Risk of cardiac events with azithromycin-A prediction model.

Previous studies have suggested an increased risk of cardiac events with azithromycin, but the predictors of such events are unknown. We sought to develop and validate two prediction models to identify such predictors. We used data from Truven Marketscan Database (01/2009 to 06/2015). Using a split-sample approach, we developed two prediction models, which included baseline demographics, clinical conditions (Model 1), concurrent use of any drug (Model 1) and therapeutic class (Model 2) with a risk of QT-prolongation (CQT-Rx). Patients enrolled in a health plan for 365 days before and five days after dispensing of azithromycin (episodes). Cardiac events included syncope, palpitations, ventricular arrhythmias, cardiac arrest as a primary diagnosis for hospitalization including death. For each model, a backward elimination of predictors using logistic regression was applied to identify predictors in 100 random samples of the training cohort. Predictors prevalent in >50% of the models were included in the final model. A score for the Assessment of Cardiac Risk with Azithromycin (ACRA) was generated using the training cohort then tested in the validation cohort. A cohort of 20,134,659 episodes with 0.03% cardiac events were included. Over 60% included females with mean age of 40.1±21.3 years. Age, sex, history of syncope, cardiac dysrhythmias, non-specific chest pain, and presence of a CQT-Rx were included as predictors for Model-1 (c-statistic = 0.68). For Model-2 (c-statistic = 0.64), predictors included age, sex, anti-arrhythmic agents, anti-emetics, antidepressants, loop diuretics, and ACE inhibitors. ACRA score is available online (bit.ly/ACRA_2020). The ACRA score may help identify patients who are at higher risk of cardiac events following treatment with azithromycin. Providers should assess the risk-benefit of using azithromycin and consider alternative antibiotics among high-risk patients.

Introduction

Drugs are a common cause of acquired Long QT syndrome [1-4]. Over 200 different drugs, including macrolides, have been associated with acquired Long QT syndrome [5]. Azithromycin, a macrolide, is commonly prescribed to treat acute infections and was considered to be the safest macrolide because of its low arrhythmogenic activity [6]. Because of its safety profile and a short duration of therapy, azithromycin is frequently prescribed (for every 1000 outpatient visits, 6.9 prescriptions were dispensed) [7]. However, in 2012, a study found an increased risk of cardiac deaths with the use of azithromycin within 5 days after therapy initiation. As a result, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety warning against the use of azithromycin among patients with known acquired Long QT syndrome, a history of torsades de pointes, congenital QT syndrome, bradyarrhythmias or uncompensated heart failure, and other proarrhythmic conditions such as hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and bradycardia [8]. The warning also cautioned the concurrent use of antiarrhythmic agents. The FDA warning included such risk factors, which were primarily identified for the development of acquired Long QT syndrome.

Despite the FDA warning, the profile of azithromycin users did not change markedly since 2012 [7]. In addition to the risk factors from the FDA warning, other factors may put patients receiving azithromycin therapy at a high risk of developing cardiac events. To date, no study has identified and confirmed the baseline predictors of cardiac events after azithromycin use. Our objective was to develop and internally validate two prediction models, which could be used by providers to identify characteristics that put patients at a high risk of developing cardiac events with azithromycin therapy. Both models differed by baseline predictors and aimed to be utilized by different providers. We also sought to create a risk score, which can be used with ease to identify patients at low, moderate, high and very high risk of developing cardiac events.

Materials and methods

The predictor model was developed using data from the Truven Health Analytics MarkenScan Database [9], a private-sector health data resource, which reflects the healthcare experience of enrollees covered by the health benefit programs for employers. Data are collected from over 100 different health insurance companies and are nationally representative of commercially-insured enrollees and their dependents.

First, we identified patients who received one or more azithromycin prescription between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2015. Multiple short-term dispensing of azithromycin therapy over time for a given patient were treated as episodes. Episodes were included if they had at least 365 days of continuous enrollment in a health plan before (baseline period), the dispense date of azithromycin (index date). Episodes were excluded if they had a missing enrollment ID, were exposed to azithromycin, clarithromycin, and erythromycin in the 30 days before and five days after the index date (follow-up period), or were prescribed azithromycin for more than 14 consecutive days (maintenance therapy).

Patient characteristics, including age, sex, geographic region, and insurance type, were collected at the index date. Clinical conditions were categorized using Clinical Classification Software (CCS) [10]. The software collapses diagnosis and procedure codes from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (IDC-9-CM), which contains more than 14,000 diagnosis codes and 3,900 procedure codes. Over 300 chronic conditions from the level-three category were included as potential predictors.

Medications that prolong the QT interval or induce TdP were identified from a publicly available, well-established, and widely recognized list from the “CredibleMeds” website [5]. The drugs were categorized into 24 different therapeutic classes. Any QT-prolonging drugs prescribed within 90 days before the index date were considered. Concurrent use was defined based on an overlap of days’ supply (with 15% allowed gap [11]) of QT-prolonging drugs with the index date of azithromycin prescription.

The outcome was measured as having a primary diagnosis during a hospitalization or first-listed emergency department (ED) visit based on ICD-9 codes for ventricular arrhythmia, palpitation, Long QT syndrome, cardiac arrest, syncope or death (ICD-9-CM codes: 426.82, 427, 427.1, 427.2, 427.4, 427.5, 427.9, 427.41, 427.42, 780.2, 785.1, 798, 798.1, 798.2, 798.9) within 5 days after the index date. This outcome definition was validated in previous studies with positive predictive values (PPVs) of over 80% [12,13]. We also applied an algorithm developed by another validation study to identify the outcomes originating from outpatient settings [14].

We developed two separate prediction models. Model 1 (for prescribers) included demographics, chronic comorbid conditions, and the presence of any concurrent QT-prolonging drug (as none, with at least one, and with one or more categories) as potential variables. Demographics and therapeutic classes of concurrent QT-prolonging drugs were included as predictors in Model 2 (for pharmacists). Models 1 and 2 included a total of 360 and 60 predictors, respectively.

An episode of azithromycin therapy was the unit of analysis. We used a split-sample design to derive and internally validate both prediction models. The total cohort was divided into two mutually exclusive populations for model development (training cohort = 66.6% of the sample) and internal validation (validation cohort = 33.4% of the sample). Both models were developed using the same training and validation cohorts. The training cohort was used for variable selection and model development, and the validation cohort was used to evaluate the performance of the final model. From the training cohort, a random sample containing 1,000,000 episodes of azithromycin therapy was selected. We then applied a backward elimination using logistic regression for variable selection in predictive modeling. With backward elimination, a criterion of P-value >0.15 was applied to remove variables from the model to generate a final model for the sample [15]. This process was repeated 100 times to determine the frequency of common predictors from 100 models. Predictors that were included in at least 50% of the models and were not correlated (with R-squared threshold of > 0.2) with other variables were selected for the final model (estimated using the entire training cohort). A sensitivity analysis was performed using both 75% and 100% as a predictor frequency for inclusion in the final model.

The statistical comparison between patients with and without a cardiac event included t-tests for the continuous measures and χ2 tests for the categorical variables. The validation cohort was used to assess discrimination and calibration of the final model [16]. Discrimination, the ability of the model to distinguish individuals who developed the outcome from those remained event free, was assessed using a concordance index (c-statistic). A receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was also generated. Calibration was assessed by plotting the observed versus predicted outcomes by decile of risk values with a Hosmer and Lemeshow test (test for goodness of fit).

We developed the Assessment of Cardiac Risk with Azithromycin (ACRA) scores to determine the probability of patients’ risk of cardiac events with azithromycin therapy. The predicted probabilities, calculated from regression coefficient from the training cohort, were then used to assign a risk category in rank order (Low: <25%, Moderate: 25–50%, High: 51 to 75%, and Very High: >75%). The Brier score (range: 0 to 0.25, where a lower score indicates better performance) was used to evaluate the performance of risk categories using the validation cohort. All the statistical analyses were completed using SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

The use of data for this study was reviewed and determined to be exempt from human subjects research requiring informed consent by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Results

From January 1, 2009, to June 30, 2015, a total of 47,763,486 prescriptions of azithromycin were dispensed. Of these, 29,100,943 (60.9%) episodes were included based on the inclusion criteria of continuous enrollment before and after the index date. A total of 8,966,284 episodes (18.8%) were excluded for missing enrollment ID, exposure to a macrolide within 30 days before and five days after the index date, or if azithromycin was prescribed for a maintenance therapy (days supply >14 days). The final eligible cohort included 20,134,659 episodes of azithromycin therapy (12,172,949 unique patients). Almost 80% of the episodes included patients who were 18 years or older, 60% were female, and the majority (42.9%) from the Southern US (Table 1). There were 7,009 (0.03%) cardiac events identified among the included azithromycin episodes. Syncope and palpitations (65.5% and 24.7%, respectively) were the most common type of cardiac event, and five patients had died during the follow-up period (Table 2).

Table 1

Patient characteristics.

Variables	Total	Without a Cardiac Event	With a Cardiac Event	Standardized Difference
	(N = 20,134,659)	(N = 20,127,650)	(N = 7,009)
Age Group (in years)
Less than or equal to 17	4,348,886 (21.6)	4,348,211 (21.6)	675 (9.6)	33.5
18 to 34	3,878,631 (19.3)	3,877,375 (19.3)	1,256 (17.9)	3.6
35 to 44	3,230,809 (16.0)	3,229,824 (16.0)	985 (14.1)	5.3
45 to 54	3,543,373 (17.6)	3,542,155 (17.6)	1,218 (17.4)	0.5
55 to 64	3,375,314 (16.8)	3,373,923 (16.8)	1,391 (19.8)	7.8
65 & older	1,757,646 (8.7)	1,756,162 (8.7)	1,484 (21.2)	35.6
Sex
Male	7,951,287 (39.5)	7,948,404 (39.5)	2,883 (41.1)	3.3
Female	12,183,372 (60.5)	12,179,246 (60.5)	4,126 (58.9)	3.3
Region
Northeast Region	3,063,323 (15.2)	3,062,198 (15.2)	1,125 (16.1)	2.5
North Central Region	4,877,579 (24.2)	4,875,728 (24.2)	1,851 (26.4)	5.1
South Region	8,645,336 (42.9)	8,642,513 (42.9)	2,823 (40.3)	5.3
West Region	3,181,028 (15.8)	3,179,929 (15.8)	1,099 (15.7)	0.3
Unknown Region	367,393 (1.8)	367,282 (1.8)	111 (1.6)	1.5
Type of Insurance
Preferred provider organization	12,099,495 (60.1)	12,095,602 (60.1)	3,893 (55.5)	9.3
Health maintenance organization	2,568,407 (12.8)	2,567,522 (12.8)	885 (12.6)	0.6
Point-of-service plan	1,393,092 (6.9)	1,392,624 (6.9)	468 (6.7)	0.8
Consumer directed health plan	1,280,502 (6.4)	1,280,136 (6.4)	366 (5.2)	5.1
High deductible health plan	684,604 (3.4)	684,393 (3.4)	211 (3.0)	2.3
Exclusive provider organization	278,014 (1.4)	277,953 (1.4)	61 (0.9)	4.7
Other	115,111 (0.6)	115,069 (0.6)	42 (0.6)	0
Missing/Unknown	525,919 (2.6)	525,692 (2.6)	227 (3.2)	3.6
Year
2010	3,378,933 (16.8)	3,377,870 (16.8)	1,063 (15.2)	4.4
2011	4,222,167 (21.0)	4,220,666 (21.0)	1,501 (21.4)	1.0
2012	4,641,036 (23.0)	4,639,459 (23.1)	1,577 (22.5)	1.4
2013	3,198,041 (15.9)	3,196,828 (15.9)	1,213 (17.3)	3.8
2014	3,199,514 (15.9)	3,198,385 (15.9)	1,129 (16.1)	0.5
2015	1,494,968 (7.4)	1,494,442 (7.4)	526 (7.5)	0.4

Note: All comparisons between episodes with and without a cardiac event were statistically significant (p<0.05).

Table 2

Frequency of the outcome of cardiac event.

	Total (N = 20,134,659)
Outcome (at least one or more of the following conditions)	7009 (0.03)
Syncope	4599 (65.62)
Palpitations	1733 (24.73)
Cardiac arrest	353 (5.04)
Cardiac dysrhythmia	273 (3.89)
Paroxysmal ventricular tachycardia	114 (1.63)
Ventricular fibrillation	36 (0.51)
Long QT syndrome	17 (0.24)
Death	5 (0.07)
Ventricular flutter	2 (0.03)

Among episodes with and without a cardiac event, the differences in demographics were all statistically significant (P<0.05) due to large sample sizes (Table 1). Overall, the episodes with a cardiac event included a higher percentage of patients who were more than 65 years old and had comprehensive coverage. Episodes without a cardiac event had a higher percentage of patients who were less than 17 years old. Episodes including patients with a cardiac event had a higher prevalence of baseline cardiovascular disease including hypertension, heart failure, and coronary atherosclerosis (Table 3).

Table 3

Comorbid conditions of cohort by outcome.

	Total	Without a Cardiac Event	With a Cardiac Event	Standardized Difference
	(N = 20,134,659)	(N = 20,127,650)	(N = 7,009)
Hypertension	3,168,455 (15.7)	3,166,417 (15.7)	2,038 (29.1)	32.6
Cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation	5,854 (0.0)	5,839 (0.0)	15 (0.2)	6.3
Congestive heart failure	168,921 (0.8)	168,616 (0.8)	305 (4.4)	22.8
Acute myocardial infarction	43,498 (0.2)	43,427 (0.2)	71 (1.0)	10.4
Coronary atherosclerosis	642,146 (3.2)	641,461 (3.2)	685 (9.8)	27
Pulmonary heart disease	73,738 (0.4)	73,670 (0.4)	68 (1.0)	7.2
Acute cerebrovascular disease	86,091 (0.4)	85,950 (0.4)	141 (2.0)	14.7
Transient cerebral ischemia	70,271 (0.3)	70,173 (0.3)	98 (1.4)	12
Peripheral and visceral atherosclerosis	221,525 (1.1)	221,306 (1.1)	219 (3.1)	14

Note: All comparisons between episodes with and without a cardiac event were statistically significant (p<0.05).

Among episodes with a cardiac event, 22.3% had at least one, and 10.4% had two or more concurrent QT-prolonging drugs. Among episodes with at least one or more concurrent QT-prolonging drugs, the most common class were antidepressants (31.9%), followed by opioid agonists (8.6%). We found no statistical differences in predictor variables between the training and validation cohorts.

For Model 1, the number of predictors in 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the models from the training cohort were 151, 20, 6, 5, and 1, respectively. The final predictors (with frequency) included a history of syncope (100%), age (97%), cardiac dysrhythmias (91%), presence of QT-prolonging drug (81%), non-specific chest pain (77%), and sex (52%). The effect estimates of predictors including in Model 1, were consistent between both training and validation cohorts (Table 4). History of syncope had the highest odds of predicting a cardiac event. Age group greater than 65 years old had greater odds of a cardiac event compared to 35 to 44 years old patients.

Table 4

Logistic regression model of predictors of cardiac events among episodes of azithromycin therapy—Model 1.

	Training Cohort			Validation Cohort
	Model A (50%)	Model B (75%)	Model C (100%)	Final Model	Beta-Coefficients1
Syncope	3.90 (3.47–4.38)	3.89 (3.47–4.37)	7.19 (6.45–8.01)	3.66 (3.11–4.31)	1.30
Age groups (in years)
≤17 vs 35 to 44	0.54 (0.48–0.61)	0.55 (0.49–0.62)	-	0.65 (0.55–0.77)	-0.43
18 to 34 vs 35 to 44	1.10 (1.00–1.22)	1.10 (0.99–1.22)	-	1.15 (0.99–1.33)	0.14
45 to 54 vs 35 to 44	1.03 (0.93–1.15)	1.04 (0.94–1.15)	-	1.11 (0.95–1.28)	0.10
55 to 64 vs 35 to 44	1.12 (1.01–1.23)	1.12 (1.01–1.24)	-	1.31 (1.13–1.51)	0.27
≥65 vs 35 to 44	1.79 (1.61–1.98)	1.81 (1.63–2.01)	-	1.97 (1.70–2.28)	0.68
Cardiac dysrhythmias	1.99 (1.82–2.18)	2.00 (1.83–2.18)	-	2.30 (2.04–2.60)	-0.43
Concurrent QT-prolonging drug
At least one vs None	1.32 (1.22–1.42)	1.30 (1.21–1.40)	-	1.29 (1.17–1.44)	0.83
Two or more vs None	1.91 (1.73–2.12)	1.88 (1.70–2.08)	-	1.74 (1.50–2.01)	0.26
Non-specific chest pain	1.67 (1.54–1.82)	1.67 (1.53–1.81)	-	1.74 (1.55–1.96)	0.55
Male vs Female	1.17 (1.11–1.25)	-	-	1.15 (1.06–1.25)	0.56

1Beta-cofficient intercept value was -8.40.

Model B and C include sensitivity analysis results (predictors present in 75% and 100% of 100 models with a c-statistic value of 0.6712 and 0.5320, respectively). Predictors from Model A (50%) were selected for validation and final model development based on c-statistic value (0.6740).

Model 2 had 31, 16, 7, 2 and 1 number of predictors in 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the models, respectively. The final predictors (with frequency) included age (100%), anti-arrhythmic agents (89%), sex (56%), anti-emetics (56%), antidepressants (55%), loop diuretics (53%), and ACE inhibitors (52%). In the validation cohort, the use of concurrent ACE inhibitors was not a significant predictor of cardiac events (Table 5). Similar to Model 1, older patients (> 65 years of age) predicted a high likelihood of a cardiac event. Episodes with concurrent use of an antiarrhythmic or antiemetic drug with azithromycin had the greatest odds of a cardiac event.

Table 5

Logistic regression model of predictors of cardiac events among episodes of azithromycin therapy—Model 2.

	Training Cohort			Validation Cohort
	Model A (50%)	Model B (75%)	Model C (100%)	Final Model	Beta-Coefficients1
Age group (in years)
≤17 vs 35 to 44	0.49 (0.43–0.55)	0.48 (0.43–0.54)	0.48 (0.43–0.54)	0.58 (0.49–0.69)	-0.54
18 to 34 vs 35 to 44	1.07 (0.97–1.19)	1.05 (0.95–1.16)	1.05 (0.95–1.16)	1.10 (0.95–1.28)	0.09
45 to 54 vs 35 to 44	1.08 (0.98–1.20)	1.10 (0.99–1.22)	1.10 (0.99–1.22)	1.16 (1.02–1.35)	0.15
55 to 64 vs 35 to 44	1.22 (1.11–1.35)	1.27 (1.15–1.40)	1.28 (1.16–1.42)	1.44 (1.25–1.67)	0.37
65 & older vs 35 to 44	2.35 (2.12–2.60)	2.55 (2.31–2.81)	2.67 (2.42–2.95)	2.59 (2.24–3.00)	0.95
Antiarrhythmic agents	3.78 (3.01–4.74)	4.22 (3.37–5.28)	-	4.32 (3.21–5.81)	0.12
Male vs Female	1.16 (1.09–1.23)	-	-	1.13 (1.04–1.23)	1.46
Antiemetics2	2.75 (2.10–3.60)	-	-	3.40 (2.41–4.80)	1.22
Antidepressants2	1.34 (1.23–1.47)	-	-	1.20 (1.06–1.37)	0.19
Loop diuretics2	1.54 (1.33–1.77)	-	-	1.68 (1.39–2.04)	0.52
ACE inhibitors2	1.52 (1.28–1.80)	-	-	1.23 (0.95–1.60)	0.21

Model B and C include sensitivity analysis results (predictors present in 75% and 100% of 100 models with a c-statistic value of 0.6179 and 0.6162, respectively). Predictors from Model A (50%) were selected for validation and final model development based on c-statistic value (0.6318).

1Beta-cofficient intercept value was -8.23.

2The following drugs were included within each therapeutic class: Antiarrhythmic Agent (Quinidine, Propafenone, Dronedarone, Flecainide, Amiodarone), Antiemetics (Dolasetron, Granisetron, Ondansetron, Metoclopramide), Antidepressants (Desvenlafaxine, Maprotiline, Desipramine, Fluvoxamine, Imipramine, Fluoxetine, Venlafaxine, Mirtazapine, Amitriptyline, Trazodone, Escitalopram, Citalopram, Sertraline), Loop Diuretics (Furosemide), and ACE Inhibitors (Captopril, Fosinopril, Moexipril, Quinapril, Enalapril, Benazepril, Lisinopril).

The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test resulted in a good fit for both models (Model 1: P-values of 0.08 and 0.06 for the training and validation cohorts, respectively, Model 2: 0.99 and 0.97). Discrimination of the model was good: c-statistic was 0.68 and 0.64 for Model 1 and 2, respectively. The observed and predicted events based on the ACRA scores from both Models are included in Fig 1. Sensitivity analysis using the various thresholds (75% and 100%) of the frequency of predictor variables was performed (See Tables 4 and 5). At the threshold of 75%, sex was eliminated, and at 100%, only syncope remained as a significant predictor in Model 1. For Model 2, the threshold of 75% included age and antiarrhythmic agents, and at 100%, only age remained the significant predictor. The threshold of 50% was appropriate for developing the final models based on the model discrimination (c-statistic > 0.67) and the clinical relevance of the predictors.

Fig 1

Comparison of predicted and observed cardiac events from ACRA score.

Discussion

Using data from a large claims database, we identified the predictors of a cardiac event among patients treated with azithromycin therapy in an outpatient setting. The occurrence of cardiac events among azithromycin users is low (0.03%), but patients with one or more predictors from our models might be at a high risk of such events. Using the ACRA calculator may help with the appropriate use of azithromycin in outpatient settings.

Previous literature has identified several risk factors of Long QT syndrome in a general population. The risk of cardiac event or death was strongly associated with increasing age, male sex, and presence of underlying cardiovascular disease, including heart failure [17-20]. Although no study has directly identified the predictors of cardiac events among azithromycin users, a few risk evaluation studies have examined subgroups based on the general understanding of the risk factors that lead to a cardiac event. In a 2012 study from Ray et al. [21] focused on evaluating the risk of cardiac events among azithromycin users, there was a substantially higher risk of deaths among patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease. In another study by Choi et al. [22], the risk of QT prolongation after azithromycin use was evaluated using data from a university hospital in Korea. The investigators examined the effects of age and sex, but only found older age (>65 years) to be associated with a higher risk of cardiac events. These risk factors were mostly consistent with our findings. In contrast to previous literature, we identified that middle-age (55 to 64 years old) was also predictive of a cardiac event.

The FDA warning in 2012 was primarily based on an understanding of the risk factors of Long QT syndrome in a general population [8]. The risk factors included older age, males, history of heart disease, especially heart failure, hypokalemia, and bradycardia. While we were not able to ascertain the ongoing electrolyte abnormalities from our database, we confirmed all of the risk factors from our study, except for heart failure. From our model development exercise, congestive heart failure was present in only 26% of the model (out of 100 models) and was not a significant predictor of the outcome. It is possible that heart failure is a heterogeneous condition and certain phenotypes may be prone to cardiac arrhythmias. On the contrary, we found additional risk factors including a history of syncope and non-specific chest pain, to be predictive of a cardiac event. Syncope is a clinical consequence of many conditions including cardiac arrhythmias and non-specific chest pain has been previously associated with a sudden cardiac event [23-25] Among azithromycin users, these conditions may further increase the risk of a cardiac event. The FDA warning exclusively focused on antiarrhythmic agents as a risk factor. Previous studies that evaluated the risk of cardiac events with azithromycin did not examine which class of QT-prolonging drugs put patients at a higher risk. Our findings from Model 1 add to this knowledge, showing the risk with at least one or more QT-prolonging drugs was almost 30% higher and 75% higher with the use of two or more QT-prolonging drugs. In Model 2, we examined specific therapeutic classes of QT-prolonging drugs as predictors and found that in addition to antiarrhythmic agents, several other therapeutic classes including antiemetics, antidepressants, ACE inhibitors, and loop diuretics posed a similar risk of the outcome. ACE inhibitors have a protective effect on cardiac remodeling, but the potassium-sparing effects may help explain why it was one of the predictors of cardiac events with azithromycin [26].

We developed the two separate ACRA scores to be used at different inflection points in the healthcare system. Physicians are privy to patients’ history of clinical conditions such as syncope or cardiac dysrhythmias, whereas community pharmacists are less likely to know patients baseline conditions but have more extensive information on prior and concurrent drug use. Prescribers may use the ACRA score from Model 1 to identify high-risk patients based on their baseline conditions before prescribing azithromycin. On the other hand, ACRA score from Model 2 can help pharmacists assess the appropriate use of concurrent QT-prolonging drugs with azithromycin.

Our findings must be interpreted in the context of several limitations. With a retrospective, observational study design, unmeasured confounding, and measurement error are always possible. To develop our prediction models, we used data from administrative health care claims, which are primarily used for billing purposes, not research. We were unable to examine essential risk factors including, race, smoking status, use of over-the-counter medications, electrolyte abnormalities, QT prolongation, and body mass index as these variables were not available in the database. Despite this limitation, we used an extensive list of predictors (> 360) in both of our prediction models. Certain clinical conditions, including the outcome, may be underreported, and most severe cases might have led to hospitalization. Although we were able to measure the outcome of death using the ICD-9 codes, we lacked information on death occurring in settings other than inpatient hospitalization. We included palpitation, a non-specific symptom, as one of the cardiac events and assumed that patients experienced such event due to treatment and not because of a baseline condition. We assumed the conditions measured in the year before azithromycin prescription would be most relevant and probably taken into consideration at the time of prescribing.

Conclusions

In summary, we developed and internally validated two prediction models to predict the risk of a cardiac event among patients treated with azithromycin therapy. The ACRA score may help both general practitioners and pharmacists identify patients who are at considerable risk of a cardiac event after being exposed to azithromycin therapy. Further work is needed to identify factors not included in our study and validate the model in other populations.

22 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-15013

Risk of Cardiac Events with Azithromycin – A Prediction Model

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Patel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 05 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Antonio Cannatà

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Patel et al. in their paper explore the predictors of cardiac adverse event during therapy with azithromycine. Even though azithromycine has been found to be the less pro-arrhythmic macrolide, the arrhythmic risk prediction during therapy with azithromycine has not been extensively investigated previously. Therefore, a tool to predict this risk may have a relevant clinical application. The paper is well written, well conducted, and statistically accurate. The study is conducted on a large population and the number of events are well represented. However, I have some concerns.

Major concerns

Palpitations is a symptom that may lead to important misleading. It would improve the quality of the paper a better definition of the symptom. For example, a patient whose palpitation is clearly linked to anxiety is not equable to a patient whose palpitation is characterized by sudden onset and termination associated with dizziness. This should be considered a limitation.

The mode of death may be important in this context. Indeed, a death due to the underling infectious disease cannot be considered as a cardiac complication of therapy with azithromycine. If the mode of death cannot be explored, this issue should be reported as a limitation.

Minor concerns

Death usually is not a cause of admission. In the abstract I would move “or death” after “hospitalization”.

The authors in the introduction state that drugs are a common cause of long QT syndrome. I suggest to specify that they are talking about “acquired long QT syndrome”.

Introduction, line 5: missing space before bracket.

It would be clinically helpful to provide a percentage of adverse events for each risk category (low/moderate/high/very high).

Heart failure (HF) did not emerge as a predictor of arrhythmia. As authors state, this is a singular finding, as HF is one of the cardiovascular diseases more strictly linked to arrhythmias. However, I would argue in the discussion section, that HF is an extremely heterogeneous condition. Therefore, some phenotype and some aetiology may be more pro-arrhythmic than others. This issue may explain this singular finding.

In the references number 6,11,14, 23, 24, 25 not all authors are listed, even if in some of these the total number of authors does not exced 6. Please format all the references according to the journal policy (list all the authors if the total amount of authors does not excede 6).

Reviewer #2: The study I read seems particularly interesting to me through its conclusions especially in this period when we face the Covid-19 Pandemic, when many SARSCoV2 patients receive Azithromycin alone or in combination with hydroxychloroquine in the hope of amelioration especially of lung damage. Both drugs are known to have a potential for QT prolongation.

First of all, I want to mention that I am not a statistician but a clinical cardiologist. Even so, I consider that the statistical study made by the authors, imagining two statistical models one for the doctor who prescribes azithromycin and the other for the pharmacist who issues the prescription are very correct. And the conclusions that follow are of great help for both the prescribing doctors and the pharmacists.

The studied population is significant in size and includes all age and sex categories but is an outpatient population for which the data is collected from a database belonging to private insurance companies and therefore does not contain clinical parameters such as history of acute myocardial infarction or heart failure or biological markers such as blood ions that would be of interest in this instance. Nevertheless, the authors mention these aspects as limitations of the study. The current study is retrospective and observational using a database conceived for billing purposes and not for research purposes which represents other limit of the study.

However, doctors can use the score derived from the statistical model in identifying high-risk patients based on clinical conditions preceding the prescription of Azithromycin especially syncope and history of palpitations. Pharmacists can also use the score derived from model that takes into account especially previously prescribed drugs that may prolong the QT interval such as antiarrhythmics, antiemetics, antidepressants or loop diuretics.

For these reasons it is of great practical interest to publish this manuscript provided that the imagined statistical models will be developed through a prospective study.

Reviewer #3: In the paper entitled” Risk of Cardiac Events with Azithromycin – A Prediction Model” by Haridarshan Patel, the authors developed two prediction models, which included baseline demographics, clinical conditions (Model 1), concurrent use of any drug (Model 1) and therapeutic class (Model2) with a risk of QT-prolongation (CQT-Rx) through a splitsample approach, concluded that the Assessment of Cardiac Risk with Azithromycin score maybe helpful to identify patients who are at higher risk of cardiac events following treatment with azithromycin and providers should assess the risk-benefit of using azithromycin and consider alternative antibiotics among high-risk patients.

comments:

1. This is an interesting and fairly well-written paper dealing with identifying patients who are at higher risk of cardiac events following treatment with azithromycin through the Assessment of Cardiac Risk with Azithromycin score.

2. It is well known that ACEIs has protective effect on cardiac remodeling. There is a minor issue that needs attention in order to explain the administration of ACEIs predicts a higher risk of cardiac events following administration with Azithromycin.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: renamed_226a0.docx

Click here for additional data file.

30 Jul 2020

Please see the attached word doc which includes the responses to both editor and reviewers' feedback.

Submitted filename: Review Comments to the Author responses 7-24-2020.docx

Click here for additional data file.

25 Sep 2020

Risk of Cardiac Events with Azithromycin – A Prediction Model

PONE-D-20-15013R1

Dear Dr. Patel,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Antonio Cannatà

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the revision of the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. In my opinion the paper has improved its quality.

Reviewer #3: In the paper entitled” Risk of Cardiac Events with Azithromycin – A Prediction Model” by Haridarshan Patel, the authors developed two prediction models, which included baseline demographics, clinical conditions (Model 1), concurrent use of any drug (Model 1) and therapeutic class (Model2) with a risk of QT-prolongation (CQT-Rx) through a splitsample approach, concluded that the Assessment of Cardiac Risk with Azithromycin score maybe helpful to identify patients who are at higher risk of cardiac events following treatment with azithromycin and providers should assess the risk-benefit of using azithromycin and consider alternative antibiotics among high-risk patients.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

5 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-15013R1

Risk of Cardiac Events with Azithromycin – A Prediction Model

Dear Dr. Patel:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Antonio Cannatà

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE