Substitution of Moxifloxacin for Isoniazid during Intensive Phase Treatment of Pulmonary Tuberculosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Moxifloxacin has potent activity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis in vitro and in a mouse model of antituberculosis (TB) chemotherapy, but data regarding its activity in humans are limited. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to compare the antimicrobial activity and safety of moxifloxacin versus isoniazid during the first 8 weeks of combination therapy for pulmonary TB. METHODS: Adults with sputum smear-positive pulmonary TB were randomly assigned to receive either moxifloxacin 400 mg plus isoniazid placebo, or isoniazid 300 mg plus moxifloxacin placebo, administered 5 days/week for 8 weeks, in addition to rifampin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol. All doses were directly observed. Sputum was collected for culture every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was negative sputum culture at completion of 8 weeks of treatment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 433 participants enrolled, 328 were eligible for the primary efficacy analysis. Of these, 35 (11%) were HIV positive, 248 (76%) had cavitation on baseline chest radiograph, and 213 (65%) were enrolled at African sites. Negative cultures at Week 8 were observed in 90/164 (54.9%) participants in the isoniazid arm, and 99/164 (60.4%) in the moxifloxacin arm (P = 0.37). In multivariate analysis, cavitation and enrollment at an African site were associated with lower likelihood of Week-8 culture negativity. The proportion of participants who discontinued assigned treatment was 31/214 (14.5%) for the moxifloxacin group versus 22/205 (10.7%) for the isoniazid group (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.81, 2.25). CONCLUSIONS: Substitution of moxifloxacin for isoniazid resulted in a small but statistically nonsignificant increase in Week-8 culture negativity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".