Katrin Schüssel, Gabriela Brückner, Andreas Schlotmann, Helmut Schröder, Winfried V Kern, Britta Haenisch","doi":"10.1002/phar.70020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection associated with fluoroquinolone (FQ) prescription compared to macrolides in German routine health care data in order to replicate the recent study (Pharmacotherapy 2023;43:883) extending the results by contributing evidence for six additional broad-spectrum antibiotic classes as active comparators.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cohort study in active comparator new user design comparing FQ with macrolides, tetracyclines, penicillins with extended spectrum, penicillins and beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations, second- and third-generation cephalosporins, sulfonamide and trimethoprim combinations, and lincosamides.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>German statutory health insurance, the \"Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse\" (AOK), January 2013 to December 2019.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adults with at least one new prescription fill for FQ or active comparator antibiotics. New users were defined as individuals without antibiotic prescription fills, aortic aneurysm or dissection diagnoses, and hospitalization within 365 days prior to the cohort entry date. Users of FQ and active comparators were matched by nearest neighbor 1:1 propensity score matching.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Incident inpatient aortic aneurysm or dissection was observed within a 60-day risk window. In sensitivity analyses, an extended risk window of 90 days was applied, and specific FQ agents, dosages, and diagnoses were stratified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>FQ episodes were associated with an increased risk for aortic aneurysm or dissection compared to macrolides (aHR = 1.52 [1.33; 1.74]), which replicates the risk estimate of Garg et al. (aHR = 1.34 [1.17; 1.54]). This association was robust in a 90-day risk window and for ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin. Moxifloxacin comprised the greatest risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection compared to macrolides (aHR = 2.13 [1.64; 2.77]). Moreover, we observed similar associations when comparing FQ to tetracyclines, penicillins with extended spectrum, cephalosporins, and lincosamides (aHR = 1.86 [1.54; 2.24], aHR = 1.45 [1.28; 1.65], aHR = 1.23 [1.10; 1.37], and aHR = 1.73 [1.43; 2.11]), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In a German cohort study, FQ use was associated with a 52% increased risk for aortic aneurysm or dissection within 60 days compared with macrolide use. The risk of FQ-associated aortic aneurysm or dissection compared to macrolides can be replicated in German routine health care data. Extending the analysis, we provided new insights that the effect size may depend on the chosen AC.</p>","PeriodicalId":20013,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacotherapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.70020","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection associated with fluoroquinolone (FQ) prescription compared to macrolides in German routine health care data in order to replicate the recent study (Pharmacotherapy 2023;43:883) extending the results by contributing evidence for six additional broad-spectrum antibiotic classes as active comparators.

Design: Cohort study in active comparator new user design comparing FQ with macrolides, tetracyclines, penicillins with extended spectrum, penicillins and beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations, second- and third-generation cephalosporins, sulfonamide and trimethoprim combinations, and lincosamides.

Setting: German statutory health insurance, the "Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse" (AOK), January 2013 to December 2019.

Participants: Adults with at least one new prescription fill for FQ or active comparator antibiotics. New users were defined as individuals without antibiotic prescription fills, aortic aneurysm or dissection diagnoses, and hospitalization within 365 days prior to the cohort entry date. Users of FQ and active comparators were matched by nearest neighbor 1:1 propensity score matching.

Main outcome measures: Incident inpatient aortic aneurysm or dissection was observed within a 60-day risk window. In sensitivity analyses, an extended risk window of 90 days was applied, and specific FQ agents, dosages, and diagnoses were stratified.

Results: FQ episodes were associated with an increased risk for aortic aneurysm or dissection compared to macrolides (aHR = 1.52 [1.33; 1.74]), which replicates the risk estimate of Garg et al. (aHR = 1.34 [1.17; 1.54]). This association was robust in a 90-day risk window and for ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and moxifloxacin. Moxifloxacin comprised the greatest risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection compared to macrolides (aHR = 2.13 [1.64; 2.77]). Moreover, we observed similar associations when comparing FQ to tetracyclines, penicillins with extended spectrum, cephalosporins, and lincosamides (aHR = 1.86 [1.54; 2.24], aHR = 1.45 [1.28; 1.65], aHR = 1.23 [1.10; 1.37], and aHR = 1.73 [1.43; 2.11]), respectively.

Conclusion: In a German cohort study, FQ use was associated with a 52% increased risk for aortic aneurysm or dissection within 60 days compared with macrolide use. The risk of FQ-associated aortic aneurysm or dissection compared to macrolides can be replicated in German routine health care data. Extending the analysis, we provided new insights that the effect size may depend on the chosen AC.

氟喹诺酮类药物与主动脉瘤或夹层的风险:一项基于人群的倾向评分匹配的德国队列研究
目的:调查德国常规医疗数据中氟喹诺酮(FQ)处方与大环内酯类药物相关的主动脉瘤或夹层风险,以复制最近的研究(Pharmacotherapy 2023;43:883),通过提供额外的六种广谱抗生素类别作为活性比较物的证据,扩展结果。设计:采用主动比较器新用户设计进行队列研究,比较FQ与大环内酯类药物、四环素类药物、广谱青霉素类药物、青霉素类药物和β -内酰胺酶抑制剂联合用药、第二代和第三代头孢菌素类药物、磺胺和甲氧苄氨嘧啶联合用药以及林肯胺类药物。设定:德国法定健康保险“Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse”(AOK), 2013年1月至2019年12月。参与者:至少有一个新的处方填充FQ或活性比较抗生素的成年人。新使用者被定义为在队列进入日期前365天内没有抗生素处方填充、没有动脉瘤或夹层诊断、没有住院治疗的个体。FQ使用者和主动比较者采用最近邻1:1倾向评分匹配进行匹配。主要结局指标:在60天的风险窗内观察住院患者动脉瘤或夹层的发生情况。在敏感性分析中,采用了90天的延长风险窗口,并对特定的FQ剂、剂量和诊断进行了分层。结果:与大环内酯类药物相比,FQ发作与主动脉瘤或夹层风险增加相关(aHR = 1.52;1.74]),与Garg等人的风险估计相同(aHR = 1.34 [1.17;1.54])。这种关联在90天的风险窗口中以及环丙沙星、左氧氟沙星和莫西沙星中都很明显。莫西沙星与大环内酯类药物相比存在最大的动脉瘤或夹层风险(aHR = 2.13 [1.64;2.77])。此外,在比较FQ与四环素类、广谱青霉素类、头孢菌素类和林肯胺类药物的相关性时,我们观察到类似的相关性(aHR = 1.86;2.24], aHR = 1.45 [1.28;1.65], aHR = 1.23 [1.10;1.37], aHR = 1.73 [1.43;分别2.11])。结论:在一项德国队列研究中,与使用大环内酯相比,使用FQ与60天内主动脉瘤或夹层风险增加52%相关。与大环内酯类药物相比,fq相关的主动脉瘤或夹层的风险可以在德国常规医疗保健数据中得到复制。扩展分析,我们提供了新的见解,即效应大小可能取决于所选择的AC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pharmacotherapy
Pharmacotherapy 医学-药学
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
2.40%
发文量
93
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Pharmacotherapy is devoted to publication of original research articles on all aspects of human pharmacology and review articles on drugs and drug therapy. The Editors and Editorial Board invite original research reports on pharmacokinetic, bioavailability, and drug interaction studies, clinical trials, investigations of specific pharmacological properties of drugs, and related topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信