Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Comparison of adverse reactions of spiramycin versus pyrimethamine/sulfadiazine treatment of toxoplasmosis in pregnancy: is spiramycin really the drug of choice for unproven infection of the fetus

P. Prasil, R. Sleha, M. Kacerovsky, P. Bostik

. 2023 ; 36 (1) : 2215377. [pub] -

Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc23010778

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic regimens for the treatment of toxoplasmosis are not standardized. Treatment strategy mainly at the end of the second and the beginning of the third trimester, especially in cases of negative prenatal diagnosis, is the least uniform. In some situations, the choice of treatment may be ambiguous, and adverse drug reactions of the therapy should be taken into consideration. METHODS: Adverse drug reactions of anti-toxoplasma therapy with spiramycin (n = 77) versus pyrimethamine/sulfadiazine (n = 35) were compared in 112 pregnant women. RESULTS: Up to 36.6% of women reported adverse reactions to the treatment overall (n = 41). Out of those 38.9% (n = 30) were treated with spiramycin and 31.4% (n = 11) with pyrimethamine/sulfadiazine. Toxic allergic reactions were the only indication for discontinuation of treatment in 8.9% of patients (n = 10), where 9.1% (n = 7) were reported in spiramycin and 8.6% (n = 3) in pyrimethamine/sulfadiazine cohort. Neurotoxic complications (acral paraesthesia) were significantly more frequent during the therapy with spiramycine in 19.5% (n = 15) compared to no cases in pyrimethamine/sulfadiazine group (p = .003). Other adverse drug reactions, such as gastrointestinal discomfort, nephrotoxicity, vaginal discomfort were reported, but the differences between the cohorts were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The superiority of one of the therapeutic regimens was not statistically demonstrated, since the differences in overall toxicity or incidence of toxic allergic reactions between the cohorts were not confirmed (p = .53 and p = 1.00, respectively). However, although the isolated neurotoxicity of spiramycin was the only significant adverse reaction demonstrated in this study, pyrimethamine/sulfadiazine therapy should be preferred, because it is known to be more effective and with limited adverse reactions.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23010778
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230801132625.0
007      
ta
008      
230718s2023 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1080/14767058.2023.2215377 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)37217458
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Prasil, Petr $u Department of Infectious Diseases, Charles University, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000319439366
245    10
$a Comparison of adverse reactions of spiramycin versus pyrimethamine/sulfadiazine treatment of toxoplasmosis in pregnancy: is spiramycin really the drug of choice for unproven infection of the fetus / $c P. Prasil, R. Sleha, M. Kacerovsky, P. Bostik
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Therapeutic regimens for the treatment of toxoplasmosis are not standardized. Treatment strategy mainly at the end of the second and the beginning of the third trimester, especially in cases of negative prenatal diagnosis, is the least uniform. In some situations, the choice of treatment may be ambiguous, and adverse drug reactions of the therapy should be taken into consideration. METHODS: Adverse drug reactions of anti-toxoplasma therapy with spiramycin (n = 77) versus pyrimethamine/sulfadiazine (n = 35) were compared in 112 pregnant women. RESULTS: Up to 36.6% of women reported adverse reactions to the treatment overall (n = 41). Out of those 38.9% (n = 30) were treated with spiramycin and 31.4% (n = 11) with pyrimethamine/sulfadiazine. Toxic allergic reactions were the only indication for discontinuation of treatment in 8.9% of patients (n = 10), where 9.1% (n = 7) were reported in spiramycin and 8.6% (n = 3) in pyrimethamine/sulfadiazine cohort. Neurotoxic complications (acral paraesthesia) were significantly more frequent during the therapy with spiramycine in 19.5% (n = 15) compared to no cases in pyrimethamine/sulfadiazine group (p = .003). Other adverse drug reactions, such as gastrointestinal discomfort, nephrotoxicity, vaginal discomfort were reported, but the differences between the cohorts were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The superiority of one of the therapeutic regimens was not statistically demonstrated, since the differences in overall toxicity or incidence of toxic allergic reactions between the cohorts were not confirmed (p = .53 and p = 1.00, respectively). However, although the isolated neurotoxicity of spiramycin was the only significant adverse reaction demonstrated in this study, pyrimethamine/sulfadiazine therapy should be preferred, because it is known to be more effective and with limited adverse reactions.
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a těhotenství $7 D011247
650    12
$a spiramycin $x škodlivé účinky $7 D015572
650    _2
$a pyrimethamin $x škodlivé účinky $7 D011739
650    _2
$a sulfadiazin $x škodlivé účinky $7 D013411
650    12
$a toxoplazmóza $x farmakoterapie $7 D014123
650    _2
$a kombinovaná farmakoterapie $7 D004359
650    _2
$a plod $7 D005333
650    12
$a alergie $x farmakoterapie $7 D006967
650    12
$a nežádoucí účinky léčiv $7 D064420
650    12
$a kongenitální toxoplazmóza $x farmakoterapie $7 D014125
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Sleha, Radek $u Department of Epidemiology, University of Defence, Faculty of Military Health Sciences, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000173599147
700    1_
$a Kacerovsky, Marian $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Charles University, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000198587900 $7 xx0096559
700    1_
$a Bostik, Pavel $u Institute of Clinical Microbiology, Charles University, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000326916458
773    0_
$w MED00007048 $t The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians $x 1476-4954 $g Roč. 36, č. 1 (2023), s. 2215377
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37217458 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20230718 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230801132621 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1963296 $s 1197043
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 36 $c 1 $d 2215377 $e - $i 1476-4954 $m Journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine $n J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med $x MED00007048
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20230718

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...