A Van Deun1, T Decroo2, C Kuaban3, J Noeske4, A Piubello5, K J M Aung6, H L Rieder7. 1. International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Paris, France, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Research Foundation Flanders, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Bamenda, Bamenda. 4. Independent Consultant, Douala, Cameroon. 5. International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Paris, France, Damien Foundation, Brussels, Belgium. 6. Damien Foundation Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 7. Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Tuberculosis Consultant Services, Kirchlindach, Switzerland.
Abstract
SETTING: Data were collected from patients starting one of the shorter treatment regimens (STRs) for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in Bangladesh, Niger or Cameroon. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of either a gatifloxacin (GFX), moxifloxacin (MFX) or levofloxacin (LVX) based STR on bacteriological effectiveness. DESIGN: Retrospective study of prospectively collected data. RESULTS: Among 1530 patients, bacteriological effectiveness was 96.7% overall. Stratified by treatment with a GFX-, LVX- or MFX-based regimen effectiveness was respectively 97.5%, 95.5% and 94.7%. Compared to those on a GFX-based regimen, the estimated summary odds ratio of having an adverse outcome was more than double (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.09-3.90) in patients treated with either an LVX-based or MFX-based regimen. After adjusting for initial resistance, patients treated with an LVX-based regimen and MFX-based regimen had respectively a 4.5- and 8.4-fold times larger odds of an adverse bacteriological outcome. None among 859 patients at risk treated with a GFX-based compared to at least 4 of 228 among those on an MFX-based regimen acquired fluoroquinolone resistance. CONCLUSION: GFX-based regimens had superior bacteriological effectiveness than MFX-based or LVX-based regimens. As GFX is currently unavailable in most MDR-TB programs, its reintroduction should be prioritised.
SETTING: Data were collected from patients starting one of the shorter treatment regimens (STRs) for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in Bangladesh, Niger or Cameroon. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of either a gatifloxacin (GFX), moxifloxacin (MFX) or levofloxacin (LVX) based STR on bacteriological effectiveness. DESIGN: Retrospective study of prospectively collected data. RESULTS: Among 1530 patients, bacteriological effectiveness was 96.7% overall. Stratified by treatment with a GFX-, LVX- or MFX-based regimen effectiveness was respectively 97.5%, 95.5% and 94.7%. Compared to those on a GFX-based regimen, the estimated summary odds ratio of having an adverse outcome was more than double (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.09-3.90) in patients treated with either an LVX-based or MFX-based regimen. After adjusting for initial resistance, patients treated with an LVX-based regimen and MFX-based regimen had respectively a 4.5- and 8.4-fold times larger odds of an adverse bacteriological outcome. None among 859 patients at risk treated with a GFX-based compared to at least 4 of 228 among those on an MFX-based regimen acquired fluoroquinolone resistance. CONCLUSION:GFX-based regimens had superior bacteriological effectiveness than MFX-based or LVX-based regimens. As GFX is currently unavailable in most MDR-TB programs, its reintroduction should be prioritised.
Authors: Valérie Schwœbel; Arnaud Trébucq; Zacharie Kashongwe; Alimata S Bakayoko; Christopher Kuaban; Juergen Noeske; Souleymane H Harouna; Mahamadou B Souleymane; Alberto Piubello; François Ciza; Valentin Fikouma; Michel Gasana; Martial Ouedraogo; Martin Gninafon; Armand Van Deun; Elisa Tagliani; Daniela M Cirillo; Kobto G Koura; Hans L Rieder Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2020-02-10
Authors: Pauline Lempens; Tom Decroo; Kya J M Aung; Mohammad A Hossain; Leen Rigouts; Conor J Meehan; Armand Van Deun; Bouke C de Jong Journal: Int J Infect Dis Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Aleksandr Trubnikov; Arax Hovhannesyan; Kristina Akopyan; Ana Ciobanu; Dilbar Sadirova; Lola Kalandarova; Nargiza Parpieva; Jamshid Gadoev Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: P P J Phillips; A Van Deun; S Ahmed; R L Goodall; S K Meredith; F Conradie; C-Y Chiang; I D Rusen; A J Nunn Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Samiksha Ghimire; Samriddhi Karki; Bhagwan Maharjan; Jos G W Kosterink; Daan J Touw; Tjip S van der Werf; Bhabana Shrestha; Jan-Willem Alffenaar Journal: BMJ Open Respir Res Date: 2020-08
Authors: Jean Claude Semuto Ngabonziza; Armand Van Deun; Patrick Migambi; Esdras Belamo Niyigena; Théogène Dusabe; Yves Mucyo Habimana; Bertin Ushizimpumu; Wim Mulders; Tom Decroo; Dissou Affolabi; Philip Supply; Bouke C de Jong; Leen Rigouts Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.707