4.6 Article

Defining the Optimal Dose of Rifapentine for Pulmonary Tuberculosis: Exposure-Response Relations From Two Phase II Clinical Trials

Journal

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 102, Issue 2, Pages 321-331

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.634

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. United States Division of Tuberculosis Elimination
  2. United States Division of Tuberculosis Elimination, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  3. Veterans Administration
  4. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through the Clinical and Translational Science Award [UL1 TR001120]
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rifapentine is a highly active antituberculosis antibiotic with treatment-shortening potential; however, exposure-response relations and the dose needed for maximal bactericidal activity have not been established. We used pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data from 657 adults with pulmonary tuberculosis participating in treatment trials to compare rifapentine (n = 405) with rifampin (n = 252) as part of intensive-phase therapy. Population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses were performed with nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Time to stable culture conversion of sputum to negative was determined in cultures obtained over 4 months of therapy. Rifapentine exposures were lower in participants who were coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus, black, male, or fasting when taking drug. Rifapentine exposure, large lung cavity size, and geographic region were independently associated with time to culture conversion in liquid media. Maximal treatment efficacy is likely achieved with rifapentine at 1,200 mg daily. Patients with large lung cavities appear less responsive to treatment, even at high rifapentine doses.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available