ArticleResearch square2025
Performance evaluation of alternative bacteriological measures of response to MDR-TB therapy during the initial 16 weeks of treatment.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Monitoring response to Multi-Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment is burdensome to TB programmes and may benefit from alternative effective tools. We evaluated the concordance of alternative bacteriological measures of response to therapy (AMRT) during the initial sixteen weeks of MDR-TB treatment. Methods: In a prospective study of MDR/RR-TB among smear positive adults, aged 18 year and above. Pooled early morning- and spot sputa were obtained before treatment initiation (95% on Bdq, Lzd, Lfx, Cfz, Cs regimen) and at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16 during treatment between 14/02/2020 and 09/02/2024. Samples were tested using Concentrated Fluorescent Microscopy (CFM), Fluorescein-diacetate (FDA)-Acid Fast Bacilli (AFB) vital smear microscopy, the tuberculosis-Molecular bacterial load assay (TB-MBLA), and Middle brook 7H11 selective (MB7H11S) colony-forming units as the AMRT. Concordance of the AMRT for sputum conversion was compared to Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) culture conversion at weeks 12 and 16 of treatment. Results: A total of 101 MDR/RR-TB patients were screened of which 42 were smear negative. Fifty-nine participants were enrolled, of whom 58 (98%) provided baseline sputa and these were included in the analysis. The concordance, n/N (%) of each AMRT test with MGIT culture conversion at week 12 were: 31/35(88.6%) for CFM, 32/33 (97.0%) for FDA, and 25/26 (96.2%) for TB-MBLA, and 11/11 (100%) for MB7H11S. At week 16, concordance of eachAMRT were: 39/40 (97.5%) for CFM, 35/36 (97.2%) for FDA, 32/32 (100%) for TB-MBLA, and 15/15 (100%) for MB7H11S. Among people living with HIV,the concordances of AMRT with MGIT culture conversion varied at week 8 but was 100% for all tests at weeks 12 and 16. Baseline clinical and/or bacteriological factors did not influence the concordance of AMRT to MGIT culture conversion at weeks 12, and 16. Conclusion: Our data show that concentrated Fluorescent smear, Fluorescein-di-acetate smear microscopy, and TB-MBLA are suitable alternative measures of response to TB therapy compared to MGIT culture among MDR-TB participants. Use of these alternative rapid methods may allow timely decision making as well as rapid evaluation of alternative MDR-TB treatment regimens.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.