High dose rifampin for 2 months vs standard dose rifampin for 4 months, to treat TB infection: Protocol of a 3-arm randomized trial (2R2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT) is an essential component for TB elimination. In order to be successfully implemented on a large scale, TPT needs to be safe, affordable and widely available in all settings. Short TPT regimens, that are less burdensome than longer regimens, to patients and health systems, are needed. Doses of rifampin higher than the standard 10mg/kg/day were tolerated in studies to reduce duration of treatment for tuberculosis disease (TBD). The objective of this trial is to test the safety of high dose rifampin monotherapy to shorten the duration of the currently recommended TPT of 4 months rifampin. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a phase 2b, randomised, controlled, parallel group, superiority, partially-blind trial. Primary outcomes are completion of treatment (as a proxy measure of tolerability) and safety. The two experimental arms comprise 60 days of (i) 20mg/kg/day or (ii) 30mg/kg/day rifampin; the control arm comprises 120 days of 10mg/kg/day rifampin as TPT. Participants are adults and children 10 years or older, eligible for TPT. Completion is the primary outcome, measured by pill count and is defined as taking minimum of 80% of treatment in 120% of allowed time; it will be tested for superiority by logistic regression. Safety outcome comprises proportion of grade 3-5 adverse events and grade 1-2 rash, adjudicated related to study drug, and resulting in permanent drug discontinuation; compared for non-inferiority between each of the two high dose arms and the standard arm, using Poisson regression. A sample size of 1,359 participants will give 80% power to detect a 10% difference in completion rates and a 1% difference in the safety outcome. The study is conducted in Canada, Indonesia and Vietnam. Enrolment is ongoing at all sites. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals from a local research ethics board (REB) have been obtained at all participating sites and by the trial coordinating centre. Approval has been given by drug regulatory agencies in Canada and Indonesia and by Ministry of Health in Vietnam; participants give written informed consent before participation. All data collected are non-nominal. Primary results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal when all participants have completed treatment; results of secondary outcomes will be submitted for publication at the end of study; all sites will receive the final data of participants from their sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03988933). Coordinating center is the study team working at McGill University Health Center-Research Institute (MUHC-RI); sponsor is the MUHC-RI; funding has been granted by Canadian Institute of Health Research (FDN-143350).
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 | 0.031 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.013 |
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".