Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of daily treatments for drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Imazu P, Santos JM, Beraldi-Magalhães F, Fernandez-Llimos F, Tonin FS, Pontarolo R

The Journal of pharmacy and pharmacology, 2022

7,560 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and update the evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of antimicrobial drugs regimens for treating pulmonary drug-susceptible tuberculosis (DS-TB).

METHODS: A systematic review was performed with searches in PubMed and Scopus (PROSPERO-CRD42019141463). We included randomised controlled trials comparing the effect of any antimicrobial regimen lasting at least 2 weeks. The outcomes of interest were culture conversion and incidence of adverse events. Bayesian network meta-analyses and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analyses were performed. Results were reported as odds ratio with 95% credibility intervals.

KEY FINDINGS: Fifteen studies were included the meta-analysis (n = 7560 patients). No regimen was statistically more effective than the WHO standard approach (rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide). The use of rifapentine 450 mg instead of rifampicin in the standard regimen demonstrated to be statistically safer than all other options for serious adverse events (e.g. hepatotoxicity, arthralgia) (OR ranging from 0.0 [Crl 0.00-0.04] to 0.0 [0.00-0.97]; SUCRA probabilities of 10%). Therapies containing rifapentine (Rp1500HEZ, Rp900HEZ) and moxifloxacin (RMEZ, RHMZ) are effective regarding culture conversion, but statistical uncertainty on their safety profile exists.

CONCLUSION: The WHO standard regimen remains an overall effective and safe alternative for DS-TB. For intensive phase treatments, drugs combinations…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 7,560 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free