What type of study is this?

This is a Meta-Analysis study (also classified as: Systematic Review).

What question did this study set out to answer?

Evaluate shorter treatment regimens for drug-susceptible tuberculosis compared to the standard six months regimen.

January 14, 2026Open Access

P-1303. Traditional 6 months Vs Shorter Duration Treatment Regimen for Drug Susceptible Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Subgroup Analysis

ADAshesh DasKPC Medical College and Hospital NGNaga Sai Akhil Reddy GogulaDuke Energy (United States)MSMuhammad ShahzaibKing Edward Medical University

Key Points

Evaluate shorter treatment regimens for drug-susceptible tuberculosis compared to the standard six months regimen.
Systematic search of multiple databases for randomized controlled trials
Analysis of risk ratios and confidence intervals using RevMan software
Assessment of risk of bias using RoB 2.0
Shorter regimens significantly reduced unfavorable outcomes and relapse rates
No significant differences in mortality, treatment completion, or adverse events
Notable high heterogeneity observed in treatment outcomes

Abstract

Abstract Background Despite the recent advances in TB, the standard 6-month regimen for drug-susceptible TB poses challenges both in adherance and development of drug resistance. Shorter regimens may be a similarly effective alternative with improved compliance and reduced toxicity. This Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis evaluates the efficacy, safety, and completion rates of such regimens versus traditional six months therapy. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library identified Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing 6 months regimen with shorter duration regimens in drug susceptible TB through March 2025. Data were analyzed using RevMan 4.2.1. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Mantel-Haenszel methods. Random- or fixed-effects models were applied based on heterogeneity (Higgins’ I²). Statistical significance was set at p 0.05. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0. Results Fourteen RCTs (N = 10,555) were included. Shorter or novel regimens significantly reduced unfavorable outcomes (RR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.90–1.26; p = 0.04) and relapse (RR = 2.35; 95% CI: 1.17–4.70; p = 0.02). No significant difference was observed in sputum culture conversion at 2 months (RR = 1.05; p = 0.48; I² = 96%), treatment completion (RR = 1.00; p = 0.77; I² = 61%), mortality (RR = 0.90; p = 0.60; I² = 0%), loss to follow-up (RR = 0.88; p = 0.39; I² = 57%), recurrence (RR = 1.53; p = 0.15; I² = 73%), or adverse events (RR = 1.07; p = 0.45; I² = 77%). Subgroup analyses also showed variable heterogeneity across outcomes. Conclusion The Short novel regimens may reduce relapse and unfavorable outcomes without increasing mortality but there is high heterogeneity. Observed heterogeneity is likely due to variation in treatment duration, drug regimens, variations in control groups and local antibiotic resistance. Findings support shorter regimens as viable alternatives, but further head-to-head trials are needed to bring a change in the global clinical practice. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Demander à l'IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper