4.0 Article

Isoniazid resistance and death in patients with tuberculous meningitis: retrospective cohort study

期刊

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 341, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c4451

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [T32 AI055435, T32 AI055435-07] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine whether initial isoniazid resistance is associated with death during the treatment of tuberculous meningitis. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting National Tuberculosis Surveillance System at the Centers for Disease Control in the United States. Participants Patients with a clinical diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis, reported to the National Tuberculosis Surveillance System between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 2005. Main outcome measure All cause mortality during antituberculous treatment. Results Between 1993 and 2005, 1896 patients had a clinical diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis and positive cultures from any site. In 123 (6%) of these patients, isoniazid resistance was present on initial susceptibility testing. The unadjusted association between initial isoniazid resistance and subsequent death among these 1896 patients did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 2.02). However, among 1614 patients with positive cerebrospinal fluid cultures, a significant unadjusted association was found between initial isoniazid resistance and subsequent death (odds ratio 1.61, 1.08 to 2.40). This association increased after adjustment for age, race, sex, and HIV status (odds ratio 2.07, 1.30 to 3.29). Conclusions Isoniazid resistance on initial susceptibility testing was associated with subsequent death among cases of tuberculous meningitis with positive cerebrospinal fluid cultures. Randomised controlled trials are needed to evaluate the optimal empirical regimen for treating patients with tuberculous meningitis who are at high risk for both initial isoniazid resistance and poor clinical outcomes.

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

4.0
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