SynthesisThe Indian journal of medical research2025
Efficacy & safety of high-dose rifampicin in pulmonary tuberculosis: A systematic review & meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Indian journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & objectives Evidence suggests that higher doses of rifampicin aid in faster culture conversion, but its effects on unfavourable outcomes are unclear. We aimed to synthesise evidence on the efficacy and safety of high-dose rifampicin (>15 mg/kg) containing anti-tuberculosis regimen compared to a regimen with standard dose of rifampicin in adults with pulmonary tuberculosis. Methods We searched for studies from MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library without geographical restriction. We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated high-dose rifampicin (>15 mg/kg for 8 wk) with a six-month duration. Our outcomes of interest were sputum conversion at eight wk, mortality, treatment failure at six months, Grade 3 and Grade 4 hepatotoxicity, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts and extracted data. We performed a meta-analysis using the RevMan web software as per the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Results Out of 3950 articles screened, we included nine for meta-analysis. High-dose rifampicin (≥15 mg/kg) showed little benefit compared to the standard dose for sputum conversion at eight wk [(83% vs. 78%, Relative risk (RR) 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0-1.09), Number needed to treat (NNT)-24)] and this benefit was higher as the rifampicin dose increased [20-30 mg RR: 1.07 (95% CI 1.02-1.14), NNT-17]; >30 mg RR: 1.12 (95% CI 1.04 -1.20) NNT-9]. However, treatment failure and mortality showed no benefit with high-dose rifampicin. Grade 3 and 4 hepatotoxicity and treatment discontinuation due to toxicity had a dose-response relationship and were significantly higher in the more than 30 mg/kg group [RR: 4.01 (95%CI 1.75-9.19), Number needed to harm -20]. Interpretation & conclusions High doses of rifampicin (≥15 mg/kg) increased the rate of sputum culture conversion after two months of the intensive phase. There was no difference in mortality and treatment failure between high-dose rifampicin and standard arms. In the subgroup analysis, the 20-30 mg/kg dose exhibited a beneficial effect in sputum conversion with no significant risk of hepatotoxicity and adverse drug reactions (ADR) leading to treatment discontinuation. This dose could be administered with close monitoring of adverse events and hepatotoxicity. There is an urgent need for adequately powered trials that assess long-term treatment outcomes, including recurrence.
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.