BACKGROUND: Using hollow-fiber tuberculosis studies, we recently demonstrated that nonadherence is not a significant factor for ADR and that therapy failure only occurs after a large proportion of doses are missed. Computer-aided clinical trial simulations have suggested that isoniazid and rifampin pharmacokinetic variability best explained poor outcomes. We were interested in determining whether isoniazid pharmacokinetic variability was associated with either microbiological failure or ADR in the clinic. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials that reported isoniazid acetylation status and microbiological outcomes were selected. The main effects examined were microbiological sputum conversion, ADR, and relapse. Effect size was expressed as pooled risk ratios (RRs) comparing rapid with slow acetylators. RESULTS:Thirteen randomized studies with 1631 rapid acetylators and 1751 slow acetylators met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Rapid acetylators were more likely than slow acetylators to have microbiological failure (RR, 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.7), ADR (RR, 2.0; CI, 1.1-3.4), and relapse (RR, 1.3; CI, .9-2.0). Higher failure rates were encountered even in drug regimens comprising >3 antibiotics. No publication bias or small-study effects were observed for the outcomes evaluated. CONCLUSIONS:Pharmacokinetic variability to a single drug in the regimen is significantly associated with failure of therapy and ADR in patients. This suggests that individualized dosing for tuberculosis may be more effective than standardized dosing, which is prescribed in directly observed therapy programs.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Using hollow-fiber tuberculosis studies, we recently demonstrated that nonadherence is not a significant factor for ADR and that therapy failure only occurs after a large proportion of doses are missed. Computer-aided clinical trial simulations have suggested that isoniazid and rifampin pharmacokinetic variability best explained poor outcomes. We were interested in determining whether isoniazid pharmacokinetic variability was associated with either microbiological failure or ADR in the clinic. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials that reported isoniazid acetylation status and microbiological outcomes were selected. The main effects examined were microbiological sputum conversion, ADR, and relapse. Effect size was expressed as pooled risk ratios (RRs) comparing rapid with slow acetylators. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized studies with 1631 rapid acetylators and 1751 slow acetylators met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Rapid acetylators were more likely than slow acetylators to have microbiological failure (RR, 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-2.7), ADR (RR, 2.0; CI, 1.1-3.4), and relapse (RR, 1.3; CI, .9-2.0). Higher failure rates were encountered even in drug regimens comprising >3 antibiotics. No publication bias or small-study effects were observed for the outcomes evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacokinetic variability to a single drug in the regimen is significantly associated with failure of therapy and ADR in patients. This suggests that individualized dosing for tuberculosis may be more effective than standardized dosing, which is prescribed in directly observed therapy programs.
Authors: Marc Weiner; William Burman; Andrew Vernon; Debra Benator; Charles A Peloquin; Awal Khan; Stephen Weis; Barbara King; Nina Shah; Thomas Hodge Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2003-01-16 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: C M Tam; S L Chan; K M Kam; E Sim; D Staples; K M Sole; H Al-Ghusein; D A Mitchison Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Ramesh Jayaram; Radha K Shandil; Sheshagiri Gaonkar; Parvinder Kaur; B L Suresh; B N Mahesh; R Jayashree; Vrinda Nandi; Sowmya Bharath; E Kantharaj; V Balasubramanian Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Elizabeth W Tucker; Beatriz Guglieri-Lopez; Alvaro A Ordonez; Brittaney Ritchie; Mariah H Klunk; Richa Sharma; Yong S Chang; Julian Sanchez-Bautista; Sarah Frey; Martin A Lodge; Steven P Rowe; Daniel P Holt; Jogarao V S Gobburu; Charles A Peloquin; William B Mathews; Robert F Dannals; Carlos A Pardo; Sujatha Kannan; Vijay D Ivaturi; Sanjay K Jain Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Gustavo E Velásquez; Meredith B Brooks; Julia M Coit; Henry Pertinez; Dante Vargas Vásquez; Epifanio Sánchez Garavito; Roger I Calderón; Judith Jiménez; Karen Tintaya; Charles A Peloquin; Elna Osso; Dylan B Tierney; Kwonjune J Seung; Leonid Lecca; Geraint R Davies; Carole D Mitnick Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: L Lalande; L Bourguignon; S Bihari; P Maire; M Neely; R Jelliffe; S Goutelle Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Marieke G G Sturkenboom; Onno W Akkerman; Mathieu S Bolhuis; Wiel C M de Lange; Tjip S van der Werf; Jan-Willem C Alffenaar Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 5.191