Rifamycins (rifampicin, rifabutin and rifapentine) compared to isoniazid for preventing tuberculosis in HIV-negative people at risk of active TB

Surendra K Sharma, Anju Sharma, Tamilarasu Kadhiravan, Prathap Tharyan
{"title":"Rifamycins (rifampicin, rifabutin and rifapentine) compared to isoniazid for preventing tuberculosis in HIV-negative people at risk of active TB","authors":"Surendra K Sharma,&nbsp;Anju Sharma,&nbsp;Tamilarasu Kadhiravan,&nbsp;Prathap Tharyan","doi":"10.1002/ebch.1962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Preventing active tuberculosis (TB) from developing in people with latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is important for global TB control. Isoniazid (INH) for six to nine months has 60% to 90% protective efficacy, but the treatment period is long, liver toxicity is a problem, and completion rates outside trials are only around 50%. Rifampicin or rifamycin-combination treatments are shorter and may result in higher completion rates.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the effects of rifampicin monotherapy or rifamycin-combination therapy versus INH monotherapy for preventing active TB in HIV-negative people at risk of developing active TB.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Search methods</h3>\n \n <p>We searched the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; clinical trials registries; regional databases; conference proceedings; and references, without language restrictions to December 2012; and contacted experts for relevant published, unpublished and ongoing trials.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Selection criteria</h3>\n \n <p>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HIV-negative adults and children at risk of active TB treated with rifampicin, or rifamycin-combination therapy with or without INH (any dose or duration), compared with INH for six to nine months.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data collection and analysis</h3>\n \n <p>At least two authors independently screened and selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We sought clarifications from trial authors. We pooled relative risks (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model if heterogeneity was significant. We assessed overall evidence quality using the GRADE approach.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main results</h3>\n \n <p>Ten trials are included, enrolling 10,717 adults and children, mostly HIV-negative (2% HIV-positive), with a follow-up period ranging from two to five years.</p>\n \n <p><span>Rifampicin (three/four months) vs. INH (six months)</span></p>\n \n <p>Five trials published between 1992 to 2012 compared these regimens, and one small 1992 trial in adults with silicosis did not detect a difference in the occurrence of TB over five years of follow up (one trial, 312 participants; <i>very low quality evidence</i>). However, more people in these trials completed the shorter course (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.30; five trials, 1768 participants; <i>moderate quality evidence</i>). Treatment-limiting adverse events were not significantly different (four trials, 1674 participants; <i>very low quality evidence</i>), but rifampicin caused less hepatotoxicity (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.30; four trials, 1674 participants; <i>moderate quality evidence</i>).</p>\n \n <p><span>Rifampicin plus INH (three months) vs. INH (six months)</span></p>\n \n <p>The 1992 silicosis trial did not detect a difference between people receiving rifampicin plus INH compared to INH alone for occurrence of active TB (one trial, 328 participants; <i>very low quality evidence</i>). Adherence was similar in this and a 1998 trial in people without silicosis (two trials, 524 participants; <i>high quality evidence</i>). No difference was detected for treatment-limiting adverse events (two trials, 536 participants; <i>low quality evidence</i>), or hepatotoxicity (two trials, 536 participants; <i>low quality evidence</i>).</p>\n \n <p><span>Rifampicin plus pyrazinamide (two months) vs. INH (six months)</span></p>\n \n <p>Three small trials published in 1994, 2003, and 2005 compared these two regimens, and two reported a low occurrence of active TB, with no statistically significant differences between treatment regimens (two trials, 176 participants; <i>very low quality evidence</i>) though, apart from one child from the 1994 trial, these data on active TB were from the 2003 trial in adults with silicosis. Adherence with both regimens was low with no statistically significant differences (four trials, 700 participants; <i>very low quality evidence</i>). However, people receiving rifampicin plus pyrazinamide had more treatment-limiting adverse events (RR 3.61, 95% CI 1.82 to 7.19; two trials, 368 participants; <i>high quality evidence</i>), and hepatotoxicity (RR 4.59, 95% 2.14 to 9.85; three trials, 540 participants; <i>moderate quality evidence</i>).</p>\n \n <p><span>Weekly, directly-observed rifapentine plus INH (three months) vs. daily, self-administered INH (nine months)</span></p>\n \n <p>A large trial conducted from 2001 to 2008 among close contacts of TB in the USA, Canada, Brazil and Spain found directly observed weekly treatment to be non-inferior to nine months self-administered INH for the incidence of active TB (0.2% vs 0.4%, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.07, one trial, 7731 participants; <i>moderate quality evidence</i>). The directly-observed, shorter regimen had higher treatment completion (82% vs 69%, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.22, <i>moderate quality evidence),</i> and less hepatotoxicity (0.4% versus 2.4%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.27; <i>high quality evidence</i>), though treatment-limiting adverse events were more frequent (4.9% versus 3.7%; RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.64 <i>moderate quality evidence</i>)</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Authors' conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Trials to date of shortened prophylactic regimens using rifampicin alone have not demonstrated higher rates of active TB when compared to longer regimens with INH. Treatment completion is probably higher and adverse events may be fewer with shorter rifampicin regimens. Shortened regimens of rifampicin with INH may offer no advantage over longer INH regimens. Rifampicin combined with pyrazinamide is associated with more adverse events. A weekly regimen of rifapentine plus INH has higher completion rates, and less liver toxicity, though treatment discontinuation due to adverse events is probably more likely than with INH.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Plain Language Summary</h3>\n \n <p><b>Alternatives to isoniazid monotherapy for preventing active tuberculosis in HIV-negative persons</b></p>\n \n <p>Tuberculosis (TB) is a disease that is caused by a bacterial infection that affects an estimated two billion people (about a third of the world's population). However, most people have dormant (latent) infections and only a small percentage of people infected with TB will develop an active disease. Preventing latent TB infection (LTBI) developing into active TB, through the use of drugs, is an important part of global TB control. Treatment with the drug isoniazid for six months is recommended, but the treatment period is long, it can cause liver damage, and only about half of the people who start this drug treatment complete it.</p>\n \n <p>The authors of this review evaluated alternatives to isoniazid monotherapy in HIV-negative people with LTBI. They identified 10 randomized controlled trials that included 10,717 adults and children, who were mostly HIV-negative, with a follow-up period ranging from two to five years.</p>\n \n <p>Rifampicin for three to four months may give quite similar results to isoniazid for six months in preventing TB, and may cause fewer side effects. As the treatment period with rifampicin is shorter, it may result in more people completing treatment. Two other drug combination treatments (rifampicin plus isoniazid, and rifampicin plus pyrazinamide) did not differ in preventing TB compared with isoniazid alone, but they resulted in more adverse events. A third combination of rifapentine plus isoniazid supervised weekly for three months was as effective in preventing TB as self-administered isoniazid for nine months, increased treatment completion, and caused less liver toxicity, though treatment-limiting adverse events were more frequent with the weekly rifapentine and isoniazid combination.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12162,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based child health : a Cochrane review journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ebch.1962","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based child health : a Cochrane review journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ebch.1962","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Background

Preventing active tuberculosis (TB) from developing in people with latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is important for global TB control. Isoniazid (INH) for six to nine months has 60% to 90% protective efficacy, but the treatment period is long, liver toxicity is a problem, and completion rates outside trials are only around 50%. Rifampicin or rifamycin-combination treatments are shorter and may result in higher completion rates.

Objectives

To compare the effects of rifampicin monotherapy or rifamycin-combination therapy versus INH monotherapy for preventing active TB in HIV-negative people at risk of developing active TB.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; clinical trials registries; regional databases; conference proceedings; and references, without language restrictions to December 2012; and contacted experts for relevant published, unpublished and ongoing trials.

Selection criteria

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HIV-negative adults and children at risk of active TB treated with rifampicin, or rifamycin-combination therapy with or without INH (any dose or duration), compared with INH for six to nine months.

Data collection and analysis

At least two authors independently screened and selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We sought clarifications from trial authors. We pooled relative risks (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model if heterogeneity was significant. We assessed overall evidence quality using the GRADE approach.

Main results

Ten trials are included, enrolling 10,717 adults and children, mostly HIV-negative (2% HIV-positive), with a follow-up period ranging from two to five years.

Rifampicin (three/four months) vs. INH (six months)

Five trials published between 1992 to 2012 compared these regimens, and one small 1992 trial in adults with silicosis did not detect a difference in the occurrence of TB over five years of follow up (one trial, 312 participants; very low quality evidence). However, more people in these trials completed the shorter course (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.30; five trials, 1768 participants; moderate quality evidence). Treatment-limiting adverse events were not significantly different (four trials, 1674 participants; very low quality evidence), but rifampicin caused less hepatotoxicity (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.30; four trials, 1674 participants; moderate quality evidence).

Rifampicin plus INH (three months) vs. INH (six months)

The 1992 silicosis trial did not detect a difference between people receiving rifampicin plus INH compared to INH alone for occurrence of active TB (one trial, 328 participants; very low quality evidence). Adherence was similar in this and a 1998 trial in people without silicosis (two trials, 524 participants; high quality evidence). No difference was detected for treatment-limiting adverse events (two trials, 536 participants; low quality evidence), or hepatotoxicity (two trials, 536 participants; low quality evidence).

Rifampicin plus pyrazinamide (two months) vs. INH (six months)

Three small trials published in 1994, 2003, and 2005 compared these two regimens, and two reported a low occurrence of active TB, with no statistically significant differences between treatment regimens (two trials, 176 participants; very low quality evidence) though, apart from one child from the 1994 trial, these data on active TB were from the 2003 trial in adults with silicosis. Adherence with both regimens was low with no statistically significant differences (four trials, 700 participants; very low quality evidence). However, people receiving rifampicin plus pyrazinamide had more treatment-limiting adverse events (RR 3.61, 95% CI 1.82 to 7.19; two trials, 368 participants; high quality evidence), and hepatotoxicity (RR 4.59, 95% 2.14 to 9.85; three trials, 540 participants; moderate quality evidence).

Weekly, directly-observed rifapentine plus INH (three months) vs. daily, self-administered INH (nine months)

A large trial conducted from 2001 to 2008 among close contacts of TB in the USA, Canada, Brazil and Spain found directly observed weekly treatment to be non-inferior to nine months self-administered INH for the incidence of active TB (0.2% vs 0.4%, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.07, one trial, 7731 participants; moderate quality evidence). The directly-observed, shorter regimen had higher treatment completion (82% vs 69%, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.22, moderate quality evidence), and less hepatotoxicity (0.4% versus 2.4%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.27; high quality evidence), though treatment-limiting adverse events were more frequent (4.9% versus 3.7%; RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.64 moderate quality evidence)

Authors' conclusions

Trials to date of shortened prophylactic regimens using rifampicin alone have not demonstrated higher rates of active TB when compared to longer regimens with INH. Treatment completion is probably higher and adverse events may be fewer with shorter rifampicin regimens. Shortened regimens of rifampicin with INH may offer no advantage over longer INH regimens. Rifampicin combined with pyrazinamide is associated with more adverse events. A weekly regimen of rifapentine plus INH has higher completion rates, and less liver toxicity, though treatment discontinuation due to adverse events is probably more likely than with INH.

Plain Language Summary

Alternatives to isoniazid monotherapy for preventing active tuberculosis in HIV-negative persons

Tuberculosis (TB) is a disease that is caused by a bacterial infection that affects an estimated two billion people (about a third of the world's population). However, most people have dormant (latent) infections and only a small percentage of people infected with TB will develop an active disease. Preventing latent TB infection (LTBI) developing into active TB, through the use of drugs, is an important part of global TB control. Treatment with the drug isoniazid for six months is recommended, but the treatment period is long, it can cause liver damage, and only about half of the people who start this drug treatment complete it.

The authors of this review evaluated alternatives to isoniazid monotherapy in HIV-negative people with LTBI. They identified 10 randomized controlled trials that included 10,717 adults and children, who were mostly HIV-negative, with a follow-up period ranging from two to five years.

Rifampicin for three to four months may give quite similar results to isoniazid for six months in preventing TB, and may cause fewer side effects. As the treatment period with rifampicin is shorter, it may result in more people completing treatment. Two other drug combination treatments (rifampicin plus isoniazid, and rifampicin plus pyrazinamide) did not differ in preventing TB compared with isoniazid alone, but they resulted in more adverse events. A third combination of rifapentine plus isoniazid supervised weekly for three months was as effective in preventing TB as self-administered isoniazid for nine months, increased treatment completion, and caused less liver toxicity, though treatment-limiting adverse events were more frequent with the weekly rifapentine and isoniazid combination.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利福霉素(利福平、利福布丁和利福喷丁)与异烟肼在预防活动性结核病风险的艾滋病毒阴性人群中的结核病方面的比较
18 - 1.07,一项试验,7731名受试者;中等质量证据)。直接观察到,较短的方案具有更高的治疗完成率(82%对69%,RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.16至1.22,中等质量证据)和更少的肝毒性(0.4%对2.4%;RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.10 ~ 0.27;高质量证据),但限制治疗的不良事件更频繁(4.9%对3.7%;相对危险度1.32,95%可信区间1.07 - 1.64(中等质量证据))作者的结论:迄今为止,仅使用利福平的缩短预防方案的试验没有显示出与使用INH的较长方案相比,活动性结核病的发生率更高。使用较短的利福平治疗方案,治疗完成率可能更高,不良事件可能更少。缩短利福平与INH的治疗方案可能没有较长INH治疗方案的优势。利福平联合吡嗪酰胺与更多的不良事件相关。每周一次的利福喷丁加INH治疗方案具有更高的完成率和更少的肝毒性,尽管由于不良事件而中断治疗的可能性可能比INH治疗更大。结核(TB)是一种由细菌感染引起的疾病,估计有20亿人(约占世界人口的三分之一)受到影响。然而,大多数人患有潜伏感染,只有一小部分感染结核病的人会发展为活动性疾病。通过使用药物预防潜伏性结核感染发展为活动性结核是全球结核控制的一个重要组成部分。建议使用异烟肼治疗6个月,但治疗周期长,会导致肝损伤,而且只有大约一半开始这种药物治疗的人能完成治疗。本综述的作者评估了hiv阴性LTBI患者异烟肼单药治疗的替代方案。他们确定了10项随机对照试验,其中包括10717名成人和儿童,他们大多是艾滋病毒阴性,随访时间从2到5年不等。服用三到四个月的利福平在预防结核病方面的效果可能与服用六个月的异烟肼相当,而且副作用可能更少。由于利福平的治疗周期较短,可能会导致更多的人完成治疗。另外两种药物联合治疗(利福平加异烟肼和利福平加吡嗪酰胺)在预防结核病方面与单独使用异烟肼相比没有差异,但它们会导致更多的不良事件。第三种联合使用利福喷丁和异烟肼,每周监督一次,连续3个月,在预防结核病方面与自我使用异烟肼9个月一样有效,增加了治疗的完成度,并且引起的肝毒性更小,尽管每周一次的利福喷丁和异烟肼联合使用限制治疗的不良事件更频繁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A meta-epidemiological study to examine the association between bias and treatment effects in neonatal trials Pros and cons … Formoterol or salmeterol for asthma—should they be used as monotherapy? Interventions for treating femoral shaft fractures in children and adolescents
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1