The cornerstone of tuberculosis management is a 6-month course of isoniazid, rifampicin, pyrazinamide and ethambutol. Compliance is crucial for curing tuberculosis. Adverse effects often negatively affect the compliance, because they frequently require a change of treatment, which may have negative consequences for treatment outcome. In this paper we review the incidence, pathology and clinical features of antituberculosis drug-induced hepatotoxicity, discuss the metabolism and mechanisms of toxicity of isoniazid, rifampicin and pyrazinamide, and describe risk factors and management of antituberculosis druginduced hepatotoxicity. The reported incidence of antituberculosis drug-induced hepatotoxicity, the most serious and potentially fatal adverse reaction, varies between 2% and 28%. Risk factors are advanced age, female sex, slow acetylator status, malnutrition, HIV and pre-existent liver disease. Still, it is difficult to predict what patient will develop hepatotoxicity during tuberculosis treatment. The exact mechanism of antituberculosis drug-induced hepatotoxicity is unknown, but toxic metabolites are suggested to play a crucial role in the development, at least in the case of isoniazid. Priorities for future studies include basic studies to elucidate the mechanism of antituberculosis drug-induced hepatotoxicity, genetic risk factor studies and the development of shorter and safer tuberculosis drug regimens.

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundTuberculosis is the world's leading infectious disease killer. We aimed to identify shorter, safer drug regimens for the treatment of tuberculosis.MethodsWe did a randomised controlled, open-label trial with a multi-arm, multi-stage design. The trial was done in seven sites in South Africa and Tanzania, including hospitals, health centres, and clinical trial centres. Patients with newly diagnosed, rifampicin-sensitive, previously untreated pulmonary tuberculosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1:2 ratio to receive (all orally) either 35 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 15–20 mg/kg ethambutol, 20 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 400 mg moxifloxacin, 20 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 300 mg SQ109, 10 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 300 mg SQ109, or a daily standard control regimen (10 mg/kg rifampicin, 5 mg/kg isoniazid, 25 mg/kg pyrazinamide, and 15–20 mg/kg ethambutol). Experimental treatments were given with oral 5 mg/kg isoniazid and 25 mg/kg pyrazinamide per day for 12 weeks, followed by 14 weeks of 5 mg/kg isoniazid and 10 mg/kg rifampicin per day. Because of the orange discoloration of body fluids with higher doses of rifampicin it was not possible to mask patients and clinicians to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was time to culture conversion in liquid media within 12 weeks. Patients without evidence of rifampicin resistance on phenotypic test who took at least one dose of study treatment and had one positive culture on liquid or solid media before or within the first 2 weeks of treatment were included in the primary analysis (modified intention to treat). Time-to-event data were analysed using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model and adjusted for minimisation variables. The proportional hazard assumption was tested using Schoelfeld residuals, with threshold p<0·05 for non-proportionality. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01785186).FindingsBetween May 7, 2013, and March 25, 2014, we enrolled and randomly assigned 365 patients to different treatment arms (63 to rifampicin 35 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol; 59 to rifampicin 10 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, SQ109; 57 to rifampicin 20 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and SQ109; 63 to rifampicin 10 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and moxifloxacin; and 123 to the control arm). Recruitment was stopped early in the arms containing SQ109 since prespecified efficacy thresholds were not met at the planned interim analysis. Time to stable culture conversion in liquid media was faster in the 35 mg/kg rifampicin group than in the control group (median 48 days vs 62 days, adjusted hazard ratio 1·78; 95% CI 1·22–2·58, p=0·003), but not in other experimental arms. There was no difference in any of the groups in time to culture conversion on solid media. 11 patients had treatment failure or recurrent disease during post-treatment follow-up: one in the 35 mg/kg rifampicin arm and none in the moxifloxacin arm. 45 (12%) of 365 patients reported grade 3–5 adverse events, with similar proportions in each arm.Interpr...

No abstract

Summaryobjectives To review the current knowledge about tuberculosis (TB) and diabetes, assessing the implication of the global increase of diabetes for TB control and patient care.methods Systematic literature review. results Using public databases, it can be estimated that 12.6% (95% CI 9.2-17.3%) of new TB cases in the 10 countries with the highest TB burden will be attributable to TB in 2030, a relative increase of 25.5% compared to 2010. Diabetes is associated with a higher age and body weight among patients with TB, but probably not with a specific clinical presentation of TB. Rifampicin hampers glycemic control by increasing the metabolism of most oral antidiabetic drugs, while diabetes patients may have lower concentrations of anti-TB drugs. This might be one factor contributing to higher TB treatment failure rates.conclusions The global epidemic of diabetes has implications for control and treatment of TB. Prospective studies are needed to improve prevention, early detection and treatment of concomitant diabetes and TB, especially in developing countries.

The 600-mg once daily dose of rifampicin plays a key role in tuberculosis treatment. The evidence underpinning this dose is scant. A review of the historical literature identified 3 strands of reasoning. The first is the pharmacokinetic argument: The 600-mg dose yields serum drug concentrations well above the minimum inhibitory concentration of rifampicin against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The second is the argument that adverse events may be dose related. The third is the economic argument: Rifampicin was prohibitively expensive at the time of its introduction. Recent in vitro, animal, and early bactericidal activity studies suggest that the 600-mg once daily dose is at the lower end of the dose-response curve, refuting the pharmacokinetic argument. The reduced cost and the lack of evidence of toxicity at higher daily doses remove the other arguments. To optimize tuberculosis treatment, the clinical value of higher doses of rifampicin should be tested in clinical trials.

Exposure (AUC(0-6 h)) to rifampicin was 53% lower in Indonesian patients with TB and DM, compared with patients with TB only. Patients with TB and DM who have a higher body weight may need a higher dose of rifampicin.

Diabetes triples the risk for active tuberculosis, thus the increasing burden of type 2 diabetes will help to sustain the present tuberculosis epidemic. Recommendations have been made for bidirectional screening, but evidence is scarce about the performance of specific tuberculosis tests in individuals with diabetes, specific diabetes tests in patients with tuberculosis, and screening and preventive therapy for latent tuberculosis infections in individuals with diabetes. Clinical management of patients with both diseases can be difficult. Tuberculosis patients with diabetes have a lower concentration of tuberculosis drugs and a higher risk of drug toxicity than tuberculosis patients without diabetes. Good glycaemic control, which reduces long-term diabetes complications and could also improve tuberculosis treatment outcomes, is hampered by chronic inflammation, drug-drug interactions, suboptimum adherence to drug treatments, and other factors. Besides drug treatments for tuberculosis and diabetes, other interventions, such as education, intensive monitoring, and lifestyle interventions, might be needed, especially for patients with newly diagnosed diabetes or those who need insulin. From a health systems point of view, delivery of optimum care and integration of services for tuberculosis and diabetes is a huge challenge in many countries. Experience from the combined tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS epidemic could serve as an example, but more studies are needed that include economic assessments of recommended screening and systems to manage concurrent tuberculosis and diabetes.