| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 888.24 KB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Objectives: To evaluate and update the evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of antimicrobial drugs regimens for treating pulmonary drug-susceptible tuberculosis (DS-TB). Methods: A systematic review was performed with searches in PubMed and Scopus (PROSPERO-CRD42019141463). We included randomised controlled trials comparing the effect of any antimicrobial regimen lasting at least 2 weeks. The outcomes of interest were culture conversion and incidence of adverse events. Bayesian network meta-analyses and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analyses were performed. Results were reported as odds ratio with 95% credibility intervals. Key findings: Fifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis (n = 7560 patients). No regimen was statistically more effective than the WHO standard approach (rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide). The use of rifapentine 450 mg instead of rifampicin in the standard regimen demonstrated to be statistically safer than all other options for serious adverse events (e.g. hepatotoxicity, arthralgia) (OR ranging from 0.0 [Crl 0.00-0.04] to 0.0 [0.00-0.97]; SUCRA probabilities of 10%). Therapies containing rifapentine (Rp1500HEZ, Rp900HEZ) and moxifloxacin (RMEZ, RHMZ) are effective regarding culture conversion, but statistical uncertainty on their safety profile exists. Conclusion: The WHO standard regimen remains an overall effective and safe alternative for DS-TB. For intensive phase treatments, drugs combinations with rifapentine and moxifloxacin seem to reduce treatment duration while maintaining efficacy.
Description
Keywords
Antitubercular agents Drug-susceptible Network meta-analysis Systematic review Tuberculosis
Citation
Imazu P, Santos JM, Beraldi-Magalhães F, Fernandez-Llimos F, Tonin FS, Pontarolo R. Efficacy and safety of daily treatments for drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2022;74(6):905-17.
Publisher
Oxford Academic