4.6 Review

Role of Clofazimine in Treatment of Mycobacterium avium Complex

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.638306

关键词

clofazimine; Mycobacterium avium complex; pulmonary disease; mycobacteria; MAC

资金

  1. Research Department of the School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran [26692]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment with clofazimine for MAC showed a moderate success rate, with slightly higher response rates in HIV patients with disseminated infection.
Background: Non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), specifically Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), is an increasingly prevalent cause of pulmonary dysfunction. Clofazimine has been shown to be effective for the treatment of M. avium complex, but there were no published large-scale analyses comparing clofazimine to non-clofazimine regimens in MAC treatment. The objective of this large-scale meta-analysis was to evaluate patient characteristics and treatment outcomes of individuals diagnosed with MAC and treated with a clofazimine-based regimen. Methods: We used Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to search for studies published from January 1, 1990 to February 9, 2020. Two reviewers (SSH and NY) extracted the data from all eligible studies and differences were resolved by consensus. Statistical analyses were performed with STATA (version 14, IC; Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). Results: The pooled success treatment rate with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was assessed using random effect model. The estimated pooled treatment success rates were 56.8% in clofazimine and 67.9% in non-clofazimine groups. Notably, success rates were higher (58.7%) in treatment of HIV patients with disseminated infection. Conclusions: Treatment was more successful in the non-clofazimine group overall. However, HIV patients with disseminated infection had higher treatment response rates than non-HIV patients within the clofazimine group.

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

4.6
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