Person: YAZAN, HAKAN
2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Publication Metadata only Short-term azithromycin use is associated with QTc interval prolongation in children with cystic fibrosis(2024-01-01) Enhoş A.; Doğuş Kus H.; Yozgat C. Y.; Cakır E.; Yazan H.; Erol A. B.; ERENBERK U.; YOZGAT Y.; ENHOŞ, ASIM; ÇAKIR, ERKAN; YAZAN, HAKAN; ERENBERK, UFUKBackground: Azithromycin is used for children with cystic fibrosis (CF) for its immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory action. This study investigated the short-term alterations in QTc interval associated with azithromycin prophylaxis in pediatric patients with CF. Methods: This study included 121 patients with mild CF, of whom 76 received azithromycin (patient group) and 45 did not receive azithromycin (control group). The patient and control groups were categorized according to age as under 12 years of age and over 12 years of age. The first presentation measured all the patient and control groups at basic QTc time intervals. The QTc intervals of all patients were then remeasured systemically at 1, 3, and 6 months. Age categories and QTc intervals that were calculated at each month in the patient and control groups were compared statistically. Results: A statistically significant difference was detected in the patient group between the initial QTc interval time and the electrocardiogram (ECG) findings in the first and third months after prophylaxis treatment (p 0.05) in all groups. Almost all of the children\"s QTc intervals were within normal range and within the safety zone (under 0.44 s). No statistically significant difference was detected in the control group between the initial ECG and the QTc intervals measured at 1, 3, and 6 months. Conclusion: Short-term use of azithromycin prophylaxis in pediatric patients with mild CF slightly increased the QTc interval in the first and third months of follow-up. Nevertheless, all QTc interval changes fell within the safety zone. Notably, 1 month of follow-up treatment should be performed to check for any alteration in the QTc interval. If increased QTc interval duration is not detected in the first month, azithromycin prophylaxis can be safely prescribed.Publication Metadata only Comparison of clinical features of cystic fibrosis patients eligible but not on CFTR modulators to ineligible for CFTR modulators(2024-01-01) Nayır Büyükşahin H.; EMİRALİOĞLU ORDUKAYA N.; Yalçın E.; Şen V.; Selimoğlu Şen H.; Arslan H.; Başkan A. K.; Çakır F. B.; Koray C. F.; Yılmaz A. İ.; et al.; ÇAKIR, FATMA BETÜL; OGUN, HAMZA; YAZAN, HAKAN; ÇAKIR, ERKANIntroduction: Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator drugs target the underlying defect and improve CFTR function. They are a part of standard care in many countries, but not all patients are eligible for these drugs due to age and genotype. Here, we aimed to determine the characteristics of non-eligible patients for CFTR modulators in the CF registry of Turkey (CFRT) to highlight their clinical needs. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included CF patient data from the CFRT in 2021. The decision of eligibility for the CFTR modulator was determined according to the ‘Vertex treatment-Finder\" on the Vertex® website. Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients were compared between eligible (group 1) and ineligible (group 2) groups for CFTR modulators. Results: Among the study population (N = 1527), 873 (57.2%) were in group 1 and 654 (42.8%) were in group 2. There was no statistical difference between groups regarding sex, meconium ileus history, diagnoses via newborn screening, FEV1 z-score, CF-associated complications, organ transplant history, and death. Patients in group 2 had a higher incidence of pancreatic insufficiency (87.7% vs. 83.2%, p =.010), lower median height z-scores (−0.87 vs. −0.55, p <.001), lower median body mass index z-scores (−0.65 vs. −0.50, p <.001), longer days receiving antibiotics due to pulmonary exacerbation (0 [interquartile range, IQR: 0–2] vs. 0 [IQR: 0–7], p = 0.001), and more non-invasive ventilation support (2.6% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.008) than patients in group 1. Conclusion: The ineligible group had worse clinical outcomes than the eligible group. This highlights their need for life-changing drugs to improve clinical outcomes.