A Seizure Attributed to Ofloxacine in a Woman Undergoing Detoxification for Alcohol Dependence

Objective. To report one case of seizure following administration of ofloxacin. Case Summary. A 38-year-old woman with alcohol dependence but no prior history of seizure disorder admitted in our inpatient alcohol detoxification program was prescribed ofloxacin four days after admission for a lower urinary tract infection. She was currently prescribed diazepam 30 mg per day. This treatment was continued without modification following admission. Forty eight hours after starting ofloxacin and after receiving five doses of oral ofloxacin, the patient experienced a seizure. Ofloxacin treatment was stopped and no further seizures occurred. Neurological examination of the patient, laboratory tests, computerized tomography with contrast enhancement and electroencephalography did not detect any abnormalities. Up to the last consultation, six months after admission, the patient has reported no recurrence of the seizure. Discussion. Quinolone antibiotics vary in their ability to induce seizures, with ofloxacin having one of the least potentials. In the present case, the seizure could be attributed in all probability to taking ofloxacin; since she had no previous history of seizures, she did not present an alcohol withdrawal syndrome, benzodiazepine treatment was not modified, the seizure occurred 48 h after taking ofloxacin, but seven days after stopping drinking, no alternative aetiologies for the seizure could be identified and no seizure recurrence was reported over the following seven months. Of reported cases of seizures in patients treated with fluoroquinolones, none concerned patients with alcohol dependence or patients treated with benzodiazepines. Conclusions. The present case alerts us to the possibility that seizures may occur in alcohol dependent patients treated with benzodiazepines who concomitantly prescribed a fluoroquinolone. These widely-used antibiotics should thus be prescribed with caution to patients undergoing detoxification for alcohol dependence, particularly if they are also taking benzodiazepines, irrespective of whether they have a previous history of seizures or not

Portuguese Results of the ETICC Study: Impact of the Pandemic COVID-19 in the Diagnosis and Management of Colorectal Cancer in 2020 in Portuguese Hospitals

Introduction: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had affected clinical practice in several ways, including the restriction of nonessential endoscopic procedures. Therefore, our aim was to evaluate how colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and management was affected during the first year of pandemics in Portugal. Methods: This is a Portuguese substudy of the French retrospective multicentric study ETICC (Etude de l’Impact de la pandémie COVID-19 sur le diagnostic et la prise en charge du Cancer Colorectal). We compared patients’ characteristics, clinical manifestations, CRC staging at diagnosis, delay to first medical appointment, histological diagnosis, surgical and medical treatments between the year previous to the pandemics (control) and the first year of pandemics. Results: We included 766 patients: 496 in the control group and 270 in the COVID group. There was no significant difference in CRC staging at diagnosis between both groups, with 21% being diagnosed as metastatic in the control group and 22% in the first year of pandemics (p = 0.770). Contrary to what happened in France, there was a significant decrease in CRC diagnosis in asymptomatic patients (25–8.4%; p < 0.001) and after a positive fecal immunochemical test (20.8–11.3%; p = 0.002) during the pandemics. Although the increase in the overall complication rate at diagnosis was nonsignificant, in Portugal, there was a significant increase in diagnosis of abdominal occlusion (12.1–18.1%; p = 0.033). In Portugal, time between the beginning of symptoms and the first medical appointment significantly increased from a median of 50 days to 64 days during COVID (p < 0.001). On the contrary, time between histological diagnosis and tumor resection had significantly decreased from a median of 65 to 39 days (p < 0.001). Time between histological diagnosis and neoadjuvant treatment was not statistically different (median of 64–67 days; p = 0.590), as was time between histological diagnosis and palliative chemotherapy (median of 50–51 days; p = 1.000). Time from CRC resection and adjuvant treatment has significantly decreased from a median of 54 to 43 days (p = 0.001). Discussion: We found a significant impact in CRC diagnosis in the first year of pandemics, more pronounced than what was found in France. These are likely related not only with the closing of endoscopy units but also with the difficulties patients had in finding an appointment with their general practitioners. On the other hand, both in France and Portugal, the first year of pandemics did not worsen CRC staging at diagnosis and did not significantly affect medical and surgical treatments once the diagnosis was made

Disulfiram Efficacy in the Treatment of Alcohol Dependence: A Meta-Analysis

<div><p>Background</p><p>Despite its success with compliant or supervised patients, disulfiram has been a controversial medication in the treatment of alcoholism. Often, study designs did not recognize a pivotal factor in disulfiram research, the importance of an open-label design. Our objectives are: (1) to analyze the efficacy and safety of disulfiram in RCTs in supporting abstinence and (2) to compare blind versus open-label studies, hypothesizing that blinded studies would show no difference between disulfiram and control groups because the threat would be evenly spread across all groups.</p><p>Methods and Findings</p><p>We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register for RCTs on disulfiram use with alcoholics in comparison to any alcoholic control group. The primary outcome was defined by the authors of each trial. Additional analyses included: blind vs. open-label, with or without supervision, cocaine study or not, and type of control. </p><p>Overall, the 22 included studies showed a higher success rate of disulfiram compared to controls Hedges'g = .58 (95%CI = .35–.82). When comparing blind and open-label RCTs, only open-label trials showed a significant superiority over controls g = .70 (95%CI = .46–.93). RCTs with blind designs showed no efficacy of disulfiram compared to controls. Disulfiram was also more effective than the control condition when compared to naltrexone g = .77, 95%CI = .52–1.02, to acamprosate g = .76, 95%CI = .04–1.48, and to the no disulfiram groups g = .43, 95%CI = .17–.69. </p><p>Limits include: (1) a population of 89% male subjects and (2) a high but unavoidable heterogeneity of the studies with a substantial I-square in most subgroups of studies.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Blinded studies were incapable of distinguishing a difference between treatment groups and thus are incompatible with disulfiram research. Based on results with open-label studies, disulfiram is a safe and efficacious treatment compared to other abstinence supportive pharmacological treatments or to no disulfiram in supervised studies for problems of alcohol abuse or dependence.</p></div

Meta-analysis of Hedges' g effect-size of all RCTs comparing the efficacy of disulfiram and controls.

<p>Meta-analysis of Hedges' g effect-size of all RCTs comparing the efficacy of disulfiram and controls.</p

Meta-analysis for blinded versus open-label RCTs.

<p>Meta-analysis of Hedges' g effect-size comparing the efficacy of disulfiram and controls in blinded versus open-label RCTs.</p