Evidence Hub

Risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection following use of fluoroquinolones: a retrospective multinational network cohort study

Janetzki JL, Kim JH, Minty E, Lee JA, Morales DR, Khera R, Kim C, Alshammari TM et al.

EClinicalMedicine, 2025

13,588,837 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Background: Fluoroquinolones (FQs) are commonly used to treat urinary tract infections (UTIs), but some studies have suggested they may increase the risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection (AA/AD). However, no large-scale international study has thoroughly assessed this risk.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a large, distributed network analysis across 14 databases from 5 countries (United States, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Australia). The study included 13,588,837 patients aged 35 or older who initiated systemic fluoroquinolones (FQs) or comparable antibiotics (trimethoprim with or without sulfamethoxazole [TMP] or cephalosporins [CPHs]) for UTI treatment in the outpatient setting between JAN 01, 2010 and DEC 31, 2019. Patients were included if at the index date they had at least 365 days of prior observation and were not hospitalised for any reason on or within 7 days prior to the index date. The primary outcome was AA/AD occurrence within 60 days of exposure, with secondary outcomes examining AA and AD separately. Cox proportional hazards models with 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching were used to estimate the risk, with results calibrated using negative control outcomes. Analyses were subjected to pre-defined study diagnostics, and only those passing all diagnostics were reported. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled using Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis.

Findings: Among analyses that passed diagnostics there were 1,954,798 and 1,195,962…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 13,588,837 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free