ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Azithromycin versus azithromycin-pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine-pyrimethamine for the treatment of ocular toxoplasmosis: a retrospective comparative case-series.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Drug Repurposing in Parasitology: New Uses for Old Drugs to Be Used Through the Host-Parasite Interface.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare azithromycin to azithromycin-pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine-pyrimethamine for the treatment of toxoplasma-related retinochoroiditis (TRC). SUBJECTS/
methodsRetrospective comparative case-series of consecutive patients treated for TRC in one tertiary centre. They were included if they had received azithromycin (A), azithromycin-pyrimethamine (AP) or sulfadiazine-pyrimethamine (SP) alongside systemic glucocorticoids; and excluded if any other treatment was given, or if no systemic glucocorticoids were used. Total sample was 493 people (SP: 267, A: 139, AP: 87). Time-to-event analysis (TTE) and logistic linear regression models were used (one eye/person).
main outcome measureDrop in BCVA of more than 0.2 LogMAR within six months. Further outcome measures: Disease recurrence within one year; disease inactivation within six weeks; number of people with treatment switch and adverse events.
resultsThere was no significant difference between the groups in probability of visual loss (including subgroup analysis for macular lesions), disease recurrence within one year, and disease inactivity within six weeks. The total number of treatment switches was not significantly different between groups (SP: 39/238 [16%]; A: 13/131 [10%], OR = 0.51; AP: 14/80 [18%], OR = 1.03; sample for this analysis: 449 people), although the most common switch reason varied (A: poor response; AP and SP: adverse event). There were more adverse events in both combination groups than azithromycin (A: 6/131 [5%]; SP: 66/238 [28%], OR = 7.9, p value < 0.001; AP: 16/80 [20%], OR = 5.2, p value = 0.001).
conclusionAzithromycin had similar outcomes to azithromycin-pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine-pyrimethamine for the treatment of TRC, whilst having a better tolerance.
Identifiers
42469436What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.