4.5 Article

Interim treatment outcomes in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis using bedaquiline and/or delamanid in South Korea

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 167, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2020.105956

关键词

Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; Bedaquiline; Delamanid; South Korea

资金

  1. Research of Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2018-E3101-00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The Korea Centers for Disease Control & Prevention has implemented a review process for the approval of new drugs used to treat patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) since September 2016. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these new drugs bedaquiline (Bdq) and delamanid (Dlm). Methods: A total of 318 patients with MDR-TB were reviewed by the committee from September 2016 to February 2018; 282 (88.7%) of them were treated with the new drugs (Bdq, 107 patients; Dlm, 108 patients; and both concurrently or sequentially, 67 patients) and retrospectively evaluated. Culture conversion rates, interim treatment outcomes at 12 months, and predictors of unfavorable outcomes were analyzed. Treatment efficacy was also compared between Bdq and Dlm. Results: The mean age of the patients was 49.3 years, and 197 (69.9%) were male. Three patients were HIV seropositive and 151 (53.5%) were quinolone resistant. The culture conversion rates at 2 and 6 months were 57.4% (81/141) and 89.4% (126/141), respectively. A favorable outcome at 12 months was achieved in 84.8% of patients (239/282). Differences in the culture conversion rate or interim treatment outcomes were not statistically significant among the drug susceptibility test patterns or new drugs used. Multivariable analysis showed that age >60 years and body mass index of <18.5 kg/m(2) were significant risk factors for unfavorable outcomes at 12 months. Conclusions: The use of new drugs resulted in satisfactory interim treatment results, without significant differences between them.

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

4.5
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