SynthesisThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2025
Studying intrapulmonary pharmacokinetics for tuberculosis treatment: a systematic review of methodology.
Synthesis in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Research overview-2025: integrating scientific progress to accelerate global tuberculosis elimination.Frontiers in tuberculosis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDrug concentrations at the site of disease in pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) remain limitedly available, while adequate exposures of anti-TB drugs in the lungs are required for sterilization of lesions. Intrapulmonary concentration data could benefit TB treatment optimization. We conducted a systematic review to identify methods that can be used for sampling, quantifying, describing and predicting intrapulmonary pharmacokinetics of anti-TB drugs in humans.
methodsTwo systematic search strategies were conducted in databases Embase and PubMed, last searched on 18 July 2024. In total, 253 studies were identified, and their applied methods were classified into three different categories: (i) sampling techniques, (ii) quantitative analysis and (iii) modelling methods. All types of pulmonary diseases were included in the search.
resultsSputum sampling was reported as sampling method in nine studies, tissue biopsy in 51, bronchoalveolar lavage in 115, bronchoscopic microsampling in eight, bronchoabsorption in one and microdialysis in 12 studies. LC-MS/MS, the gold standard for drug quantification in biological samples, was used in 67 studies. Other quantification methods included positron emission tomography, reported in 12 studies and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization mass spectrometry on lung tissue in three studies. For prediction and description of (pre)clinical intrapulmonary concentration data, population pharmacokinetic modelling was reported in 32 studies and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling in 35 studies.
conclusionsMany of the identified methods are associated with considerable limitations including invasiveness, complexity, cost and lack of standardization. Most importantly, the method of choice must provide adequate representation of site of disease pharmacokinetics. Determining the best approach for studying intrapulmonary pharmacokinetics involves careful consideration of all these factors.
Indexed as
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.