三剂量利福平治疗结核病的安全性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 8.2 1区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY
Omri A Arbiv, Thomas Holmes, Marie JeongMin Kim, Marie Yan, Kamila Romanowski, Sarah K Brode, William J Burman, Dick Menzies, James C Johnston
{"title":"三剂量利福平治疗结核病的安全性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Omri A Arbiv, Thomas Holmes, Marie JeongMin Kim, Marie Yan, Kamila Romanowski, Sarah K Brode, William J Burman, Dick Menzies, James C Johnston","doi":"10.1093/cid/ciaf004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is growing interest in using high-dose rifampin for tuberculosis treatment. Recent studies suggest that triple-dose rifampin (TDR; ≥30 mg/kg/day) may be unsafe. We updated a systematic review to investigate the safety and efficacy of TDR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized-controlled trials from January 1, 1965 to February 10, 2024 comparing standard-dose rifampin (SDR) to TDR and/or double-dose rifampin (DDR) in human tuberculosis treatment. The primary outcome was pooled incidence rate ratio (IRR) of severe adverse events (SevAE) between participants receiving TDR and SDR. Pooled relative risk (RR) of death was a key secondary outcome. Meta-analysis was performed by the inverse variance method. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 and bias assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias 2. The protocol was prospectively registered (osf.io/kfn5a).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 11315 articles identified, 17 met inclusion criteria, enrolling 2313 SDR participants (17 studies), 2238 receiving DDR (12 studies), and 1199 receiving TDR (11 studies). Six studies had a high risk of bias. There was an increase in pooled SevAE among participants receiving TDR compared to SDR (IRR 1.48, 95% CI 1.12-1.96, I2 23%), driven by an increase in hepatic events (IRR 1.96, 95% CI 1.21-3.18). Death did not differ between participants receiving TDR and SDR (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.71-1.99). One limitation is that only two included studies were blinded.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Regimens using TDR were associated with an increase in SevAE, raising concerns regarding safety of TDR in humans.</p>","PeriodicalId":10463,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety of Triple-Dose Rifampin in Tuberculosis Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Omri A Arbiv, Thomas Holmes, Marie JeongMin Kim, Marie Yan, Kamila Romanowski, Sarah K Brode, William J Burman, Dick Menzies, James C Johnston\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/cid/ciaf004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is growing interest in using high-dose rifampin for tuberculosis treatment. Recent studies suggest that triple-dose rifampin (TDR; ≥30 mg/kg/day) may be unsafe. We updated a systematic review to investigate the safety and efficacy of TDR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized-controlled trials from January 1, 1965 to February 10, 2024 comparing standard-dose rifampin (SDR) to TDR and/or double-dose rifampin (DDR) in human tuberculosis treatment. The primary outcome was pooled incidence rate ratio (IRR) of severe adverse events (SevAE) between participants receiving TDR and SDR. Pooled relative risk (RR) of death was a key secondary outcome. Meta-analysis was performed by the inverse variance method. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 and bias assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias 2. The protocol was prospectively registered (osf.io/kfn5a).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 11315 articles identified, 17 met inclusion criteria, enrolling 2313 SDR participants (17 studies), 2238 receiving DDR (12 studies), and 1199 receiving TDR (11 studies). Six studies had a high risk of bias. There was an increase in pooled SevAE among participants receiving TDR compared to SDR (IRR 1.48, 95% CI 1.12-1.96, I2 23%), driven by an increase in hepatic events (IRR 1.96, 95% CI 1.21-3.18). Death did not differ between participants receiving TDR and SDR (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.71-1.99). One limitation is that only two included studies were blinded.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Regimens using TDR were associated with an increase in SevAE, raising concerns regarding safety of TDR in humans.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaf004\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaf004","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:人们对使用大剂量利福平治疗结核病越来越感兴趣。最近的研究表明,三剂量利福平(TDR;≥30mg /kg/天)可能不安全。我们更新了一项系统综述,以调查TDR的安全性和有效性。方法:检索Embase、MEDLINE、Cochrane中央对照试验注册库、Cochrane系统评价数据库和clinicaltrials.gov,检索1965年1月1日至2024年2月10日期间比较标准剂量利福平(SDR)与TDR和/或双剂量利福平(DDR)治疗人类结核病的随机对照试验。主要终点是接受TDR和SDR的参与者之间严重不良事件(SevAE)的合并发生率比(IRR)。死亡的综合相对危险度(RR)是一个关键的次要结局。采用反方差法进行meta分析。异质性采用I2评估,偏倚采用Cochrane Risk of bias 2评估。该协议被前瞻性注册(osf.io/kfn5a)。结果:在纳入的11315篇文章中,17篇符合纳入标准,纳入了2313名SDR参与者(17项研究),2238名接受DDR(12项研究),1199名接受TDR(11项研究)。6项研究存在高偏倚风险。与SDR相比,接受TDR的参与者的总SevAE增加(IRR 1.48, 95% CI 1.12-1.96, I2 23%),原因是肝脏事件增加(IRR 1.96, 95% CI 1.21-3.18)。接受TDR和SDR的参与者的死亡率没有差异(RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.71-1.99)。一个限制是只有两个纳入的研究是盲法的。结论:使用TDR的方案与SevAE的增加有关,这引起了人们对TDR在人类中的安全性的关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Safety of Triple-Dose Rifampin in Tuberculosis Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: There is growing interest in using high-dose rifampin for tuberculosis treatment. Recent studies suggest that triple-dose rifampin (TDR; ≥30 mg/kg/day) may be unsafe. We updated a systematic review to investigate the safety and efficacy of TDR.

Methods: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized-controlled trials from January 1, 1965 to February 10, 2024 comparing standard-dose rifampin (SDR) to TDR and/or double-dose rifampin (DDR) in human tuberculosis treatment. The primary outcome was pooled incidence rate ratio (IRR) of severe adverse events (SevAE) between participants receiving TDR and SDR. Pooled relative risk (RR) of death was a key secondary outcome. Meta-analysis was performed by the inverse variance method. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 and bias assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias 2. The protocol was prospectively registered (osf.io/kfn5a).

Results: Of the 11315 articles identified, 17 met inclusion criteria, enrolling 2313 SDR participants (17 studies), 2238 receiving DDR (12 studies), and 1199 receiving TDR (11 studies). Six studies had a high risk of bias. There was an increase in pooled SevAE among participants receiving TDR compared to SDR (IRR 1.48, 95% CI 1.12-1.96, I2 23%), driven by an increase in hepatic events (IRR 1.96, 95% CI 1.21-3.18). Death did not differ between participants receiving TDR and SDR (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.71-1.99). One limitation is that only two included studies were blinded.

Conclusions: Regimens using TDR were associated with an increase in SevAE, raising concerns regarding safety of TDR in humans.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Clinical Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
25.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
900
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID) is dedicated to publishing original research, reviews, guidelines, and perspectives with the potential to reshape clinical practice, providing clinicians with valuable insights for patient care. CID comprehensively addresses the clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of a wide spectrum of infectious diseases. The journal places a high priority on the assessment of current and innovative treatments, microbiology, immunology, and policies, ensuring relevance to patient care in its commitment to advancing the field of infectious diseases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信