20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Efficacy and Tolerability of Concomitant Use of Bedaquiline and Delamanid for Multidrug- and Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The introduction of two novel drugs, bedaquiline and delamanid, has given hope for better and shorter treatments of drug-resistant tuberculosis. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of concomitant bedaquiline and delamanid administration. Pooled estimates of World Health Organization–defined favorable treatment outcome and significant QTc-interval prolongation (QTc ≥500 ms or ≥60 ms increase from baseline) were calculated using a random-effects model. Thirteen studies including a total of 1031 individuals with multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis who received bedaquiline and delamanid were included. The pooled estimate of favorable treatment outcome was 73.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 64.3–81.8%). Sputum culture conversion at 6 months ranged from 61% to 95%. Overall, the pooled proportion of QTc-prolongation was 7.8% (95% CI: 4.1–11.6%) and few cardiac events were reported (0.8%; n = 6/798). Rates of sputum culture conversion and favorable treatment outcome were high in patients treated concomitantly with bedaquiline and delamanid, and the treatment seemed tolerable with low rates of clinically significant cardiac toxicity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

            It has been suggested that the quality of clinical trials should be assessed by blinded raters to limit the risk of introducing bias into meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and into the peer-review process. There is very little evidence in the literature to substantiate this. This study describes the development of an instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality. A multidisciplinary panel of six judges produced an initial version of the instrument. Fourteen raters from three different backgrounds assessed the quality of 36 research reports in pain research, selected from three different samples. Seven were allocated randomly to perform the assessments under blind conditions. The final version of the instrument included three items. These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background and could discriminate between reports from the different samples. Blind assessments produced significantly lower and more consistent scores than open assessments. The implications of this finding for systematic reviews, meta-analytic research and the peer-review process are discussed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Treatment correlates of successful outcomes in pulmonary multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: an individual patient data meta-analysis

              Treatment outcomes for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis remain poor. We aimed to estimate the association of treatment success and death with the use of individual drugs, and the optimal number and duration of treatment with those drugs in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Clinical Infectious Diseases
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                1058-4838
                1537-6591
                April 01 2023
                April 03 2023
                November 04 2022
                April 01 2023
                April 03 2023
                November 04 2022
                : 76
                : 7
                : 1328-1337
                Article
                10.1093/cid/ciac876
                cce2f99c-196c-4d06-ae37-9aae8209bacb
                © 2022

                https://academic.oup.com/pages/standard-publication-reuse-rights

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article