4.5 Review

Short-course treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: the STREAM trials

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY REVIEW
卷 25, 期 139, 页码 -

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0080-2015

关键词

-

资金

  1. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) [GHN-A-00-08-00004-00]
  2. UK Medical Research Council (MRC)
  3. UK Department for International Development (DFID) under the MRC/DFID Concordat agreement
  4. Janssen Pharmaceuticals
  5. FundRef
  6. MRC [MR/J012513/1, MC_UU_12023/27] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Medical Research Council [MR/J012513/1, MC_UU_12023/27] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB) is a threat to global TB control, as suboptimal and poorly tolerated treatment options have resulted in largely unfavourable outcomes for these patients. The last of six cohort studies conducted in Bangladesh which assessed a new shorter regimen using currently available TB drugs showed promising results and offered the possibility of a more acceptable and more effective regimen than the one recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). The aims of stage 1 of the STREAM (Evaluation of a Standardised Treatment Regimen of Anti-tuberculosis Drugs for Patients with Multidrug-resistant Tuberculosis) trial are to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this regimen, compared to the current WHO-recommended standard of care. Stage 2 evaluates two new bedaquiline-containing regimens: one an all-oral regimen and the second a further shortened and simplified version of the stage 1 study regimen, comparing the efficacy and safety of each to that of the stage 1 study regimen and also to the WHO-recommended standard of care. Success of the stage 1 study regimen would in all probability provide a new standard of care for MDR-TB patients, while positive results from the bedaquiline-containing regimens in stage 2 may allow for even greater progress in the management of this difficult population.

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