MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995747718 · doi:10.1183/13993003.01467-2019

Standardised shorter regimens <i>versus</i> individualised longer regimens for rifampin- or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis

2019· article· en· W2995747718 on OpenAlexaff
S.K. Abidi, Jay Achar, M.M. Assao Neino, Didi Bang, Andrea Benedetti, Sarah K. Brode, Jonathon R. Campbell, Esther C. Casas, Francesca Conradie, Gunta Dravniece, Philipp du Cros, Dennis Falzon, Ernesto Jaramillo, Christopher Kuaban, Zhiyi Lan, Christoph Lange, Pei Zhi Li, Mavluda Makhmudova, Aung Kya Jai Maug, Dick Menzies, Giovanni Battista Migliori, Ann C. Miller, Bakyt Myrzaliev, Norbert Ndjeka, J Noeske, Nargiza Parpieva, Alberto Piubello, V Schwoebel, Welile Sikhondze, Rupak Singla, Mahamadou Bassirou Souleymane, Arnaud Trébucq, Armand Van Deun, Kerri Viney, Karin Weyer, Betty Jingxuan Zhang, Faiz Ahmad Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMcGill UniversityWest Park Healthcare CentreMcGill University Health Centre
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicineRegimenPyrazinamideEthambutolInternal medicineTuberculosisEthionamideOdds ratioPropensity score matchingRifampicinSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We sought to compare the effectiveness of two World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended regimens for the treatment of rifampin- or multidrug-resistant (RR/MDR) tuberculosis (TB): a standardised regimen of 9–12 months (the “shorter regimen”) and individualised regimens of ≥20 months (“longer regimens”). We collected individual patient data from observational studies identified through systematic reviews and a public call for data. We included patients meeting WHO eligibility criteria for the shorter regimen: not previously treated with second-line drugs, and with fluoroquinolone- and second-line injectable agent-susceptible RR/MDR-TB. We used propensity score matched, mixed effects meta-regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios and adjusted risk differences (aRDs) for failure or relapse, death within 12 months of treatment initiation and loss to follow-up. We included 2625 out of 3378 (77.7%) individuals from nine studies of shorter regimens and 2717 out of 13 104 (20.7%) individuals from 53 studies of longer regimens. Treatment success was higher with the shorter regimen than with longer regimens (pooled proportions 80.0% versus 75.3%), due to less loss to follow-up with the former (aRD −0.15, 95% CI −0.17– −0.12). The risk difference for failure or relapse was slightly higher with the shorter regimen overall (aRD 0.02, 95% CI 0–0.05) and greater in magnitude with baseline resistance to pyrazinamide (aRD 0.12, 95% CI 0.07–0.16), prothionamide/ethionamide (aRD 0.07, 95% CI −0.01–0.16) or ethambutol (aRD 0.09, 95% CI 0.04–0.13). In patients meeting WHO criteria for its use, the standardised shorter regimen was associated with substantially less loss to follow-up during treatment compared with individualised longer regimens and with more failure or relapse in the presence of resistance to component medications. Our findings support the need to improve access to reliable drug susceptibility testing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.011
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations88
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207