结核病预防治疗:超短方案试验的科学和伦理考虑

IF 36.4 1区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Timothy M Walker, James A Watson, David A J Moore, Mike Frick, Euzebiusz Jamrozik
{"title":"结核病预防治疗:超短方案试验的科学和伦理考虑","authors":"Timothy M Walker, James A Watson, David A J Moore, Mike Frick, Euzebiusz Jamrozik","doi":"10.1016/s1473-3099(25)00083-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Preventive therapy remains key to the elimination of tuberculosis and is typically offered to people with presumptive <em>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</em> infection to prevent active disease. Although the duration of tuberculosis preventive therapy has been reduced substantially over time, it remains long in absolute terms, and uptake remains low. Treatment-shortening trials using non-inferiority designs have so far led to the implementation of effective regimens of 1–4 months’ duration. Such regimens are a substantial improvement on the previous 6–9 months’ duration standard of care but still far too long given potential toxicity and the very low baseline risk of disease for most individuals. The efficacy of even shorter tuberculosis preventive therapy regimens, including ultra-short regimens shorter than 2 weeks’ duration, is yet to be explored, but optimal public health outcomes might be achieved even if the efficacy of such regimens is lower than that of the standard of care. Greater acceptability could lead to higher population uptake, and, potentially, to more cases of tuberculosis avoided. Nonetheless, the optimal duration of ultra-short tuberculosis preventive therapy regimens cannot be explored through classic two-arm non-inferiority trials. Instead, the relationship between different durations and efficacy of tuberculosis preventive therapy will need to be characterised, requiring some participants to be randomly assigned to no (or delayed) therapy in order to characterise the number of tuberculosis cases averted by the shortest options. We argue that such trials are needed to identify the optimal trade-off between efficacy and acceptability and would be ethically acceptable provided there were appropriate risk mitigation measures for participants, including careful monitoring for the development of active disease. In this Personal View, we discuss some of the scientific and ethical considerations around the investigation of ultra-short-course preventive therapy for tuberculosis.","PeriodicalId":49923,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Infectious Diseases","volume":"94 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":36.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tuberculosis preventive therapy: scientific and ethical considerations for trials of ultra-short regimens\",\"authors\":\"Timothy M Walker, James A Watson, David A J Moore, Mike Frick, Euzebiusz Jamrozik\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/s1473-3099(25)00083-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Preventive therapy remains key to the elimination of tuberculosis and is typically offered to people with presumptive <em>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</em> infection to prevent active disease. Although the duration of tuberculosis preventive therapy has been reduced substantially over time, it remains long in absolute terms, and uptake remains low. Treatment-shortening trials using non-inferiority designs have so far led to the implementation of effective regimens of 1–4 months’ duration. Such regimens are a substantial improvement on the previous 6–9 months’ duration standard of care but still far too long given potential toxicity and the very low baseline risk of disease for most individuals. The efficacy of even shorter tuberculosis preventive therapy regimens, including ultra-short regimens shorter than 2 weeks’ duration, is yet to be explored, but optimal public health outcomes might be achieved even if the efficacy of such regimens is lower than that of the standard of care. Greater acceptability could lead to higher population uptake, and, potentially, to more cases of tuberculosis avoided. Nonetheless, the optimal duration of ultra-short tuberculosis preventive therapy regimens cannot be explored through classic two-arm non-inferiority trials. Instead, the relationship between different durations and efficacy of tuberculosis preventive therapy will need to be characterised, requiring some participants to be randomly assigned to no (or delayed) therapy in order to characterise the number of tuberculosis cases averted by the shortest options. We argue that such trials are needed to identify the optimal trade-off between efficacy and acceptability and would be ethically acceptable provided there were appropriate risk mitigation measures for participants, including careful monitoring for the development of active disease. In this Personal View, we discuss some of the scientific and ethical considerations around the investigation of ultra-short-course preventive therapy for tuberculosis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49923,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lancet Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":\"94 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":36.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lancet Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(25)00083-0\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(25)00083-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

预防性治疗仍然是消除结核病的关键,通常向推定感染结核分枝杆菌的人提供预防活动性疾病的治疗。虽然随着时间的推移,结核病预防治疗的持续时间已大大缩短,但从绝对意义上讲,它仍然很长,而且接受程度仍然很低。到目前为止,使用非劣效性设计的缩短治疗的试验导致了1-4个月有效治疗方案的实施。这种治疗方案比以前6-9个月的标准治疗时间有了很大的改进,但考虑到潜在的毒性和对大多数人来说非常低的基线疾病风险,这种治疗方案仍然太长了。更短的结核病预防治疗方案,包括持续时间短于2周的超短方案的疗效尚待探索,但即使这种方案的疗效低于护理标准,也可能取得最佳的公共卫生结果。更大的可接受性可能导致更高的人群接受,并可能避免更多的结核病病例。然而,超短结核病预防治疗方案的最佳持续时间不能通过经典的双臂非劣效性试验来探索。相反,结核病预防治疗的不同持续时间和疗效之间的关系需要被描述,要求一些参与者被随机分配到不治疗(或延迟治疗),以便描述通过最短的选择避免的结核病病例的数量。我们认为,需要这样的试验来确定疗效和可接受性之间的最佳权衡,并且在道德上可以接受的前提下,为参与者提供适当的风险缓解措施,包括仔细监测活动性疾病的发展。在这个个人观点中,我们讨论了一些科学和伦理方面的考虑,围绕着对结核病的超短期预防治疗的调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tuberculosis preventive therapy: scientific and ethical considerations for trials of ultra-short regimens
Preventive therapy remains key to the elimination of tuberculosis and is typically offered to people with presumptive Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection to prevent active disease. Although the duration of tuberculosis preventive therapy has been reduced substantially over time, it remains long in absolute terms, and uptake remains low. Treatment-shortening trials using non-inferiority designs have so far led to the implementation of effective regimens of 1–4 months’ duration. Such regimens are a substantial improvement on the previous 6–9 months’ duration standard of care but still far too long given potential toxicity and the very low baseline risk of disease for most individuals. The efficacy of even shorter tuberculosis preventive therapy regimens, including ultra-short regimens shorter than 2 weeks’ duration, is yet to be explored, but optimal public health outcomes might be achieved even if the efficacy of such regimens is lower than that of the standard of care. Greater acceptability could lead to higher population uptake, and, potentially, to more cases of tuberculosis avoided. Nonetheless, the optimal duration of ultra-short tuberculosis preventive therapy regimens cannot be explored through classic two-arm non-inferiority trials. Instead, the relationship between different durations and efficacy of tuberculosis preventive therapy will need to be characterised, requiring some participants to be randomly assigned to no (or delayed) therapy in order to characterise the number of tuberculosis cases averted by the shortest options. We argue that such trials are needed to identify the optimal trade-off between efficacy and acceptability and would be ethically acceptable provided there were appropriate risk mitigation measures for participants, including careful monitoring for the development of active disease. In this Personal View, we discuss some of the scientific and ethical considerations around the investigation of ultra-short-course preventive therapy for tuberculosis.
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
Lancet Infectious Diseases
Lancet Infectious Diseases 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
60.90
自引率
0.70%
发文量
1064
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Lancet Infectious Diseases was launched in August, 2001, and is a lively monthly journal of original research, review, opinion, and news covering international issues relevant to clinical infectious diseases specialists worldwide.The infectious diseases journal aims to be a world-leading publication, featuring original research that advocates change or sheds light on clinical practices related to infectious diseases. The journal prioritizes articles with the potential to impact clinical practice or influence perspectives. Content covers a wide range of topics, including anti-infective therapy and immunization, bacterial, viral, fungal, and parasitic infections, emerging infectious diseases, HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, mycobacterial infections, infection control, infectious diseases epidemiology, neglected tropical diseases, and travel medicine. Informative reviews on any subject linked to infectious diseases and human health are also welcomed.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信