Variability in plasma rifampicin concentrations and role of <i>SLCO1B1</i> , <i>ABCB1</i> , <i>AADAC2</i> and <i>CES2</i> genotypes in Ethiopian patients with tuberculosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Rifampicin, a key drug against tuberculosis (TB), displays wide between-patient pharmacokinetics variability and concentration-dependent antimicrobial effect. We investigated variability in plasma rifampicin concentrations and the role of SLCO1B1, ABCB1, arylacetamide deacetylase (AADAC) and carboxylesterase 2 (CES-2) genotypes in Ethiopian patients with TB.Methods We enrolled adult patients with newly diagnosed TB (n = 119) who had received 2 weeks of rifampicin-based anti-TB therapy. Venous blood samples were obtained at three time points post-dose. Genotypes for SLCO1B1 (c.388A > G, c.521T > C), ABCB1 (c.3435C > T, c.4036A > G), AADACc.841G > A and CES-2 (c.269-965A > G) were determined. Rifampicin plasma concentration was quantified using LC-MS/MS. Predictors of rifampicin Cmax and AUC0–7 h were analysed.Results The median rifampicin Cmax and AUC0–7 were 6.76 µg/mL (IQR 5.37–8.48) and 17.05 µg·h/mL (IQR 13.87–22.26), respectively. Only 30.3% of patients achieved the therapeutic efficacy threshold (Cmax>8 µg/mL). The allele frequency for SLCO1B1*1B (c.388A > G), SLCO1B1*5 (c.521T > C), ABCB1 c.3435C > T, ABCB1c.4036A > G, AADAC c.841G > A and CES-2 c.269-965A > G were 2.2%, 20.2%, 24.4%, 14.6%, 86.1% and 30.6%, respectively. Sex, rifampicin dose and ABCB1c.4036A > G, genotypes were significant predictors of rifampicin Cmax and AUC0–7. AADACc.841G > A genotypes were significant predictors of rifampicin Cmax. There was no significant influence of SLCO1B1 (c.388A > G, c.521T > C), ABCB1c.3435C > T and CES-2 c.269-965A > G on rifampicin plasma exposure variability.Conclusions Subtherapeutic rifampicin plasma concentrations occurred in two-thirds of Ethiopian TB patients. Rifampicin exposure varied with sex, dose and genotypes. AADACc.841G/G and ABCB1c.4036A/A genotypes and male patients are at higher risk of lower rifampicin plasma exposure. The impact on TB treatment outcomes and whether high-dose rifampicin is required to improve therapeutic efficacy requires further investigation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".