4.5 Review

Ciprofloxacin safety in paediatrics: a systematic review

期刊

ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD
卷 96, 期 9, 页码 874-880

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/adc.2010.208843

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Commission [223614]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine the safety of ciprofloxacin in paediatric patients in relation to arthropathy, any other adverse events (AEs) and drug interactions. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and bibliographies of relevant articles was carried out for all published articles, regardless of design, that involved the use of ciprofloxacin in any paediatric age group <= 17 years. Only articles that reported on safety were included. Results 105 articles met the inclusion criteria and involved 16 184 paediatric patients. There were 1065 reported AEs (risk 7%, 95% CI 3.2% to 14.0%). The most frequent AEs were musculoskeletal AEs, abnormal liver function tests, nausea, changes in white blood cell counts and vomiting. There were six drug interactions (with aminophylline (4) and methotrexate (2)). The only drug related death occurred in a neonate who had an anaphylactic reaction. 258 musculoskeletal events occurred in 232 paediatric patients (risk 1.6%, 95% CI 0.9% to 2.6%). Arthralgia accounted for 50% of these. The age of occurrence of arthropathy ranged from 7 months to 17 years (median 10 years). All cases of arthropathy resolved or improved with management. One prospective controlled study estimated the risk of arthropathy as 9.3 (OR 95% CI 1.2 to 195). Pooled safety data of controlled trials in this review estimated the risk of arthropathy as 1.57 (OR 95% CI 1.26 to 1.97). Conclusion Musculoskeletal AEs occur due to ciprofloxacin use. However, these musculoskeletal events are reversible with management. It is recommended that further prospective controlled studies should be carried out to evaluate the safety of ciprofloxacin, with particular focus on the risk of arthropathy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据