Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
To understand why once-weekly isoniazid/rifapentine therapy for tuberculosis was less effective than twice-weekly isoniazid/rifampin, we studied human immunodeficiency virus-seronegative patients with either failure (n = 4), relapse (n = 35), or cure (n = 94), recruited from a comparative treatment trial. In multivariate analyses that were adjusted for severity of disease, low plasma concentrations of isoniazid were associated with failure/relapse with once-weekly isoniazid/rifapentine (median isoniazid area under the concentration-time curve for 12 hours after the dose [AUC(0-12)] was 36 microg x hour/ml in failure/relapse versus 56 microg x hour/ml in control cases p = 0.005), but not with twice-weekly isoniazid/rifampin. Furthermore, two patients who relapsed with Mycobacterium tuberculosis monoresistant to rifamycin had very low concentrations of isoniazid. Finally, isoniazid acetylator status determined by N-acetyltransferase type 2 genotype was associated with outcome with once-weekly isoniazid/rifapentine (p = 0.03) but not twice-weekly isoniazid/rifampin. No rifamycin pharmacokinetic parameter was consistently and significantly associated with outcome (p > 0.10). Because low isoniazid concentrations were associated with failure/relapse, a drug with consistently greater area under the concentration-time curve than isoniazid may be needed to achieve highly active once-weekly therapy with rifapentine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Weiner et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: