4.6 Article

Randomized double-blind controlled trial of roxithromycin for prevention of abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 88, Issue 8, Pages 1066-1072

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01845.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Macrolide treatment has been reported to lower the risk of recurrent ischaemic heart disease. The influence of macrolides on the expansion rate of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) remains unknown. The aim was to investigate the effect of roxithromycin on the expansion rate of small AAAs. Methods: A total of 92 subjects with a small AAA were recruited from two populations. One population consisted of 6339 men aged 65-73 years who were offered a hospital-based mass screening programme for AAA. From this population 66 subjects were recruited. The remaining 26 men were recruited from among 49 subjects diagnosed at interval screening for an initial aortic diameter between 25 and 29 mm. Subjects were randomized to receive either oral roxithromycin 300 mg once daily for 28 days or matching placebo, and followed for a mean of 1.5 years. Results: The mean annual expansion rate of AAAs was reduced by 43 per cent in the intervention group (1.56 mm per year), compared with 2.75 mm per year following placebo (P = 0.02). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that roxithromycin treatment and initial AAA size were significantly related to AAA expansion when adjusted for smoking, diastolic blood pressure and immunoglobulin A level of 20 enzyme immunounits or more. Logistic regression analysis confirmed a significant difference in expansion rates above 2 mm annually between the intervention and placebo groups: odds ratio = 0.09 (95 per cent confidence interval 0.01-0.75). Conclusion: In comparison to placebo, roxithromycin 300 mg daily for 4 weeks reduced the expansion rate of AAAs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available