Rifampicin 300mg / Isoniazid 150mg tablets

BackgroundWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare effectiveness and safety of 9 months of isoniazid (9H) versus shorter rifamycin-containing regimens for treating latent tuberculosis infection (TBI) in children.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to June 2025 for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared regimens that were shorter than 9 months of isoniazid in children aged 1-18 years. Outcomes were development of TB disease, treatment completion, and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 and the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool; certainty of evidence was graded using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).ResultsFive RCTs and 7 nonrandomized studies that enrolled approximately 2950 children in trials and >25 000 in observational cohorts were included. In pooled analysis of 3 RCTs, shorter rifamycin-containing regimens resulted in little to no difference in development of TB disease compared with 9H (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], .03-1.12; moderate-certainty evidence). Treatment completion was probably higher with shorter regimens (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, .42-0.62; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events were similar between groups, but evidence is uncertain (low-certainty evidence). Observational data were consistent with these findings, showing higher completion rates and lower hepatotoxicity with shorter treatments.ConclusionsShorter rifamycin-containing regimens for pediatric TBI probably increase treatment completion and have similar safety outcomes, with no important difference in development of TB disease compared with the standard regimen. These findings support current guideline recommendations that favor shorter regimens in children.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Study DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.ObjectiveTo evaluate the prevalence, patterns, diagnosis, and management of drug-resistant spinal tuberculosis (TB).MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database from database inception to 14 February 2026, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Observational and experimental studies reporting drug resistance among patients with spinal TB were included. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist.ResultsNineteen studies involving 5,475 patients with spinal TB were included. The pooled prevalence of multidrug-resistant (MDR)-TB among spinal TB was 4.69% (95% CI: 3.03-7.20%; 16 studies). Rifampicin resistance was noted in 13.84% (95% CI: 3.07-44.90%; 6 studies). Drug susceptibility testing was most commonly performed after clinical or radiological non-response rather than as routine practice. Treatment approaches were heterogeneous, with MDR spinal TB typically managed using individualized second-line anti-TB regimens, frequently combined with surgical intervention. Low risk of bias was documented in 47.4% of studies.ConclusionsThe prevalence of MDR-TB among spinal tuberculosis was 4.69%. Considerable heterogeneity exists in drug susceptibility testing, diagnosis, medical treatment, and surgical management. The available evidence remains limited, underscoring the need for prospective studies evaluating the effectiveness of anti-TB regimens in MDR spinal tuberculosis.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is an increasingly adopted platform for predicting drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis; however, diagnostic accuracy varies substantially across bioinformatic tools and analytical frameworks, generating considerable uncertainty for clinical laboratory implementation. We conducted a prospectively registered (PROSPERO: CRD420261342739), PRISMA-DTA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from 1 January 2000 through 28 January 2026. Primary overall sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a tool-level bivariate random-effects model. Exploratory subgroup analyses and meta-regression examined the association between algorithm category and diagnostic-performance heterogeneity. Twenty-eight drug-level evaluations from seven tools (rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide for each tool) were compiled from the extracted 2 × 2 data. For the primary tool-level composite analysis, pooled sensitivity was 0.930 (95% CI: 0.907-0.948) and pooled specificity was 0.962 (95% CI: 0.929-0.981). In secondary drug-specific analyses, sensitivity was highest for rifampicin (0.960, 95% CI: 0.934-0.976) and isoniazid (0.933, 95% CI: 0.906-0.953), and lowest for pyrazinamide (0.860, 95% CI: 0.800-0.904). Exploratory tool-level comparisons produced pooled sensitivity estimates of 0.920 for rule-based tools, 0.899 for machine learning tools, and 0.951 for hybrid tools. These comparisons involved only seven tool-level analytic units and cannot disentangle algorithm type from individual tool identity, training data, mutation catalogue version, or validation population. WGS-based bioinformatic tools provide highly specific and generally sensitive predictions of Mycobacterium tuberculosis resistance for first-line drugs across diverse clinical settings. Exploratory differences between tool categories should not be interpreted as causal effects of algorithmic architecture. Future studies should use prospective head-to-head evaluations on shared, geographically diverse isolate collections, alongside continued improvement of resistance catalogues and external validation.

Abstract licence: CC BY