Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39416385›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Efficacy and safety of higher dose rifampicin in adults with presumed drug-susceptible tuberculosis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kathryn A Haigh, Hussein H Twabi, Linda Boloko, Phiona E Namale, Vittoria Lutje, Sarah Nevitt, Geraint Davies

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Pharmacological assessment of drugs retained in the 1Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Tuberculosis: An Update for the Clinician.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kathryn A HaighDepartment for Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK.
Hussein H TwabiKamuzu University of Health Sciences, Blantyre, Malawi.
Linda BolokoCentre for Infectious Diseases Research in Africa, Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
Phiona E NamaleCentre for Infectious Diseases Research in Africa, Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
Vittoria LutjeCochrane Infectious Diseases Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Sarah NevittDepartment of Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, UK.
Geraint DaviesDepartment for Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a significant cause of mortality globally, yet first-line treatment has hardly changed for fifty years. The dose of rifampicin, the most important drug in this regimen, has been historically based on pragmatic cost- and risk-benefit considerations. Evidence suggests the current recommended dose (8-12 mg/kg) may not maximise the potential benefits of this drug. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of higher doses of rifampicin in adults with presumed drug-susceptible TB. Methods: In this systematic review we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Global Health databases for randomised controlled trials up to 31 July 2024 of adults with presumed drug-susceptible TB receiving first-line treatment with an intervention of rifampicin doses higher than currently recommended. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models where background regimens were the same. Risk ratio was used as the measure for treatment effect. Outcomes of interest related to efficacy and safety. Findings: Of the 5441 total records identified by our searches, nineteen studies (6332 patients, 31.0% female) were eligible for the systematic review and twelve (3763 patients, 31.0% female) for meta-analysis. Rifampicin doses varied from 8 to 35 mg/kg and implementation of the intervention varied between trials. There was no evidence for increased efficacy with higher doses of rifampicin, however the majority of trials investigated minimally increased doses (up to 20 mg/kg). At higher doses (>20 mg/kg), there may be evidence of increased risk of drug-induced liver injury, albeit with no consistent dose-response relationship. Interpretation: Evidence on the efficacy of higher doses of rifampicin in the first-line regimen for TB remains incomplete. While higher doses appear generally safe, the risk of drug-induced liver injury may be increased above doses of 20 mg/kg. Larger clinical trials reporting definitive outcomes are needed to determine whether dosing up to 40 mg/kg could safely improve treatment outcomes or reduce duration of first-line therapy. Funding: WHO, Wellcome Trust.

Indexed as

High dose rifampicinMeta-analysisOptimisation of rifampicinSystematic reviewTuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID39416385
PMCPMC11474450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.