4.7 Article

Isoniazid Concentration and NAT2 Genotype Predict Risk of Systemic Drug Reactions during 3HP for LTBI

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm8060812

关键词

isoniazid; N-acetyltransferase 2; rifapentine; latent tuberculosis infection; systemic drug reaction

资金

  1. Ministry of Health and Welfare [MOHW106-CDC-C-11400104, MOHW107-CDC-C-114-000105]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology [MOST106-2314-B-002-055, MOST107-2314-B-002-191, MOST107-2314-B-037-106-MY3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Weekly rifapentine and isoniazid therapy (known as 3HP) for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is increasingly used, but systemic drug reactions (SDR) remain a major concern. Methods: We prospectively recruited two LTBI cohorts who received the 3HP regimen. In the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) cohort, we collected clinical information of SDRs and examined the NAT2, CYP2E1, and AADAC SNPs. In the pharmacokinetic (PK) cohort, we measured plasma drug and metabolite levels at 6 and 24 h after 3HP administration. The generalised estimating equation model was used to identify the factors associated with SDRs. Candidate SNPs predicting SDRs were validated in the PK cohort. A total of 177 participants were recruited into the SNP cohort and 129 into the PK cohort, with 14 (8%) and 13 (10%) in these two cohorts developing SDRs, respectively. In the SNP cohort, NAT2 rs1041983 (TT vs. CC+CT, odds ratio [OR] [95% CI]: 7.00 [2.03-24.1]) and CYP2E1 rs2070673 (AA vs. TT+TA, OR [95% CI]: 3.50 [1.02-12.0]) were associated with SDR development. In the PK cohort, isoniazid level 24 h after 3HP administration (OR [95% CI]: 1.61 [1.15-2.25]) was associated with SDRs. Additionally, the association between the NAT2 SNP and SDRs was validated in the PK cohort (rs1041983 TT vs. CC+CT, OR [95% CI]: 4.43 [1.30-15.1]). Conclusions: Isoniazid played a role in the development of 3HP-related SDRs. This could provide insight for further design of a more optimal regimen for latent TB infection.

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