Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

An updated systematic review and meta-analysis for treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis

Mayara Lisboa Bastos, Zhiyi Lan, Dick Menzies
European Respiratory Journal 2017 49: 1600803; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00803-2016
Mayara Lisboa Bastos
1Internal Medicine Graduate Program, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zhiyi Lan
2Respiratory Epidemiology and Clinical Research Unit, Montreal Chest Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dick Menzies
2Respiratory Epidemiology and Clinical Research Unit, Montreal Chest Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: dick.menzies@mcgill.ca
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to update the current evidence for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment.

We searched for studies that reported treatment information and clinical characteristics for at least 25 patients with microbiologically confirmed pulmonary MDR-TB and either end of treatment outcomes, 6-month culture conversion or severe adverse events (SAEs). We assessed the association of these outcomes with patients' characteristics or treatment parameters. We identified 74 studies, including 17 494 participants.

The pooled treatment success was 26% in extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) patients and 60% in MDR-TB patients. Treatment parameters such as number or duration and individual drugs were not associated with improved 6-month sputum culture conversion or end of treatment outcomes. However, MDR-TB patients that received individualised regimens had higher success than patients who received standardised regimens (64% versus 52%; p<0.0.01). When reports from 20 cohorts were pooled, proportions of SAE ranged from 0.5% attributed to ethambutol to 12.2% attributed to para-aminosalicylic acid. The lack of significant associations of treatment outcomes with specific drugs or regimens may reflect the limitations of pooling the data rather than a true lack of differences in efficacy of regimens or individual drugs.

This analysis highlights the need for stronger evidence for treatment of MDR-TB from better-designed and reported studies.

Abstract

There are many recent published studies, but these provide only very weak evidence on how to improve MDR-TB treatment http://ow.ly/zQa1308SSOi

Introduction

Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), defined as TB resistant to at least isoniazid (INH) and rifampin (RIF), and extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB), defined as resistance to INH and RIF plus at least one fluoroquinolone and one second-line injectable drug, have become major public health threats [1]. The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that, in 2015, approximately 580 000 people developed MDR-TB, of whom 55 000 had XDR-TB [2].

Treatment for MDR-TB or XDR-TB requires lengthy use of second-line TB drugs, although the regimens used vary widely due to differences in opinions as well as the resources available [3, 4] To date, there are few published phase 3 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) for MDR-TB treatment. Hence, systematic reviews [5–7] and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses [8] have provided the majority of evidence for MDR-TB/XDR-TB treatment [9]. However, this meta-analysis only included studies published up until 2008 [8], and since then a large number of studies with new drugs and new regimens for MDR-TB/XDR-TB have been published. We therefore performed this systematic review to update the evidence for MDR-TB treatment to inform the WHO Guideline Development Group.

Methods

Literature search and study selection

The PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes) questions were developed by a WHO Guideline Development Group to answer specific questions regarding MDR-TB treatment (see supplementary material for the PICO questions). The main focus of this review was the efficacy and safety of the drugs available for treatment of MDR-TB patients. The following groups of drugs were analysed: first-line drugs (pyrazinamide and ethambutol), injectable drugs (streptomycin, kanamycin, amikacin and capreomycin), fluoroquinolones (ofloxacin, levofloxacin and moxifloxacin), add-on agents (ethionamide/prothionamide, cycloserine, para-aminosalicylic acid (PAS) and high-dose isoniazid) and bedaquiline. Four independent systematic reviews [10–13] have been conducted recently for the group 5 drugs (renamed as “add-on agents” by WHO), so we did not include these drugs specifically in our search. However, if a study reported the use of any group 5 drugs, we abstracted the information.

We searched MEDLINE (through OVID), EMBASE (through OVID) and The Cochrane Library. The search strategy used a combination of Medical Subject Heading terms and free-text words in titles, abstracts and key words. Terms related to MDR- or XDR-TB, drugs and treatment outcomes were included (supplementary material). Because this is an update from previous reviews that included studies published up to December 2008, our search was limited to the period from January 2009 to August 2015.

Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened by two reviewers (M.L. Bastos and Z. Lan), with consensus in each stage. A third reviewer (D. Menzies) was consulted to resolve disagreements. We included studies published in English, French, Chinese, Portuguese and Spanish. All studies that met the following inclusion criteria were selected: 1) MDR-TB confirmed by phenotypic tests (GeneXpert® alone for diagnosis of MDR-TB was not considered adequate unless confirmed by phenotypic tests), 2) pulmonary TB, 3) cohorts or RCTs with a minimum of 25 patients treated, 4) a clear description of the regimen and the drugs received, and 5) at least one of the following reported: end of treatment outcomes; 6-month sputum culture conversion; treatment adverse events. Studies that evaluated short regimens (<18 months) were excluded, as these have been reviewed elsewhere [14]. For studies that reported patients with extra-pulmonary disease, due to the difficulty of microbiological confirmation for the initial diagnosis and the even greater difficulty of confirmation of cure at the end of treatment, we excluded studies in which more than 10% of patients had extra-pulmonary disease, and did not report results stratified by disease site.

Data abstraction

We recorded information about age, sex, HIV (and use of antiretroviral treatment), acid-fast bacillus smear results, chest radiography cavitation, prior TB treatment (with first-line drugs or second-line drugs), drug susceptibility test results, number of patients that received each drug, duration of treatment, and whether the regimen was standardised or individualised. Outcomes abstracted included end of treatment outcomes, 6-month sputum culture conversion, and severe adverse events defined as grade 3–4 events, or defined operationally as events resulting in permanent discontinuation of a drug.

Quality assessment

There are no validated criteria for evaluating quality in MDR-TB studies, so we developed a checklist based on the presence of 12 indicators, grouped into four major categories:

1) Diagnostic information (three items): i) reported methods of confirmation of TB and of MDR-TB; ii) reported results of drug susceptibility testing for ethambutol or pyrazinamide; and iii) reported results of drug susceptibility testing for fluoroquinolones or second-line injectable.

2) Treatment regimen information (five items): i) duration of intensive phase; ii) number of drugs used in intensive phase; iii) duration of continuous phase; iv) number of drugs used in continuous phase; and v) dosage of drugs used.

3) Adverse event information (two items): i) provided a definition of adverse event (e.g. graded, classified by severity); and ii) the drug considered related to the adverse event was identified.

4) End of treatment information (two items): i) if the end of treatment outcomes were defined using Laserson et al. [15] or WHO [1] definitions (2013); and ii) if default rate was ≤8% (this threshold for quality was calculated by subtracting the pooled estimation of fail/relapse and death (17%) of all cohorts included in the review, from the WHO predefined target of a total of 25% non-success for MDR patients) [16].

The score was an unweighted sum of the 12 indicators.

Data synthesis and statistical analysis

For end of treatment outcomes, we compared success (defined as cured or treatment completed) to 1) failure or relapse or 2) failure or relapse or death. Analysis was stratified according to resistance pattern (MDR or XDR) and whether the regimen was individualised or standardised. In additional analyses, we examined the relationship of the pooled success and the prevalence of additional resistance to the second-line injectable or fluoroquinolones (i.e. pre-XDR-TB patients) among the MDR patients. We examined the relationship between each effectiveness end-point (end of treatment outcome and 6-month sputum culture conversion) and the number of patients receiving each specific drug, the average number of drugs used and duration of treatment, as well as the average value, for each cohort, of the major clinical and demographic characteristics of the patients. If HIV or age were missing, values were estimated using information from other included studies from the same country, or if this was not available, from data published by the World Bank [17] or WHO [18]. Variables were categorised according to the distribution observed (median, terciles or quartiles).

The occurrence of severe adverse events was pooled across studies that reported the following: the drug related to the event; events classified as grade 3 or 4 severity; or permanent discontinuation of a drug related to the event.

All statistical analyses were performed using SAS (version 9.2 Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Linear mixed models were used to pool the proportion with events and generalised linear mixed model for pooling adverse events.

Results

Description of studies

As shown in figure 1, 2336 titles were identified and, after eliminating duplicates and non-relevant publications based on a review of titles and abstracts, 250 were selected for full text review. In total, 176 studies were excluded, including 24 classified as “MDR-TB not confirmed”. These 24 studies reported cohorts in which outcomes of patients with MDR-TB were reported together with outcomes of patients with fully susceptible TB, or poly-drug resistant, or non-confirmed MDR-TB (“suspicious of drug resistant TB”). None was excluded due to reliance only on GenXpert results.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

PRISMA diagram of study selections in the review (and guide to applicable tables). TB: tuberculosis; MDR: multidrug-resistant; XDR: extensively drug-resistant; AE: adverse event.

Of the 74 studies that met the review inclusion criteria [19–92], seven [27, 34, 36, 51, 60, 66, 68] reported more than one cohort, yielding a total of 84 cohorts with 17 494 patients with MDR- or XDR-TB. Of these, 64 studies reported microbiological outcomes at the end of treatment and/or 6-month sputum culture conversion, and 44 reported adverse events. Of the latter group, only 19 studies reported events that were classified as grade 3 or 4, or required permanent discontinuation of the drug and identified the drug considered related.

Of the 74 studies, seven reported results in patients with XDR-TB only. 14 (13 cohorts) studies included patients with MDR-TB and XDR-TB, and treatment outcomes (one cohort reported 6-month sputum culture conversion and 12 cohorts reported end of treatment) were reported separately for these two groups of patients. Seven studies reported only MDR-TB patients, and 46 studies (57 cohorts) reported MDR-TB patients but did not provide information regarding drug susceptibility testing to fluoroquinolones and second-line injectable. Hence, some patients in these studies may have had XDR-TB. As seen in table 1, of the 17 494 patients, 4623 (66% of those with information) had a history of prior treatment with first-line drugs, 5088 (55% with chest radiography information) had cavitation on chest radiograph and 6057 (69% with acid-fast bacilli (AFB) results) were AFB sputum smear positive. Only 3111 (19% of tested) had HIV co-infection, of whom 1311 (42%) were on anti-retroviral treatment. More detailed study design, demographic, clinical treatment and outcome information are summarised in supplementary tables S1–S7.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Summary of available clinical treatment and outcome information for multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR- and XDR-TB) patients

Study quality

All studies were assessed for quality based on the reporting of essential diagnostics, treatment and outcome information. As seen in table 2, only half to two-thirds of studies reported each of the three diagnostic information items considered essential and, only one-third of studies reported all three items adequately. Only 20–39% of studies reported each of the five treatment information items, and only two studies (3%) reported all five items adequately. Of the two items considered essential for adverse events, only half of the studies who reported any adverse events provided both. On the other hand, 51 of 54 studies reported end of treatment outcomes, defined as recommended by WHO [1] or Laserson et al. [15]. Only 25% of studies achieved a lost to follow-up rate less than 8%. Supplementary table S2 provides details about these criteria.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Quality of the studies included in the review

Treatment outcomes and correlates

As shown in table 1, the pooled treatment success was 26% (95% CI 23–30%) in XDR-TB patients, compared to 60% in all cohorts of MDR-TB patients (with or without “pre-XDR”). In the studies providing this information, studies with a higher proportion of pre-XDR-TB patients reported similar outcomes to all other studies of MDR-TB patients (supplementary table S8), so these results were pooled together. Because the outcomes for XDR-TB patients were substantially worse than in MDR-TB patients, the XDR-TB patients were analysed separately from MDR-TB patients in the end of treatment outcome and in 6-month sputum culture conversion.

The pooled treatment success for MDR-TB patients that received individualised regimens was significantly higher when compared with patients who received standardised regimens (64% versus 52%; table 1). As shown in table 3, in 61 cohorts of MDR-TB patients, the end of treatment outcomes were not associated with any patients' characteristics or treatment parameters, including duration, number of drugs or individual drugs. When the same analysis was stratified in cohorts of MDR-TB patients who received only standardised or only individualised regimens, similar results were found (supplementary tables S9 and S10). Similar results were found when we analysed failure separately from relapse (data not shown).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Covariates associated with end of treatment (EOT) outcomes in the 61 cohorts of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients (extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) excluded)1

No treatment or patient characteristics examined were associated with end of treatment outcomes in the 15 cohorts of XDR-TB patients (supplementary table S11).

The pooled estimation of the 6-month sputum culture conversion was 69% in MDR-TB patients and 19% in XDR-TB patients (table 1). As shown in table 4, in 16 cohorts of MDR patients, sputum conversion was not associated with any of the reported patients' characteristics or treatment parameters. We could not assess the relationship between treatment regimens, clinical characteristics and 6-month sputum culture conversion for XDR-TB patients due to unstable results when we pooled the data.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 4

Covariates associated with 6-month sputum culture conversion in the 16 cohorts of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients (extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) excluded)1

Only 19 studies (20 cohorts) met the criteria for pooling severe adverse event data, and 86% of the patients included in these cohorts had received individualised regimens (supplementary table S7). All 20 cohorts reported the number of patients that had adverse events and not the number of events, so the denominators used in adverse event analysis were the number of patients that received the specific drug.

As shown in table 5, the occurrence of severe adverse events ranged from 0.5% of 1325 patients receiving ethambutol to 12.2% of 1706 patients who received PAS. Fewer than 3% of patients receiving fluoroquinolones or pyrazinamide experienced an severe adverse event, compared to more than 5% of patients receiving second-line injectables or a thiamide (ethionamide or prothionamide). Detailed information on the reporting of adverse events is provided in supplementary tables S6 and S7.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 5

Occurrence of severe adverse events (SAEs), attributed to specific drugs in the treatment of multidrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis#

Discussion

This review identified 74 studies, with 84 distinct cohorts, published since January 2009, that reported treatment regimens and outcomes in 17 494 MDR-TB and XDR-TB patients. These studies have reported adverse events, 6-month sputum culture conversion, and end of treatment outcomes. The pooled overall success of MDR patients was 60%: similar to previously reported studies [5–8] and well below the WHO target of 75% [16]. Treatment outcomes were substantially worse in patients with XDR-TB and in patients who received standardised regimens for MDR-TB.

However, despite the large number of studies and patients, no other treatment parameter, including number or duration of drugs and individual drugs, were associated with 6-month culture conversion, or end of treatment outcomes. This lack of association in many treatment parameters (use of any individual drugs, treatment length, number of drugs) and clinical characteristics (such as HIV co-infection) was also observed in three previous systematic reviews [5–7]. This may reflect the limitations and difficulties of pooling the data rather than a true lack of differences in efficacy of regimens or individual drugs. This limited pooling to simple characterisation, such as stratifying analyses at the median value for proportion receiving a certain drug. This crude characterisation resulted in misclassification of exposure for many patients treated with individualised regimens and reduced our chances of finding any effects, even if present.

This review highlights the need for more standardised reporting as well as evidence from well-designed randomised trials, or from meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data from multiple observational studies.

This review has a number of strengths, the most important being the identification of a large number of studies, published within the past 7 years, describing three important outcomes of MDR-TB treatment: 6-month sputum culture conversion, severe drug-related adverse events, and end of treatment outcomes. This comprehensive aggregate meta-analysis was used to update the WHO recommendation [93] of MDR-TB treatment. The treatment regimen should include four core second-line drugs: one from group A (fluoroquinolones), one from group B (second-line injectable agents) and two from group C (ethionamide/prothionamide, cycloserine/terizidone, linezolid, clofazimine), plus pyrazinamide. If there is clinical or in vitro evidence of resistance to these drugs, other add-on agents from group D2 (bedaquiline or delamanid) and group D3 (PAS, imipenem–cilastatin/meropenem, amoxicillin–clavulanate) can be added, preferably drugs from group D2 [93].

However, our study had a number of important limitations, the most important being that almost all included studies were observational, and the majority described results with individualised treatment regimens. Selection bias is an important limitation for these studies of individualised regimens, because sicker patients with more extensive disease or drug resistance may have been more likely to receive certain drugs such as later-generation fluoroquinolones. Additionally, the 23 cohorts describing standardised regimens used very different regimens (supplementary table S4), so we could not pool by different types of standardised regimens.

Another major limitation was the incomplete reporting in many of the studies. Only one-third of studies provided adequate information about laboratory methods for diagnosis and drug susceptibility testing. Information about treatment regimens was particularly poorly reported, with missing information about drugs used initially and in the continuation phase, plus the duration of these two important phases.

Despite these important limitations, the findings of this review have several interesting implications. We speculate that the nearly complete reporting of the definition of treatment outcomes reflects the effort made over a decade ago by an international collaboration to develop a consensus definition for the major treatment outcomes in MDR-TB patients [15]. This was in striking contrast to the incomplete reporting of all other information (where no international consensus effort has been attempted).

The finding of inferior results with standardised regimens compared to individualised regimens was also found in two previous reviews [5, 7], but must be interpreted with caution due to potential confounding between centres, in terms of patient populations and resources available for treatment. It is plausible that the differences seen reflect these confounding differences more than any true benefit of individualised regimens.

The poor outcomes in XDR-TB patients is consistent with the findings of previous meta-analyses [6, 94, 95]. This finding demonstrates that 10 years after the first report of XDR-TB in South Africa [96], there has been no major advance in XDR-TB treatment.

The frequency of severe adverse events ranged from less than 1% to more than 10% with each drug. These findings are similar to those of other studies in individual cohorts [19, 21, 30, 43, 59], but given that these estimates are based on large numbers of patients treated at many centres, with narrow confidence intervals, they should be generalisable to most settings. However, the reporting of drug-related adverse events was remarkably inconsistent, even though adverse events with second-line drugs is considered a major limitation of current MDR-TB therapy [16, 97]. Although most studies reported adverse events, the majority of these did not define the methods of diagnosis, grading or attribution of these adverse events. If the management of the toxicity of these second-line drugs is to improve, we suggest that an international collaboration should define a standardised approach to definition, diagnosis, grading of severity and reporting of adverse events during MDR-TB treatment, similar to past efforts to standardise outcome definitions [15].

Conclusions

Interest and published experience in MDR-TB treatment has grown rapidly in the past 7 years, but efforts to synthesise this new body of evidence are seriously hampered by the methodological limitations of most studies and incomplete reporting. We suggest that collaborative international efforts are needed to standardise the reporting of diagnostics, treatment and adverse events, as was accomplished over a decade ago for outcome definitions [15]. This effort, plus the use of stronger study designs, including individual patient data meta-analyses, registry trials or other forms of randomised trials, will help to identify safer and more effective treatment for MDR-TB.

Supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.

Supplementary material ERJ-00803-2016_Supplementary_material

Supplementary tables ERJ-00803-2016_Supplementary_tables

Disclosures

Supplementary Material

Z. Lan ERJ-00803-2016_Lan

M.L. Bastos ERJ-00803-2016_Bastos

D. Menzies ERJ-00803-2016_Menzies

Footnotes

  • This article has supplementary material available from erj.ersjournals.com

  • Support statement: This work was funded by a grant from the World Health Organization, which received funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside this article at erj.ersjournals.com

  • Received April 22, 2016.
  • Accepted January 10, 2017.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2017

References

  1. ↵
    WHO. Definitions and Reporting Framework for Tuberculosis – 2013 revision (updated December 2014). Geneva, World Health Organization, 2014.
  2. ↵
    WHO. Tuberculosis Report 2016. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2016.
  3. ↵
    1. Caminero JA,
    2. Sotgiu G,
    3. Zumla A, et al.
    Best drug treatment for multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. Lancet Infect Dis 2010; 10: 621–629.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Bastos ML,
    2. Hussain H,
    3. Weyer K, et al.
    Treatment outcomes of patients with multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis according to drug susceptibility testing to first- and second-line drugs: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59: 1364–1374.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Orenstein EW,
    2. Basu S,
    3. Shah NS, et al.
    Treatment outcomes among patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2009; 9: 153–161.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Johnston JC,
    2. Shahidi NC,
    3. Sadatsafavi M, et al.
    Treatment outcomes of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2009; 4: e6914.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Akcakir Y
    . Correlates of Treatment Outcomes of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis (MDR-TB): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [PhD dissertation]. Montreal, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, 2010.
  8. ↵
    1. Ahuja SD,
    2. Ashkin D,
    3. Avendano M, et al.
    Multidrug resistant pulmonary tuberculosis treatment regimens and patient outcomes: an individual patient data meta-analysis of 9,153 patients. PLoS Med 2012; 9: e1001300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    WHO. Guidelines for the Programmatic Management of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis – 2011 update. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2011.
  10. ↵
    1. Winters N,
    2. Butler-Laporte G,
    3. Menzies D
    . Efficacy and safety of World Health Organization group 5 drugs for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment. Eur Respir J 2015; 46: 1461–1470.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Zhang X,
    2. Falagas ME,
    3. Vardakas KZ, et al.
    Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of therapy with linezolid containing regimens in the treatment of multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. J Thorac Dis 2015; 7: 603–615.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Hwang TJ,
    2. Wares DF,
    3. Jafarov A, et al.
    Safety of cycloserine and terizidone for the treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2013; 17: 1257–1266.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Chang KC,
    2. Yew WW,
    3. Tam CM, et al.
    WHO group 5 drugs and difficult multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review with cohort analysis and meta-analysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2013; 57: 4097–4104.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    World Health Organization. WHO Treatment Guidelines for Drug-resistant Tuberculosis. 2016 Update. Geneva, WHO Press, 2016.
  13. ↵
    1. Laserson KF,
    2. Thorpe LE,
    3. Leimane V, et al.
    Speaking the same language: treatment outcome definitions for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2005; 9: 640–645.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    WHO. Companion Handbook to the WHO Guidelines for the Programmatic Management of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2014.
  15. ↵
    The World Bank. Indicator by Country. http://data.worldbank.org/country. Date last accessed: November 25, 2015.
  16. ↵
    WHO. Global Health Observatory Country Views. http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.country. Date last accessed: November 28, 2015.
  17. ↵
    1. Baghaei P,
    2. Tabarsi P,
    3. Dorriz D, et al.
    Adverse effects of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment with a standardized regimen: a report from Iran. Am J Ther 2011; 18: e29–e34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bonnet MP,
    2. Pardini M,
    3. Meacci F, et al.
    Treatment of tuberculosis in a region with high drug resistance: outcomes, drug resistance amplification and re-infection. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e23081.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Brust JC,
    2. Shah NS,
    3. van der Merwe TL, et al.
    Adverse events in an integrated home-based treatment program for MDR-TB and HIV in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2013; 62: 436–440.
    OpenUrl
    1. Brust JC,
    2. Gandhi NR,
    3. Carrara H, et al.
    High treatment failure and default rates for patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, 2000–2003. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2010; 14: 413–419.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Brust JC,
    2. Shah NS,
    3. Scott M, et al.
    Integrated, home-based treatment for MDR-TB and HIV in rural South Africa: an alternate model of care. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2012; 16: 998–1004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chand KS,
    2. Manchanda RK,
    3. Mittal R, et al.
    Homeopathic treatment in addition to standard care in multi drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosis: a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled clinical trial. Homeopathy 2014; 103: 97–107.
    OpenUrl
    1. Duraisamy K,
    2. Mrithyunjayan S,
    3. Ghosh S, et al.
    Does alcohol consumption during multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment affect outcome? A population-based study in Kerala, India. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014; 11: 712–718.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Farley JE,
    2. Ram M,
    3. Pan W, et al.
    Outcomes of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) among a cohort of South African patients with high HIV prevalence. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e20436.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Ganzaya S,
    2. Naranbat N,
    3. Bissell K, et al.
    Countrywide audit of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and treatment outcomes in Mongolia. Public Health Action 2013; 3: 333–336.
    OpenUrl
    1. Hire R,
    2. Kale AS,
    3. Dakhale GN, et al.
    A prospective, observational study of adverse reactions to drug regimen for multi-drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosis in central India. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis 2014; 6: e2014061.
    OpenUrl
    1. Jain K,
    2. Desai M,
    3. Solanki R, et al.
    Treatment outcome of standardized regimen in patients with multidrug resistant tuberculosis. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2014; 5: 145–149.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Joseph P,
    2. Desai VB,
    3. Mohan NS, et al.
    Outcome of standardized treatment for patients with MDR-TB from Tamil Nadu, India. Indian J Med Res 2011; 133: 529–534.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Malla P,
    2. Kanitz EE,
    3. Akhtar M, et al.
    Ambulatory-based standardized therapy for multi-drug resistant tuberculosis: experience from Nepal, 2005–2006. PLoS ONE 2009; 4: e8313.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Modongo C,
    2. Sobota RS,
    3. Kesenogile B, et al.
    Successful MDR-TB treatment regimens including amikacin are associated with high rates of hearing loss. BMC Infect Dis 2014; 14: 542.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mugabo P,
    2. Adewumi A,
    3. Theron D, et al.
    Do HIV-infection and antiretroviral therapy influence multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment outcomes? Acta Clinica Belgica 2013; 68: 456.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Nagaraja C,
    2. Shashibhushan BL,
    3. Asif M, et al.
    Pattern of drug-resistance and treatment outcome in multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis. Indian J Chest Dis Allied Sci 2012; 54: 23–26.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Oladimeji O,
    2. Isaakidis P,
    3. Obasanya OJ, et al.
    Intensive-phase treatment outcomes among hospitalized multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients: results from a nationwide cohort in Nigeria. PLoS ONE 2014; 9: e94393.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Rodriguez M,
    2. Monedero I,
    3. Caminero JA, et al.
    Successful management of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis under programme conditions in the Dominican Republic. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2013; 17: 520–525.
    OpenUrl
    1. Tabarsi P,
    2. Baghaei P,
    3. Jalali S, et al.
    Is standardized treatment appropriate for non-XDR multiple drug resistant tuberculosis cases? A clinical descriptive study. Scand J Infect Dis 2009; 41: 10–13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Tabarsi P,
    2. Chitsaz E,
    3. Baghaei P, et al.
    Impact of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis on treatment outcome of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients with standardized regimen: report from Iran. Microb Drug Resist 2010; 16: 81–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tabarsi P,
    2. Chitsaz E,
    3. Tabatabaei V, et al.
    Revised category II regimen as an alternative strategy for retreatment of category I regimen failure and irregular treatment cases. Am J Ther 2011; 18: 343–349.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Van der Walt M,
    2. Lancaster J,
    3. Odendaal R, et al.
    Serious treatment related adverse drug reactions amongst anti-retroviral naïve MDR-TB patients. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e58817.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ahmad N,
    2. Javaid A,
    3. Basit A, et al.
    Management and treatment outcomes of MDR-TB: results from a setting with high rates of drug resistance. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2015; 19: 1109–1114.
    OpenUrl
    1. Blöndal K,
    2. Viiklepp P,
    3. Guðmundsson LJ, et al.
    Predictors of recurrence of multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2012; 16: 1228–1233.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Bloss E,
    2. Kuksa L,
    3. Holtz TH, et al.
    Adverse events related to multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment, Latvia, 2000–2004. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2010; 14: 275–281.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Cegielski JP,
    2. Kurbatova E,
    3. van der Walt M, et al.
    Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment outcomes in relation to treatment and initial versus acquired second-line drug resistance. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 62: 418–430.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Yuen CM,
    2. Kurbatova EV,
    3. Tupasi T, et al.
    Association between regimen composition and treatment response in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a prospective cohort study. PLoS Med 2015; 12: e1001932.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chan PC,
    2. Huang SH,
    3. Yu MC, et al.
    Effectiveness of a government-organized and hospital-initiated treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients – a retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e57719.
    OpenUrl
    1. Chang KC,
    2. Leung CC,
    3. Yew WW, et al.
    Pyrazinamide may improve fluoroquinolone-based treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2012; 56: 5465–5475.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Charles M,
    2. Vilbrun SC,
    3. Koenig SP, et al.
    Treatment outcomes for patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in post-earthquake Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2014; 91: 715–721.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Dawson R,
    2. Diacon AH,
    3. Everitt D, et al.
    Efficiency and safety of the combination of moxifloxacin, pretomanid (PA-824), and pyrazinamide during the first 8 weeks of antituberculosis treatment: a phase 2b, open-label, partly randomised trial in patients with drug-susceptible or drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis. Lancet 2015; 385: 1738–1747.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Dheda K,
    2. Shean K,
    3. Zumla A, et al.
    Early treatment outcomes and HIV status of patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in South Africa: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2010; 375: 1798–1807.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    1. Diacon AH,
    2. Pym A,
    3. Grobusch MP, et al.
    Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and culture conversion with bedaquiline. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 723–732.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. El-Din MAT,
    2. Halim HAAE,
    3. El-Tantawy AM
    . Adverse reactions among patients being treated for multi-drug resistant tuberculosis in Egypt from July 2006 to January 2009. Egypt J Chest Dis Tuberc 2015; 64: 657–664.
    OpenUrl
    1. Ferrer G,
    2. Acuna-Villaorduna C,
    3. Escobedo M, et al.
    Outcomes of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis among binational cases in El Paso, Texas. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2010; 83: 1056–1058.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Gegia M,
    2. Kalandadze I,
    3. Kempker RR, et al.
    Adjunctive surgery improves treatment outcomes among patients with multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. Int J Infect Dis 2012; 16: e391–e396.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Guglielmetti L,
    2. Le Dû D,
    3. Jachym M, et al.
    Compassionate use of bedaquiline for the treatment of multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: interim analysis of a French cohort. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 60: 188–194.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Hafkin J,
    2. Modongo C,
    3. Newcomb C, et al.
    Impact of the human immunodeficiency virus on early multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment outcomes in Botswana. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2013; 17: 348–353.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Helbling P,
    2. Altpeter E,
    3. Egger JM, et al.
    Treatment outcomes of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly 2014; 144: w14053.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Hicks RM,
    2. Padayatchi N,
    3. Shah NS, et al.
    Malnutrition associated with unfavorable outcome and death among South African MDR-TB and HIV co-infected children. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2014; 18: 1074–1083.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Jana PK,
    2. Das I,
    3. Sanyal D, et al.
    The treatment outcome of multi drug resistant tuberculosis in a teaching hospital. Intern Med J 2009; 16: 131–136.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Jiang RH,
    2. Xu HB,
    3. Li L
    . Comparative roles of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin in the treatment of pulmonary multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a retrospective study. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2013; 42: 36–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Jo KW,
    2. Lee SD,
    3. Kim WS, et al.
    Treatment outcomes and moxifloxacin susceptibility in ofloxacin-resistant multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2014; 18: 39–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Karagöz T,
    2. Yazicioğlu Moçin O,
    3. Pazarli P, et al.
    The treatment results of patients with multidrug resistant tuberculosis and factors affecting treatment outcome. Tuberk Toraks 2009; 57: 383–392.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Kempker RR,
    2. Kipiani M,
    3. Mirtskhulava V, et al.
    Acquired drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis and poor outcomes among patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Emerg Infect Dis 2015; 21: 992–1001.
    OpenUrl
    1. Koh WJ,
    2. Lee SH,
    3. Kang YA, et al.
    Comparison of levofloxacin versus moxifloxacin for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 188: 858–864.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Kvasnovsky CL,
    2. Cegielski JP,
    3. Erasmus R, et al.
    Extensively drug-resistant TB in Eastern Cape, South Africa: high mortality in HIV-negative and HIV-positive patients. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2011; 57: 146–152.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Kwak N,
    2. Kim HR,
    3. Yoo CG, et al.
    Changes in treatment outcomes of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2015; 19: 525–530.
    OpenUrl
    1. Laniado-Laborín R,
    2. Estrada-Guzman J,
    3. Perez H, et al.
    Treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in a high-prevalence region through a binational consortium. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2012; 16: 610–611.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Lee J,
    2. Lee CH,
    3. Kim DK, et al.
    Retrospective comparison of levofloxacin and moxifloxacin on multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment outcomes. Korean J Intern Med 2011; 26: 153–159.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Leimane V,
    2. Dravniece G,
    3. Riekstina V, et al.
    Treatment outcome of multidrug/extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in Latvia, 2000–2004. Eur Respir J 2010; 36: 584–593.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Liu CH,
    2. Li L,
    3. Chen Z, et al.
    Characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients with MDR and XDR tuberculosis in a TB referral hospital in Beijing: a 13-year experience. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e19399.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Marks SM,
    2. Flood J,
    3. Seaworth B, et al.
    Treatment practices, outcomes, and costs of multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, United States, 2005–2007. Emerg Infect Dis 2014; 20: 812–821.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Milanov V,
    2. Falzon D,
    3. Zamfirova M, et al.
    Factors associated with treatment success and death in cases with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Bulgaria, 2009–2010. Int J Mycobacteriol 2015; 4: 131–137.
    OpenUrl
    1. Miller AC,
    2. Gelmanova IY,
    3. Keshavjee S, et al.
    Alcohol use and the management of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Tomsk, Russian Federation. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2012; 16: 891–896.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Modongo C,
    2. Zetola NM
    . Prevalence of hypothyroidism among MDR-TB patients in Botswana. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2012; 16: 1561–1562.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ndjeka N,
    2. Conradie F,
    3. Schnippel K, et al.
    Treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis with bedaquiline in a high HIV prevalence setting: an interim cohort analysis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2015; 19: 979–985.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. O'Donnell MR,
    2. Padayatchi N,
    3. Kvasnovsky C, et al.
    Treatment outcomes for extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis and HIV co-infection. Emerg Infect Dis 2013; 19: 416–424.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. O'Donnell MR,
    2. Pillay M,
    3. Pillay M, et al.
    Primary capreomycin resistance is common and associated with early mortality in patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2015; 69: 536–543.
    OpenUrl
    1. Palacios E,
    2. Franke M,
    3. Muñoz M, et al.
    HIV-positive patients treated for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: clinical outcomes in the HAART era. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2012; 16: 348–354.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Pazarli P,
    2. Duman DY,
    3. Mocin OY, et al.
    The effect of smoking on treatment outcome of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Turk Toraks Dergisi 2013; 14: 93–97.
    OpenUrl
    1. Pietersen E,
    2. Ignatius E,
    3. Streicher EM, et al.
    Long-term outcomes of patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in South Africa: a cohort study. Lancet 2014; 383: 1230–1239.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Podewils LJ,
    2. Gler MT,
    3. Quelapio MI, et al.
    Patterns of treatment interruption among patients with multidrug-resistant TB (MDR TB) and association with interim and final treatment outcomes. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e70064.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Qazi F,
    2. Khan U,
    3. Khowaja S, et al.
    Predictors of delayed culture conversion in patients treated for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Pakistan. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2011; 15: 1556–1559.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Roberts-Witteveen A,
    2. Reinten T,
    3. Christensen A, et al.
    Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in New South Wales, Australia, 1999–2010: a case series report. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2015; 19: 850–856.
    OpenUrl
    1. Satti H,
    2. McLaughlin MM,
    3. Hedt-Gauthier B, et al.
    Outcomes of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment with early initiation of antiretroviral therapy for HIV co-infected patients in Lesotho. PLoS ONE 2012; 7: e46943.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Seddon JA,
    2. Hesseling AC,
    3. Willemse M, et al.
    Culture-confirmed multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in children: clinical features, treatment, and outcome. Clin Infect Dis 2012; 54: 157–166.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Seung KJ,
    2. Becerra MC,
    3. Atwood SS, et al.
    Salvage therapy for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014; 20: 441–446.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Shean K,
    2. Streicher E,
    3. Pieterson E, et al.
    Drug-associated adverse events and their relationship with outcomes in patients receiving treatment for extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in South Africa. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e63057.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Smith SE,
    2. Ershova J,
    3. Vlasova N, et al.
    Risk factors for acquisition of drug resistance during multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment, Arkhangelsk Oblast, Russia, 2005–2010. Emerg Infect Dis 2015; 21: 1002–1011.
    OpenUrl
    1. Tang S,
    2. Tan S,
    3. Yao L, et al.
    Risk factors for poor treatment outcomes in patients with MDR-TB and XDR-TB in China: retrospective multi-center investigation. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e82943.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tang S,
    2. Yao L,
    3. Hao X, et al.
    Efficacy, safety and tolerability of linezolid for the treatment of XDR-TB: a study in China. Eur Respir J 2015; 45: 161–170.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. van Heurck R,
    2. Payen MC,
    3. De Wit S, et al.
    Epidemiology of MDR-TB in a Belgian infectious diseases unit: a 15 years review. Acta Clin Belg 2013; 68: 321–324.
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Xu HB,
    2. Jiang RH,
    3. Xiao HP
    . Clofazimine in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012; 18: 1104–1110.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    WHO. WHO Treatment Guidelines for Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis, 2016 Update. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2016.
  31. ↵
    1. Falzon D,
    2. Gandhi N,
    3. Migliori GB, et al.
    Resistance to fluoroquinolones and second-line injectable drugs: impact on multidrug-resistant TB outcomes. Eur Respir J 2013; 42: 156–168.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Jacobson KR,
    2. Tierney DB,
    3. Jeon CY, et al.
    Treatment outcomes among patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51: 6–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Gandhi NR,
    2. Moll A,
    3. Sturm AW, et al.
    Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis as a cause of death in patients co-infected with tuberculosis and HIV in a rural area of South Africa. Lancet 2006; 368: 1575–1580.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    1. Wu S,
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. Sun F, et al.
    Adverse events associated with the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Ther 2016; 23: e521–e530.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 49 Issue 3 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 49 (3)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
An updated systematic review and meta-analysis for treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
An updated systematic review and meta-analysis for treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis
Mayara Lisboa Bastos, Zhiyi Lan, Dick Menzies
European Respiratory Journal Mar 2017, 49 (3) 1600803; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00803-2016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
An updated systematic review and meta-analysis for treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis
Mayara Lisboa Bastos, Zhiyi Lan, Dick Menzies
European Respiratory Journal Mar 2017, 49 (3) 1600803; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00803-2016
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Supplementary material
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Respiratory infections and tuberculosis
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Original Articles

  • Ambulatory management of secondary spontaneous pneumothorax
  • Systematic assessment of respiratory health in illness susceptible athletes
  • Identifying early PAH biomarkers in systemic sclerosis
Show more Original Articles

Tuberculosis

  • Baseline IL-6 is a biomarker for unfavourable TB treatment outcomes
  • Drug exposure and susceptibility correlate with treatment response in MDR-TB
  • Tuberculosis and COVID-19 co-infection
Show more Tuberculosis

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society