Treatment Completion and Costs of a Randomized Trial of Rifampin for 4 Months versus Isoniazid for 9 Months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is little published information regarding treatment completion, safety, and efficacy of rifampin administered daily for 4 months-a recommended alternative to 9 months of isoniazid for therapy of latent tuberculosis infection. In an open-label randomized trial at a university-affiliated respiratory hospital, consenting patients whose treating physician had recommended therapy for latent tuberculosis infection were randomized to daily self-administered rifampin for 4 months or daily self-administered isoniazid for 9 months. Of 58 patients randomized to rifampin, 53 (91%) took 80% of doses, and 50 (86%) took more than 90% of doses within 20 weeks compared with 44 (76%) and 36 (62%) who took 80 and 90%, respectively, of doses of isoniazid within 43 weeks (relative risks: 80% of doses, 1.2 [95% confidence interval: 1.02, 1.4]; 90% of doses, 1.4 [1.1, 1.7]). Adverse events resulted in permanent discontinuation of therapy for two (3%) patients taking rifampin, and for eight (14%) patients taking isoniazid. Three patients developed drug-induced hepatitis--all were taking isoniazid. Total costs of therapy were significantly higher for isoniazid. In conclusion, completion of therapy was significantly better with 4 months of rifampin and major side effects were somewhat lower. Further studies are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of the 4-month rifampin regimen.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".