A double blind, randomized, placebo controlled study to evaluate the efficacy of erythromycin in patients with knee effusion due to osteoarthritis

Long-Term Safety Profiles of Macrolides and Tetracyclines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Macrolides and tetracyclines are antibiotics that have a range of anti-inflammatory properties beyond their microbial capabilities. Although these antibiotics have been in widespread use, the long-term safety profiles are limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that compared macrolides or tetracyclines with placeboes to provide long-term safety information. We searched Medline and EMBASE from inception to October 2022 and identified studies that reported study drug-related death, serious adverse events (SAEs), or withdrawal rates, and common adverse effects of each drug. Relative risk (RR) and number needed to harm were calculated. Of the 52 randomized clinical trials included, there are 3151 participants on doxycycline, 2519 participants on minocycline, 3049 participants on azithromycin, 763 participants on clarithromycin, 262 participants on erythromycin, and 100 participants on roxithromycin. There was no death related to any study drugs and rates of SAE were not significantly different from placebo in any drug. Overall withdrawal rates were slightly higher than placebo in doxycycline (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.12-1.52) and minocycline (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.46). Withdrawal rates due to adverse events were higher in doxycycline (RR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.88-4.22), minocycline (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-1.98), and azithromycin (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.13-2.08). Gastrointestinal disturbances are the most common tolerable adverse effects for every drug. Photosensitivity and rash are the second most common adverse effects for doxycycline and minocycline. We found no evidence that long-term use up to 2 years of macrolides or tetracyclines was associated with increased risk of SAEs.

Pleiotropic effects of antibiotics on T cell metabolism and T cell-mediated immunity

T cells orchestrate adaptive and innate immune responses against pathogens and transformed cells. However, T cells are also the main adaptive effector cells that mediate allergic and autoimmune reactions. Within the last few years, it has become abundantly clear that activation, differentiation, effector function, and environmental adaptation of T cells is closely linked to their energy metabolism. Beyond the provision of energy equivalents, metabolic pathways in T cells generate building blocks required for clonal expansion. Furthermore, metabolic intermediates directly serve as a source for epigenetic gene regulation by histone and DNA modification mechanisms. To date, several antibiotics were demonstrated to modulate the metabolism of T cells especially by altering mitochondrial function. Here, we set out to systematically review current evidence about how beta-lactam antibiotics, macrolides, fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines, oxazolidinones, nitroimidazoles, and amphenicols alter the metabolism and effector functions of CD4+ T helper cell populations and CD8+ T cells in vitro and in vivo. Based on this evidence, we have developed an overview on how the use of these antibiotics may be beneficial or detrimental in T cell-mediated physiological and pathogenic immune responses, such as allergic and autoimmune diseases, by altering the metabolism of different T cell populations.

Erythromycin acts through the ghrelin receptor to attenuate inflammatory responses in chondrocytes and maintain joint integrity

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent disease characterized by chronic joint degeneration and low-grade localized inflammation. There is no available treatment to delay OA progression. We report that in human primary articular chondrocytes, erythromycin, a well-known macrolide antibiotic, had the ability to inhibit pro-inflammatory cytokine Interleukin 1β (IL-1β)-induced catabolic gene expression and nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) activation. Furthermore, erythromycin inhibited monosodium iodoacetate (MIA)-induced joint inflammation and cartilage matrix destruction in mice, an arthritis model that reflects the inflammatory and cartilage matrix loss aspects of OA. EM900, an erythromycin-derivative lacking antibiotic function, had the same activity as erythromycin in vitro and in vivo, indicating distinct anti-inflammatory and antibiotic properties. Using an antibody against erythromycin, we found erythromycin was present on chondrocytes in a dose-dependent manner. The association of erythromycin with chondrocytes was diminished in ghrelin receptor null chondrocytes, and administration of the ghrelin ligand prevented the association of erythromycin with chondrocytes. Importantly, the anti-inflammatory activity of erythromycin was diminished in ghrelin receptor null chondrocytes. Moreover, erythromycin could not exert its chondroprotective effect in ghrelin receptor null mice, and the loss of ghrelin receptor further augmented joint damage upon MIA-injection. Therefore, our study identified a novel pharmacological mechanism for how erythromycin exerts its chondroprotective effect. This mechanism entails ghrelin receptor signaling, which is necessary for alleviating inflammation and joint destruction.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

The Immunomodulatory Effects of Macrolides-A Systematic Review of the Underlying Mechanisms

Background

The mechanisms underlying the non-antimicrobial immunomodulatory properties of macrolides are not well understood.

Objectives

To systematically review the evidence for the immunomodulatory properties of macrolides in humans and to describe the underlying mechanism and extent of their influence on the innate and adaptive immune system.

Methods

A systematic literature search was done in MEDLINE using the OVID interface from 1946 to December 2016 according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA). Original articles investigating the influence of four macrolides (azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, and roxithromycin) on immunological markers in humans were included.

Results

We identified 22 randomized, controlled trials, 16 prospective cohort studies, and 8 case–control studies investigating 47 different immunological markers (186 measurements) in 1,834 participants. The most frequently reported outcomes were a decrease in the number of neutrophils, and the concentrations of neutrophil elastase, interleukin (IL)-8, IL-6, IL-1beta, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, eosinophilic cationic protein, and matrix metalloproteinase 9. Inhibition of neutrophil function was reported more frequently than eosinophil function. A decrease in T helper (Th) 2 cells cytokines (IL-4, IL-5, IL-6) was reported more frequently than a decrease in Th1 cytokines (IL-2, INF-gamma).

Conclusion

Macrolides influence a broad range of immunological mechanisms resulting in immunomodulatory effects. To optimize the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases by macrolides, further studies are necessary, particularly comparing different macrolides and dose effect relationships.

The Chondroprotective Role of Erythromycin in a Murine Joint Destruction Model

OBJECTIVE

Inflammation is a major player in the joint destruction process. Macrolide antibiotics have recently been found to have a novel anti-inflammatory function, but their effects on the joint are unknown. Our objective was to investigate the effect of macrolide antibiotic erythromycin on cartilage gene expression under inflammatory conditions as well as on joint pathology in an in vivo inflammatory joint destruction model.

DESIGN

In our in vivo studies, mouse knee joints were injected with monosodium iodoacetate (MIA), a chemical that inhibits glycolysis and causes joint inflammation and matrix loss. Erythromycin was administered by daily intraperitoneal injection. Changes in joint cartilage and synovium were evaluated by histological analysis. In our in vitro studies, primary bovine articular chondrocytes were treated with erythromycin in the presence of pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-1β or lipopolysaccharide (LPS), and cartilage gene expression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Regional differences in cartilage matrix destruction along the medial-lateral axis were observed in joints of MIA-injected mice. Erythromycin treatment inhibited cartilage matrix loss and synovitis in these joints. In addition, erythromycin inhibited IL-1β and LPS-induced expression of MMPs and iNOS, as well as the positive regulatory loop between IL-1β and Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) in articular chondrocytes. Furthermore, erythromycin prevented LPS-induced NF-κB activation, a key mediator of TLR4-mediated cartilage destruction process.

CONCLUSIONS

Erythromycin has the ability to inhibit catabolic gene expression mediated by IL-1β and TLR4 in chondrocytes in vitro and maintains cartilage matrix levels in experimental inflammatory joint destruction in vivo, suggesting that it possesses a chondroprotective activity.