Evidence Hub

Association of indicators of extensive disease and rifampin-resistant tuberculosis treatment outcomes: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Campbell JR, Brode SK, Barry P, Bastos ML, Bonnet M, Guglielmetti L, Kempker R, Klimuk D et al.

Thorax, 2024

5,596 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Background: Indicators of extensive disease-acid fast bacilli (AFB) smear positivity and lung cavitation-have been inconsistently associated with clinical rifampin-resistant/multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (RR/MDR-TB) outcomes. We evaluated the association of these indicators with end-of-treatment outcomes.

Methods: We did an individual participant data meta-analysis of people treated for RR/MDR-TB with longer regimens with documented AFB smear and chest radiography findings. We compared people AFB smear-negative without cavities to people: (1) smear-negative with lung cavities; (2) smear-positive without lung cavities and (3) AFB smear-positive with lung cavities. Using multivariable logistic regression accounting for demographic, treatment and clinical factors, we calculated adjusted ORs (aOR) for any unfavourable outcome (death, lost to follow-up, failure/recurrence), and mortality and treatment failure/recurrence alone.

Results: We included 5596 participants; included participants significantly differed from excluded participants. Overall, 774 (13.8%) were AFB smear-negative without cavities, 647 (11.6%) only had cavities, 1424 (25.4%) were AFB smear-positive alone and 2751 (49.2%) were AFB smear-positive with cavities. The median age was 37 years (IQR: 28-47), 3580 (64%) were male and 686 (12.5%) had HIV. Compared with participants AFB smear-negative without cavities, aOR (95% CI) for any unfavourable outcome was 1.0 (0.8 to 1.4) for participants smear-negative with…

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: 5,596 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