4.6 Article

Arginine as an adjuvant to chemotherapy improves clinical outcome in active tuberculosis

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 483-488

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.03.00090702

关键词

arginine; human immunodeficiency virus; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; nitric oxide; tuberculosis; tumour necrosis factor-alpha

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nitric oxide (NO) is involved in the host defence against tuberculosis (TB). Patients with TB exhibit increased catabolism and reduced energy intake. Thus the hypothesis for this study was that restoring a relative deficiency in the amino acid arginine, the substrate for mycobactericidal NO production, would improve the clinical outcome of TB by increasing NO production. In a randomised double-blind study, patients with smear-positive TB (n=120) were given arginine or placebo for 4 weeks in addition to conventional chemotherapy. Primary outcomes were sputum conversion, weight gain, and clinical symptoms after week 8. Secondary outcomes were sedimentation rate and levels of NO metabolites, arginine, citrulline, and tumour necrosis factor-alpha. Compared with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-/TB+ placebo group, the HIV-/TB+ patients in the arginine group showed significant improvement, defined as increased weight gain, higher sputum conversion rate and faster reduction of symptoms, such as cough. The arginine level increased after week 2 in the HIV-/TB+ arginine group (100.2 muM (range 90.5-109.9) versus 142.1 muM (range 114.1-170.1)) compared with the HIV-/TB+ placebo group (105.5 muM (range 93.7-117.3) versus 95.7 muM (range 82.4-108.9)). HIV seroprevalence was 52.5%. No clinical improvement or increase in serum arginine was detected in arginine supplemented HIV+/TB+ patients compared with placebo. Arginine is beneficial as an adjuvant treatment in human immunodeficiency virus-negative patients with active tuberculosis, most likely mediated by increased production of nitric oxide.

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