Search

BACKGROUND: The aim of these clinical standards is to provide guidance on ‘best practice´ for diagnosis, treatment and management of drug-susceptible pulmonary TB (PTB).METHODS: A panel of 54 global experts in the field of TB care, public health, microbiology, and pharmacology were identified; 46 participated in a Delphi process. A 5-point Likert scale was used to score draft standards. The final document represents the broad consensus and was approved by all 46 participants.RESULTS: Seven clinical standards were defined: Standard 1, all patients (adult or child) who have symptoms and signs compatible with PTB should undergo investigations to reach a diagnosis; Standard 2, adequate bacteriological tests should be conducted to exclude drug-resistant TB; Standard 3, an appropriate regimen recommended by WHO and national guidelines for the treatment of PTB should be identified; Standard 4, health education and counselling should be provided for each patient starting treatment; Standard 5, treatment monitoring should be conducted to assess adherence, follow patient progress, identify and manage adverse events, and detect development of resistance; Standard 6, a recommended series of patient examinations should be performed at the end of treatment; Standard 7, necessary public health actions should be conducted for each patient. We also identified priorities for future research into PTB.CONCLUSION: These consensus-based clinical standards will help to improve patient care by guiding clinicians and programme managers in planning and implementation of locally appropriate measures for optimal person-centred treatment for PTB.

Contains fulltext : 172450.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) INTRODUCTION: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a global health problem. Drug resistance, treatment duration, complexity, and adverse drug reactions associated with anti-TB regimens are associated with treatment failure, prolonged infectiousness and relapse. With the current set of anti-TB drugs the goal to end TB has not been met. New drugs and new treatment regimens are needed to eradicate TB. AREAS COVERED: Literature was explored to select publications on drugs currently in phase II and phase III trials. These include new chemical entities, immunotherapy, established drugs in new treatment regimens and vaccines for the prophylaxis of TB. EXPERT OPINION: Well designed trials, with detailed pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis, in which information on drug exposure and drug susceptibility of the entire anti-TB regimen is included, in combination with long-term follow-up will provide relevant data to optimize TB treatment. The new multi arm multistage trial design could be used to test new combinations of compounds, immunotherapy and therapeutic vaccines. This new approach will both reduce the number of patients exposed to inferior treatment and the financial burden. Moreover, it will speed up drug evaluation. Considering the investments involved in development of new drugs it is worthwhile to thoroughly investigate existing, non-TB drugs in new regimens.

*Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. Laboratory for Pharmaceutical Biology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Department of Hospital and Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. Division of Gastroenterology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Laboratory for Monoclonal Therapeutics, Sanquin Diagnostics, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. **Department of Immunopathology, Sanquin Research and Landsteiner Laboratory Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: d.buurman@umcg.nl Both first authors contributed equally. Both last authors contributed equally.

SummaryBackground Formation of antibodies to infliximab (ATI) inversely correlates with functional drug levels and clinical outcome. Comparison of drug levels and anti-drug antibody monitoring is hampered by lack of standardisation. Aim To determine the correlation between three different assays for measuring infliximab and ATI. Methods Serum samples and spiked controls (total 62) were evaluated in a blinded way in infliximab and ATI assays developed by Sanquin Amsterdam, Netherlands (A), Laboratory for Pharmaceutical Biology, KU Leuven, Belgium (B) and a commercially available kit from Biomedical Diagnostics (BMD), Paris, France (C) performed by the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Netherlands. Results All infliximab assays showed a linear quantitative correlation (Pearson r = 0.91 for A vs. B, 0.83 for A vs. C and 0.73 for B vs. C). Assay C detected infliximab in 11 samples (18%) not detected by A and B, including samples containing only ATI. All ATI assays showed a good linear correlation (Pearson r = 0.95 for A vs. B, 0.99 for A vs. C and 0.97 for B vs. C). Assay A detected ATI in five samples with low ATI that were not detected by assays B and C. Assay B did not detect ATI in three patient samples with low ATI according to assays A and C. Conclusions There is a good correlation of infliximab and antibodies to infliximab measurements between these assays. Nevertheless, the Biomedical Diagnostics kit detected false positive infliximab levels in 18% of the samples.