4.3 Article

New Paradigm for Translational Modeling to Predict Long-term Tuberculosis Treatment Response

期刊

CTS-CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 366-379

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cts.12472

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01AI111992]
  2. Critical Path to TB Drug Regimens initiative through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1031105]
  3. National Institutes of Health
  4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration
  5. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  6. Global Alliance for TB Drug Development
  7. Clinical Pharmacology Postdoctoral Fellowship at JHU
  8. Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award T32 National Institutes of Health [5T32GM007546]
  9. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1031105] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Disappointing results of recent tuberculosis chemotherapy trials suggest that knowledge gained from preclinical investigations was not utilized to maximal effect. A mouse-to-human translational pharmacokinetics (PKs) - pharmacodynamics (PDs) model built on a rich mouse database may improve clinical trial outcome predictions. The model included Mycobacterium tuberculosis growth function in mice, adaptive immune response effect on bacterial growth, relationships among moxifloxacin, rifapentine, and rifampin concentrations accelerating bacterial death, clinical PK data, species-specific protein binding, drug-drug interactions, and patient-specific pathology. Simulations of recent trials testing 4-month regimens predicted 65% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55-74) relapse-free patients vs. 80% observed in the REMox-TB trial, and 79% (95% CI, 72-87) vs. 82% observed in the Rifaquin trial. Simulation of 6-month regimens predicted 97% (95% CI, 93-99) vs. 92% and 95% observed in 2RHZE/4RH control arms, and 100% predicted and observed in the 35 mg/kg rifampin arm of PanACEA MAMS. These results suggest that the model can inform regimen optimization and predict outcomes of ongoing trials.

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

4.3
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