Search

Background: Drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) continues to be a global threat. Moxifloxacin is one of the components of the shorter treatment regimen which is suspected to increase the risk of QT prolongation, although it is also likely to be the most effective against DR-TB. A study to evaluate the correlation between the concentration of moxifloxacin and QTc interval in RR-TB patients who received shorter regimens is needed., Methods: This was an observational study in 2 groups of RR-TB patients on shorter treatment regimens (intensive phase and continuation phase), contain moxifloxacin with body weight-adjusted dose. Blood samples were collected at 2 h after taking the 48th-hour dose and 1 h before taking the 72nd-hour dose., Results: Forty-five RR-TB patients were included in this study. At 2 h after taking the 48th-hour dose, the mean of QTc interval in intensive phase and continuation phase was 444.38 ms vs. 467.94 ms, p = 0.026, while mean of moxifloxacin concentration in intensive phase and continuation phase was 4.3 µg/mL vs. 4.61 µg/mL, p = 0.686). At 1 h before taking the 72nd-hour dose, both moxifloxacin concentration and QTc interval in intensive phase and continuation showed no significant difference with p-value of 0.610 and 0.325, respectively. At 2 h after taking the 48th-dose, moxifloxacin concentration did not correlate with QTc interval, both in intensive phase (p = 0.576) and in continuation phase (p = 0.691). At 1 h before taking the 72nd-hour dose, moxifloxacin concentration also did not correlate with QTc interval in intensive phase (p = 0.531) and continuation phase (p = 0.209)., Conclusions: Our study found that moxifloxacin concentration did not correlate with QTc interval, which indicates the safe use of moxifloxacin on QTc interval. In addition to close monitoring of QTc interval, the clinicians should also consider other variables which potentially increase risk for QTc prolongation in DR-TB patients who received shorter treatment regimens., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background and Aims: Handling of PTB and EPTB patients with adequate standard detection of MTBC and anti-TB drug sensitivity using accurate and rapid methods could provide good TB management and clinical treatment outcomes. The Xpert MTB/RIF assay is an automated, cartridge-based NAAT that can simultaneously detect MTBC and RIF resistance within 2 h. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of Xpert for determining diagnosis of PTB and EPTB in adults and children., Methods: A descriptive study was performed using e-TB Manager data from the MDR-TB Clinic at Dr. Soetomo Academic Hospital. Suspected TB cases were from the areas of East Java Province from January 2016 to December 2018. Xpert assay was conducted using standardized criteria for clinically suspected TB, and MTBC-positive results with RR were examined by the culture method using MGIT 960 BACTEC System., Results: A total of 1181 (1181/3009, 39.25%) sputum samples from suspected new MDR-PTB cases tested positive for MTBC with 3.02% RR. Among 3893 sputum samples from previously treated probable MDR-PTB cases tested using Xpert, 1936 (49.73%) were MTBC positive with 13.20% RR. Among 59 new suspected MDR-PTB cases tested using MGIT 960 BACTEC System, 55 tested positive for MTBC, although all RR strains were highly sensitive to amikacin (100%), kanamycin (95%), and ofloxacin (89%). A total of 49 children with suspected PTB were tested using Xpert, revealing low positivity (12%) for MTBC, with all RR strains being rifampicin sensitive (RS). Of the 86 suspected EPTB cases tested using Xpert, very few were MTBC-positive (26%), with 91% RS., Conclusions: This study revealed that in adults and children with PTB and EPTB, the Xpert assay achieved a low positivity detection rate for MTBC in samples from new or previously treated cases, and this could be the result of many factors., Competing Interests: None., (© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)