Showing posts with label Rifampin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rifampin. Show all posts

Monday, 23 May 2011

TUBERCULOSIS: TB Drugs Show Surprising Equality

Michael Smith : May 19, 2011
DENVER -- Two rifamycin derivatives had equal efficacy against pulmonary tuberculosis in an international, phase II trial, a researcher said here.
Rifapentine (Priftin) and rifampin (Rifadin, Rimactane) showed equal activity when they were added to standard therapy during the first eight weeks of treatment, according to Susan Dorman, MD, of Johns Hopkins University.
But the result was surprising because animal studies had suggested that rifapentine would be markedly better, Dorman said in a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Thoracic Society.
The rifamycin derivatives are "key sterilizing components of current standard treatment for active TB," Dorman said. Of those drugs, rifampin is the most widely used, but it may not be the best, she added.
In particular, less rifapentine is needed to inhibit a given amount of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and it lasts longer in the body than rifampin, she said.
Studies in mice showed that treatment with rifapentine cured TB in three months compared with six months for rifampin, Dorman added. "There is a need for shorter regimens" in humans, she noted.
To test the compound in humans, she and colleagues added either it or rifampin to standard early therapy -- isoniazid (Nydrazid, Tubizid), pyrazinamide, and ethambutol (Myambutol) -- five days a week for eight weeks.
The goal was see if there were differences in the proportion of patients with negative sputum cultures at the end of the intensive phase of treatment, Dorman said.
The researchers also evaluated safety and tolerability, she said.
All told, 531 patients took part, almost half of them in Africa; 255 were assigned to the rifampin arm and 276 to rifapentine. About 70 participants in each arm were either lost to follow up or were found not to be eligible, Dorman reported.
The researchers had expected to see a 15% difference in the rate of culture negativity, Dorman said, but instead the difference was about 3%.
Specifically:
When the sputum samples were analyzed in liquid media, 71.5% of rifampin patients and 75.3% of rifapentine patients had negative cultures after eight weeks.
In solid media, the proportions were 88.9% and 91.9%, respectively.
Neither difference was statistically significant.
Both drugs appeared equally safe and tolerable, Dorman reported.
In the rifampin arm, 15.7% of patients stopped therapy, compared with 14.5% of the rifapentine patients, she said. The rates of adverse events were also similar -- 18.1% for rifampin versus 22.6% for rifapentine -- and 2.8% of rifampin patients reported hepatitis compared with 3.6% of rifapentine patients.
It remains unclear why the expected difference did not materialize, Dorman said, adding that it could be a function of dosing levels or perhaps the fact that both drugs were taken without food.
She noted that the proportion of culture conversions is a surrogate marker for the sterilizing activity of the drugs which may not have been a good reflection of that activity.

The study was supported by the CDC. Study drugs were donated by sanofi-aventis. Dorman said she had no conflicts.

Source reference: Dorman S, et al "A phase II study of a rifapentine-containing regimen for intensive phase treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis: Preliminary results for tuberculosis trials consortium study 29" Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011; 183: A6413.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ATS/26575

Tuesday, 7 September 2010

TUBERCULOSIS: Tuberculosis Diagnosis — Time for a Game Change

Peter M. Small, M.D., and Madhukar Pai, M.D., Ph.D.
The effective treatment of tuberculosis is a lifesaving intervention. The global scale-up of tuberculosis therapy has averted 6 million deaths over the past 15 years, making it one of the greatest public health interventions of our lifetime. Unfortunately, by the time most patients are treated, they have already infected many others. This failure to interrupt transmission fuels the global epidemic so that every year there are more new cases of tuberculosis than in the previous year.
National tuberculosis programs are particularly challenged by multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Globally, fewer than 2% of the estimated cases of multidrug-resistant disease are reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) and managed according to international guidelines. The vast majority of the remaining cases are probably never properly diagnosed or treated, further propagating the epidemic of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.
The situation is further worsened by the epidemic of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), especially in Africa. For decades there has been little effort to improve techniques for diagnosing tuberculosis. Consequently, tuberculosis tests are antiquated and inadequate. The most widely used test (smear microscopy) is 125 years old and routinely misses half of all cases. These inadequacies are particularly problematic since such tests are generally performed in underfunded and dysfunctional health care systems.4,5 The problem is exacerbated
by the widespread use of inaccurate and inappropriate diagnostic tools, such as serologic assays, in many countries. Fortunately, in the past few years, several improved tuberculosis tests have received WHO endorsement for widespread use. In this issue of the Journal, Boehme and colleagues8 describe a new automated nucleic acid–amplification test that may allow a relatively unskilled health care worker to diagnose tuberculosis and detect resistance to a key antibiotic within 90 minutes. This test and others that are likely to follow have the potential
to revolutionize the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Thus, in the coming years, rapid diagnosis and targeted treatment will provide the greatest opportunity for stopping the tuberculosis epidemic.
In a large, well-conducted, multicountry study, Boehme et al. evaluated an automated tuberculosis assay (Xpert MTB/RIF) for the presence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and resistance to rifampin (RIF). With a single test, this assay identified 98% of patients with smear-positive and culture-positive tuberculosis (including more than 70% of patients with smear-negative and culturepositive disease) and correctly identified 98% of bacteria that were resistant to rifampin.
The assay has several critical advantages over conventional nucleic acid–amplification tests, which have been licensed for nearly 20 years and yet have not had a substantial effect on tuberculosis control. The MTB/RIF assay is simple to perform with minimal training, is not prone to cross-contamination, requires minimal biosafety facilities, and has a high sensitivity in smear-negative tuberculosis (the last factor being particularly relevant in patients with HIV infection). However promising these findings, issues involving the MTB/RIF assay may limit its global utility. These issues include its high cost, limitations in testing only for rifampin resistance, a platform that detects a relatively small number of mutations, and inability to indicate which patients are “sputum smear–positive” for reporting purposes, infection-control intervention, and treatment monitoring.

On the plus side, the MTB/RIF assay promises to decentralize molecular diagnosis, since it potentially can be used at the point of treatment in
a microscopy center or in a tuberculosis or HIV clinic. However, because Boehme et al. used the test at reference laboratories, their study offers only indirect proof of concept for use in such settings.
Critical to a rapid scale-up of the test will be the results of additional studies to determine how it performs in such settings and whether its use improves outcomes for patients in a cost-effective manner.
If an improved rapid nucleic acid–amplification test is adopted globally, it could help avert more than 15 million tuberculosis-related deaths by 2050.9 However, even the most promising diagnostic test will have only limited impact if it
does not reach the patients who need it. As with any diagnostic test or intervention, its actual impact will depend on the system in which it is used.
Health systems must be strengthened so that patients do not delay in seeking care and have prompt access to appropriate treatment once they receive a diagnosis. Health-system barriers to the use of improved technologies must be anticipated and addressed. Although the burden on health systems will be reduced by a simple dipsticklike, point-of-care assay, such tests are not likely to be available in the short term.7
To realize the potential of improved technologies, a diverse set of stakeholders need to support large-scale innovation and delivery. Scientists and industry need to develop radically improved tools, including drugs and vaccines, while offering
reasonable pricing that reflects public health needs and economic realities in resource-limited countries. Operational and implementation researchers need to quickly identify and respond to the full spectrum of issues that form the critical
path to improving the prevention and control of tuberculosis. Policymakers and regulators must turn scientific evidence into permissive policies and regulations that allow national programs to rapidly incorporate new tools. Funders must increase and reprogram resources to become conduits for innovation and not fund decades-old technologies for years into the future. Programs must maintain focus on the basics of tuberculosis control while quickly modifying delivery systems
to take advantage of the benefits of improved tools. Lastly, patient advocates and activists should hold everyone accountable and ensure that communities
drive demand for improved systems and tools.
Despite these challenges, it is clear that improvements in diagnostics are driving a virtuous cycle in care: the promise of improved tests drives their uptake, their uptake results in better health outcomes, improved outcomes attract more unding for health care systems, and better-funded systems are an incentive to the development of even better technologies. We are particularly optimistic
about the potential role of governments, product developers, and companies in emerging economies with high tuberculosis burdens, such as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. These countries now have the capacity to develop lowcost
generic or novel assays adapted to local contexts and incorporate their scale-up in both national tuberculosis-control programs and private laboratories, supported by successful public–private partnerships. Emerging economies have the potential to become global leaders in innovative product development and delivery. If these countries successfully tackle their own tuberculosis problems, the limination of tuberculosis by 2050 might become a reality.
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
From the Global Health Program, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
and the Institute for Systems Biology, Seattle (P.M.S.);
and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill
University, and Montreal Chest Institute, Montreal (M.P.).
This article (10.1056/NEJMe1008496) was published on September
1, 2010, at NEJM.org.
1. Lonnroth K, Castro KG, Chakaya JM, et al. Tuberculosis control
and elimination 2010-50: cure, care, and social development.
Lancet 2010;375:1814-29.
2. Dye C, Williams BG. The population dynamics and control
of tuberculosis. Science 2010;328:856-61.
3. Perkins MD, Small PM. Partnering for better microbial diagnostics.
Nat Biotechnol 2006;24:919-21.
4. Small PM. Strengthening laboratory services for today and
tomorrow. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2008;12:1105-9.
5. Perkins MD, Cunningham J. Facing the crisis: improving the
diagnosis of tuberculosis in the HIV era. J Infect Dis 2007;
196:Suppl 1:S15-S27.
6. Pai M, Minion J, Steingart K, Ramsay A. New and improved
tuberculosis diagnostics: evidence, policy, practice, and impact.
Curr Opin Pulm Med 2010;16:271-84.
7. Wallis RS, Pai M, Menzies D, et al. Biomarkers and diagnostics
for tuberculosis: progress, needs, and translation into practice.
Lancet 2010;375:1920-37.
8. Boehme CC, Nabeta P, Hillemann D, et al. Rapid molecular
detection of tuberculosis and rifampin resistance. N Engl J Med
2010. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907847.
9. Abu-Raddad LJ, Sabatelli L, Achterberg JT, et al. Epidemiological
benefits of more-effective tuberculosis vaccines, drugs,
and diagnostics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009;106:13980-5.
Copyright © 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Friday, 7 May 2010

TUBERCULOSIS: Review of progress in MDR treatment

The increase in drug-resistant tuberculosis and the global pandemic of human immunodeficiency virus infection-related tuberculosis threaten global tuberculosis control. There are needs for improved therapy in all aspects of tuberculosis treatment: treatment of latent infection, active drug-susceptible disease, and particularly, drug-resistant disease. Fortunately, at this time of great need, the field of tuberculosis drug development has reemerged after >30 years of inactivity. I review the specific needs for new treatment regimens, the pathways of tuberculosis drug development, and the agents that are currently in clinical development. There is renewed interest in the rifamycin class; studies in the mouse model suggest that higher doses of rifampin or rifapentine may markedly improve the treatment of drug-susceptible disease. Fluoroquinolones may allow shorter treatment durations for drug-susceptible disease, though initial phase 2B trials have shown inconsistent activity. Novel drugs, such as TMC207, OPC-67683, PA824, SQ109, and PNU-100480, may improve the treatment of drug-resistant and drug-susceptible tuberculosis.
http://medicine.journalfeeds.com/infectious-diseases/clin-infect-dis/rip-van-winkle-wakes-up-development-of-tuberculosis-treatment-in-the-21st-century/20100430/