首页> 外文OA文献 >Efficacy and safety of a 4-drug fixed-dose combination regimen compared with separate drugs for treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis: the Study C randomized controlled trial
【2h】

Efficacy and safety of a 4-drug fixed-dose combination regimen compared with separate drugs for treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis: the Study C randomized controlled trial

机译:4药固定剂量联合治疗方案与单独药物治疗肺结核的疗效和安全性:研究C随机对照试验

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

CONTEXT: Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of drugs for treatment of tuberculosis have been advocated to prevent the emergence of drug resistance. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of a 4-drug FDC for the treatment of tuberculosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The Study C trial, a parallel-group, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial conducted in 11 sites in Africa, Asia, and Latin America between 2003 and 2008. Patients were 1585 adults with newly diagnosed smear-positive pulmonary tuberculosis. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive daily treatment with 4 drugs (rifampicin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, ethambutol) given as an FDC (n = 798 patients) or separately (n = 787) in the 8-week intensive phase of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Favorable treatment outcome, defined as negative culture result at 18 months post randomization and not having already been classified as unfavorable. Noninferiority was dependent on consistent results from a per-protocol and modified intention-to-treat analysis, using 2 different models for the latter, classifying all changes of treatment or refusal to continue treatment (eg, bacteriological failure/relapse, adverse event, default, drug resistance) as unfavorable (model 1) and classifying changes of treatment for reasons other than therapeutic outcomes according to their 18-month bacteriological outcome if available (post hoc model 2). The prespecified noninferiority margin was 4%. RESULTS: In the per-protocol analysis, 555 of 591 patients (93.9%) had a favorable outcome in the FDC group vs 548 of 579 (94.6%) in the separate-drugs group (risk difference, -0.7% [90% confidence interval {CI}, -3.0% to 1.5%]). In the model 1 analysis, 570 of 684 patients (83.3%) had a favorable outcome in the FDC group vs 563 of 664 (84.8%) in the separate-drugs group (risk difference, -1.5% [90% CI, -4.7% to 1.8%]). In the post hoc model 2 analysis, 591 of 658 patients (89.8%) in the FDC group and 589 of 647 (91.0%) in the separate-drugs group had a favorable outcome (risk difference, -1.2% [90% CI, -3.9% to 1.5%]). Adverse events related to trial drugs were similarly distributed among treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a regimen of separately administered drugs, a 4-drug FDC regimen for treatment of tuberculosis satisfied prespecified noninferiority criteria in 2 of 3 analyses. Although the results do not demonstrate full noninferiority of the FDCs compared with single drugs given separately using the strict definition applied in this trial, use of FDCs is preferred because of potential advantages associated with the administration of FDCs compared with separate-drug formulations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00216333.
机译:背景:已提倡固定剂量联合用药(FDC)治疗结核病,以防止出现耐药性。目的:评估4药FDC治疗结核病的疗效和安全性。设计,地点和患者:研究C试验是一项平行组,开放标签,非劣效,随机对照试验,于2003年至2008年期间在非洲,亚洲和拉丁美洲的11个地点进行。患者为1585名新诊断的成人涂片阳性肺结核。干预措施:在8周的强化治疗阶段,患者被随机分配接受4种药物(利福平,异烟肼,吡嗪酰胺,乙胺丁醇)的FDC每日治疗(n = 798例)或单独接受治疗(n = 787)。主要观察指标:良好的治疗效果,定义为随机分组后18个月的培养阴性结果,尚未归类为不良。非劣效性取决于每种方案和修改后的意向治疗分析的一致结果,后者使用两种不同的模型,对所有治疗变化或拒绝继续治疗进行分类(例如,细菌学失败/复发,不良事件,默认(耐药性)为不利(模型1),并根据治疗结果以外的其他原因,根据其18个月的细菌学结果将治疗变化分类(事后模型2)。预先规定的非劣质性为4%。结果:按方案分析,FDC组的591例患者中有555例(93.9%)疗效良好,而单独药物组的548例中有548例结果(579.4%)(风险差异,-0.7%[90%置信度间隔{CI},-3.0%到1.5%])。在模型1分析中,FDC组的684名患者中有570名(83.3%)取得了良好的结果,而单独药物组的664名中的563名有664名(84.8%)(风险差异,-1.5%[90%CI,-4.7 %到1.8%])。在事后模型2分析中,FDC组的658例患者中有591例(89.8%),单独药物组的647例中有589例(647%)(91.0%)(风险差异,-1.2%[90%CI, -3.9%至1.5%])。与试验药物有关的不良事件在治疗组之间的分布相似。结论:与单独给药的药物方案相比,用于治疗结核病的4药物FDC方案在3份分析中有2份符合预定的非劣效性标准。尽管与使用严格试验中的严格定义单独给予的单药相比,结果并不能证明FDC完全不劣于人,但由于与单药配方相比FDC的给药具有潜在的优势,因此优选使用FDC。试验注册:clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT00216333。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号