4.7 Article

Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Not Due to Noncompliance but to Between-Patient Pharmacokinetic Variability

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 204, 期 12, 页码 1951-1959

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jir658

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health [R01AI079497]
  2. Pfizer
  3. Merck
  4. Astellas Pharma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. It is believed that nonadherence is the proximate cause of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-tuberculosis) emergence. The level of nonadherence associated with emergence of MDR-tuberculosis is unknown. Performance of a randomized controlled trial in which some patients are randomized to nonadherence would be unethical; therefore, other study designs should be utilized. Methods. We performed hollow fiber studies for both bactericidal and sterilizing effect, with inoculum spiked with 0.5% rifampin- and isoniazid-resistant isogenic strains in some experiments. Standard therapy was administered daily for 28-56 days, with extents of nonadherence varying between 0% and 100%. Sizes of drug-resistant populations were compared using analysis of variance. We also explored the effect of pharmacokinetic variability on MDR-tuberculosis emergence using computer-aided clinical trial simulations of 10 000 Cape Town, South Africa, tuberculosis patients. Results. Therapy failure was only encountered at extents of nonadherence >= 60%. Surprisingly, isoniazid- and rifampin-resistant populations did not achieve >= 1% proportion in any experiment and did not achieve a higher proportion with nonadherence. However, clinical trial simulations demonstrated that approximately 1% of tuberculosis patients with perfect adherence would still develop MDR-tuberculosis due to pharmacokinetic variability alone. Conclusions. These data, based on a preclinical model, demonstrate that nonadherence alone is not a sufficient condition for MDR-tuberculosis emergence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据