ライフサイエンスコーパス: MDR tuberculosis

1 g-term, phase 3 trials of new treatments for MDR tuberculosis.

2 s identified in 33 of 475 patients (7%) with MDR tuberculosis.

3 nd transportation venues was associated with MDR tuberculosis.

4 porting treatment outcomes for children with MDR tuberculosis.

5 ate palliative care response for people with MDR tuberculosis.

6 s poorly studied for contacts of people with MDR tuberculosis.

7 erium tuberculosis are at risk of developing MDR tuberculosis.

8 for an estimated 15% of all global cases of MDR tuberculosis.

9 ement of child contacts of source cases with MDR tuberculosis.

10 s, of whom 129 (90.9%, 95% CI 85.0-94.6) had MDR tuberculosis.

11 ns, are needed to reduce mortality rates for MDR tuberculosis.

12 es (aOR = 1.25, P = .03) was associated with MDR tuberculosis.

13 nt-emergent toxicity in patients treated for MDR tuberculosis.

14 pants (69%) had never received treatment for MDR tuberculosis.

15 lp to determine the transmission patterns of MDR tuberculosis.

16 ssion rather than to inadequate treatment of MDR tuberculosis.

17 erculosis in countries with a high burden of MDR tuberculosis.

18 h generally through regulatory innovation in MDR tuberculosis.

19 improve treatment outcomes for children with MDR tuberculosis.

20 ment interruptions on treatment outcomes for MDR tuberculosis.

21 were consistent between drug-susceptible and MDR tuberculosis.

22 om two large cohort studies of patients with MDR tuberculosis.

23 nsmission from other individuals with active MDR tuberculosis.

24 s is essential when allocating resources for MDR tuberculosis.

25 n was well tolerated in children treated for MDR tuberculosis.

26 the management and outcome of children with MDR-tuberculosis.

27 utcome in patients with multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis.

28 uccessfully treated for multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis.

29 s) and patients who had multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis.

30 of children exposed to multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis.

31 t of drug-resistant and multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis.

32 to community venues and multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis.

33 ed for the treatment of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis.

34 s and MDR-tuberculosis by HC, with a rate of MDR-tuberculosis 89 times greater (95% confidence interv

35 ly treated patients, RMR tuberculosis versus MDR tuberculosis (adjusted OR 4.96, 3.40-7.23), HIV posi

36 Rates of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis also decreased (p<0.0001).

37 of end-of-treatment outcome in patients with MDR tuberculosis, although the overall association with

38 utum smear and for concomitant screening for MDR tuberculosis among adult inpatients attending tertia

39 The model forecasted the percentage of MDR tuberculosis among incident cases of tuberculosis to

40 (5%) of 7982 patients with tuberculosis had MDR tuberculosis and 324 (88%) of these had isolates ava

41 For patients with non-MDR tuberculosis and available data, by treatment day 9

42 INJ SLDs included age, positive HIV status, MDR tuberculosis and initial treatment with any SLD, whi

43 tance in three GLA samples: two confirmed as MDR tuberculosis and one false positive.

44 n was used to assess the association between MDR tuberculosis and person-time spent in community venu

45 We assessed transmission of MDR tuberculosis and potential contributing factors in t

46 equired to improve outcomes in patients with MDR tuberculosis and pre-XDR or XDR tuberculosis.

47 ered significantly between patients with non-MDR tuberculosis and those with MDR tuberculosis (both P

48 ugs with treatment outcomes in patients with MDR tuberculosis and XDR tuberculosis.

49 idualized treatment for multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) t

50 The continued spread of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis and extensively drug-resistant tubercu

51 recent transmission of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis and identify potential risk factors fo

52 the increasing rate of multidrug resistant (MDR) tuberculosis and the more recent emergence of exten

53 azid-monoresistant tuberculosis, 25 000 with MDR tuberculosis, and 1200 with XDR tuberculosis.

54 tainty range [UR] 68.0-99.6) of all incident MDR tuberculosis, and 61.3% (16.5-95.2) of incident MDR

55 imen given to children exposed to infectious MDR tuberculosis, and explore risk factors for poor outc

56 obial drugs are in advanced trial stages for MDR tuberculosis, and two new antimicrobial drug candida

57 20 (22%) of these individuals developed MDR tuberculosis as a result of transmission in the USA;

58 tive adults with locally confirmed pulmonary MDR tuberculosis at the start of second-line treatment i

59 e AR to fluoroquinolones was associated with MDR tuberculosis at treatment initiation (aOR, 6.5; 95%

60 nly predictor for AR to fluoroquinolones was MDR tuberculosis at treatment initiation.

61 serial sputum cultures from 48 patients with MDR tuberculosis attributed 10 cases to reinfection and

62 Many individuals acquire MDR tuberculosis before entry into the USA.

63 onsecutive patients started on linezolid for MDR tuberculosis between 2011 and 2017.

64 de, with great variation in the frequency of MDR tuberculosis between countries.

65 nts with non-MDR tuberculosis and those with MDR tuberculosis (both P<.001).

66 greater risk of poor outcome than those with MDR tuberculosis but no phenotypic DST heterogeneity (ad

67 mg/kg for children with multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis, but pharmacokinetic and long-term saf

68 nce in the treatment of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis, but the efficacy and safety of this s

69 ual per-capita incidence of tuberculosis and MDR-tuberculosis by HC, with a rate of MDR-tuberculosis

70 Multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis can be acquired through de-novo mutati

71 odeficiency virus coinfection, children with MDR-tuberculosis can be treated successfully, using indi

72 We recruited laboratory-confirmed MDR tuberculosis cases and community controls that were

73 y aim was to describe the social networks of MDR tuberculosis cases and controls.

74 We investigated the proportion of MDR tuberculosis cases arising from transmission in the

75 erson transmission of resistance to incident MDR tuberculosis cases.

76 and 2012 the number of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis cases in the UK increased from 28 per

77 expanded drug access, and development of new MDR tuberculosis compounds, are critical to reducing tub

78 long-term prevalence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis depends upon the relative fitness of M

79 stant (MDR) Mycobacterium tuberculosis, with MDR tuberculosis developing in approximately 30,000 annu

80 tuberculosis elimination, but the extent of MDR tuberculosis disease in the USA that is attributable

81 e, and loss to follow-up among children with MDR tuberculosis disease treated with regimens tailored

82 </=15 years old with confirmed and probable MDR tuberculosis disease who began tailored regimens in

83 on of regimens to treat multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis disease due to strains of Mycobacteriu

84 Even in settings with moderate rates of MDR tuberculosis, DOTS can rapidly reduce the transmissi

85 s with perfect adherence would still develop MDR-tuberculosis due to pharmacokinetic variability alon

86 stance would cause less than 30% of incident MDR tuberculosis during 2000-40.

87 in drug-susceptible and multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis during the first 8 weeks of treatment.

88 Multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis, "Ebola with wings," is a significant

89 the effect of pharmacokinetic variability on MDR-tuberculosis emergence using computer-aided clinical

90 ence alone is not a sufficient condition for MDR-tuberculosis emergence.

91 e cause of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-tuberculosis) emergence.

92 a retrospective analysis among patients with MDR tuberculosis enrolled in 2 MDR tuberculosis programs

93 with increasing drug-resistance, drives the MDR tuberculosis epidemic in Shanghai, China.

94 with increasing drug-resistance, drives the MDR tuberculosis epidemic in Shanghai, China.

95 to create a dynamic transmission model of an MDR tuberculosis epidemic to estimate the contributions

96 nstructed a dynamic transmission model of an MDR tuberculosis epidemic, allowing for both treatment-r

97 is and treatment is necessary to control the MDR tuberculosis epidemic.

98 children fall sick with multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis every year.

99 emergence and spread of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis, extensively drug-resistant (XDR) tube

100 The case-fatality ratio was 12% for MDR tuberculosis (five of 41), 7% for strains resistant

101 racing were mostly contacts of patients with MDR tuberculosis from countries of high tuberculosis bur

102 2.33, 4.36); and (3) spatial aggregation of MDR-tuberculosis genotypes, suggesting localized transmi

103 t for 2 mo, four mice with late-stage active MDR tuberculosis had a significant decrease in pulmonary

104 ur other patients subsequently found to have MDR tuberculosis had no significant changes in viability

105 The treatment of paediatric MDR tuberculosis has been neglected, but when children a

106 sis than it was in contacts of patients with MDR tuberculosis (hazard ratio 1.88, 95% CI 1.10-3.21).

107 no difference in prevalence between XDR and MDR tuberculosis households.

108 inadequate treatment of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (i.e., acquired resistance) versus tho

109 million) people were latently infected with MDR tuberculosis in 2014-a global prevalence of 0.3% (95

110 people globally were at high risk of active MDR tuberculosis in 2015.

111 nd made predictions for the future burden of MDR tuberculosis in 2035 and 2050.

112 We detected MDR tuberculosis in 221 patients, of whom 53 had XDR tub

113 /kg daily as part of multidrug treatment for MDR tuberculosis in Cape Town, South Africa, for at leas

114 ssess existing evidence for the treatment of MDR tuberculosis in children.

115 the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis and MDR tuberculosis in new paediatric inpatient admissions

116 study among adults successfully treated for MDR tuberculosis in Peru.

117 erculosis, and 61.3% (16.5-95.2) of incident MDR tuberculosis in previously treated individuals.

118 204 patients were diagnosed with MDR tuberculosis in the study period; 189 (92.6%) had an

119 Transmission of MDR tuberculosis in the UK is low and associated with be

120 About a fifth of cases of MDR tuberculosis in the USA can be linked to transmissio

121 Multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis in children is frequently associated w

122 h the massive spread of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis in Eurasia.

123 Multidrug-resistant(MDR) tuberculosis in Southern Africa is of great concern

124 ed rates of single- and multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis in the New York City area.

125 rifampicin-resistant or multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis in Vietnam.

126 sus the least-affected HC; (2) high risk for MDR-tuberculosis in a region spanning several HCs (odds

127 on is an important driver of the epidemic of MDR-tuberculosis in Lima.

128 tes of the proportion of each country's 2013 MDR tuberculosis incidence that resulted from MDR transm

129 culosis is unlikely to greatly reduce future MDR tuberculosis incidence.

130 Improved diagnosis and treatment of MDR tuberculosis-including new tests and drug regimens-s

131 as delayed in children who had no identified MDR-tuberculosis index case (median delay, 123 vs 58 day

132 ends in four countries with a high burden of MDR tuberculosis: India, the Philippines, Russia, and So

133 e in every 1000 people globally carry latent MDR tuberculosis infection, and prevalence is around ten

134 also effective in vivo with mouse models of MDR tuberculosis infection.

135 with HIV infection who are being treated for MDR tuberculosis is associated with poor outcomes and lo

136 s preventive treatment in persons exposed to MDR tuberculosis is lacking.

137 MDR tuberculosis is more prevalent than previously reali

138 MDR tuberculosis is occurring predominantly in the New Y

139 clinical outcomes among patients treated for MDR tuberculosis is unknown.

140 Multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis is a potential threat to tuberculosis

141 Paediatric multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis is a public health challenge of growin

142 Multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis is costly, difficult to treat, and pos

143 t treatment regimen for multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis is poor partly owing to a high default

144 nscontinental spread of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis is poorly characterized in molecular e

145 of nonadherence associated with emergence of MDR-tuberculosis is unknown.

146 xtensively drug-resistant (XDR) tuberculosis-MDR tuberculosis isolates resistant to fluoroquinolones

147 Patients with multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis may have phenotypic heterogeneity in r

148 We have shown that, in some patients with MDR tuberculosis, mixed infection may be responsible for

149 MDR tuberculosis needs to be diagnosed rapidly to reduce

150 We identified patients with MDR tuberculosis notified in England, Wales, and Norther

151 reate the infrastructure necessary to manage MDR tuberculosis on a national scale.

152 ange was similar for non-MDR tuberculosis vs MDR tuberculosis (P=.6).

153 as the benchmark for the standard of care of MDR tuberculosis patients and should be used as the basi

154 iders should consider monitoring SLD DST for MDR tuberculosis patients in the indicated subgroups.

155 ucted a retrospective cohort analysis of 197 MDR tuberculosis patients treated at Brewelskloof, a rur

156 nd treatment outcome in multidrug-resistant (MDR)-tuberculosis patients is unclear.

157 Clinical and demographic data of MDR-tuberculosis patients in Sweden, including DST resul

158 e conversion (tSCC) and treatment outcome in MDR-tuberculosis patients.

159 lated with unsuccessful treatment outcome in MDR-tuberculosis patients.

160 t outcome was observed in 83.5% (132/158) of MDR-tuberculosis patients.

161 the continuing HIV pandemic, and the rise in MDR tuberculosis pose formidable challenges to the globa

162 Global estimates of 3.5% MDR tuberculosis prevalence among new tuberculosis notif

163 235 (73%) patients with MDR tuberculosis probably had transmission of MDR strain

164 ws that in a directly observed therapy-based MDR tuberculosis program, treatment interruptions at sho

165 patients with MDR tuberculosis enrolled in 2 MDR tuberculosis programs using regimens recommended by

166 A group of patients with MDR tuberculosis received MPa200Z (DRMPa200Z group).

167 trospective cohort study among patients with MDR tuberculosis receiving bedaquiline for compassionate

168 Such guidance could make the novel MDR tuberculosis regimen available to most patients whil

169 Receipt of an aggressive MDR tuberculosis regimen for >/=18 months following sput

170 Individuals who received an aggressive MDR tuberculosis regimen for >/=18 months following sput

171 to examine whether receipt of an aggressive MDR tuberculosis regimen for >/=18 months following sput

172 outine surveillance of all verified cases of MDR tuberculosis reported from eight states in the USA.

173 Lowering transmission risk for MDR tuberculosis requires a combination approach centere

174 h system improvement because the response to MDR tuberculosis requires strong health services in gene

175 n settings are consistent with most incident MDR tuberculosis resulting from transmission rather than

176 The estimated proportion of MDR tuberculosis resulting from transmission varied subs

177 rculosis, 2597 retreatments, and 48 cases of MDR tuberculosis, resulting in a final cohort of 15 501

178 ide, with prevalence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis rising.

179 ncentrated multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-tuberculosis) risk in Lima, Peru.

180 t may improve success rates for treatment of MDR tuberculosis, shorten treatment time for drug-sensit

181 to vulnerable children following exposure to MDR tuberculosis should be considered.

182 berculosis who have had contact with a known MDR tuberculosis source case from a country of high tube

183 2011 if exposed to an ofloxacin-susceptible, MDR tuberculosis source case.

184 rs of WHO-promoted activity and >12 years of MDR tuberculosis-specific activity, has the country resp

185 INTERPRETATION: Recent transmission of MDR tuberculosis strains, with increasing drug-resistanc

186 Recent transmission of MDR tuberculosis strains, with increasing drug-resistanc

187 Recent emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis strains seriously threatens tuberculos

188 f of patients who entered into treatment for MDR tuberculosis successfully completed that treatment,

189 e regimen is accessible to all patients with MDR tuberculosis, such as minimization of sequential ine

190 r contact to infectious multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB) are lacking because published dat

191 Multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB) has emerged as a global epidemic,

192 The emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB) highlights the urgent need to und

193 ess toxic treatment for multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB).

194 es for individuals with multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB).

195 Of the estimated 440,000 cases of MDR tuberculosis that occurred in 2008, only 7% were ide

196 Among HIV-infected patients with MDR tuberculosis, the adjusted hazard for a poor outcome

197 ty, whereas among HIV-negative patients with MDR tuberculosis, the adjusted hazard for those with phe

198 bo among children with household exposure to MDR tuberculosis, the difference was not significant.

199 were tested (16.2%) had multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis.The sensitivity and specificity of the

200 the time from specimen collection to patient MDR tuberculosis therapy initiation.

201 dults receiving bedaquiline substitution for MDR tuberculosis therapy, plus a matched control group w

202 is after cure is urgently needed to optimize MDR tuberculosis therapy.

203 nd timely initiation of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis therapy are essential to reduce transm

204 culosis treatment, and the responsiveness of MDR tuberculosis to first-line treatment.

205 ercentage of XDR tuberculosis among incident MDR tuberculosis to increase, reaching 8.9% (95% predict

206 contacts at the time the index patient began MDR tuberculosis treatment and during the 4-year follow-

207 spective cohort study of patients initiating MDR tuberculosis treatment between 2000 and 2004 in Toms

208 ceiving moxifloxacin 10 mg/kg/day as part of MDR tuberculosis treatment have low serum concentrations

209 SLIs, supporting the use of bedaquiline for MDR tuberculosis treatment in programmatic settings.

210 icin and isoniazid recovered <3 months after MDR tuberculosis treatment initiation from a patient wit

211 e of MTBDRplus significantly reduced time to MDR tuberculosis treatment initiation.

212 An injection-free MDR tuberculosis treatment regimen is now recommended.

213 Substituting bedaquiline for SLIs in MDR tuberculosis treatment resulted in improved outcomes

214 rculosis at the time the index patient began MDR tuberculosis treatment-there was no difference in pr

215 of decreased risk of death or failure during MDR tuberculosis treatment.

216 ehold contacts should be suspected as having MDR tuberculosis until proven otherwise.

217 cure rates can be achieved in children with MDR tuberculosis using tailored regimens containing seco

218 In 31 patients with non-multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis, viability and quantitative culture re

219 eatment, and this change was similar for non-MDR tuberculosis vs MDR tuberculosis (P=.6).

220 In addition, once MDR tuberculosis was reported, delays in contacting pati

221 se regimen for treating multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis was recently recommended by the World

222 treatment, particularly multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis, we analyzed surveillance records from

223 hundred fourteen individuals with confirmed MDR tuberculosis were eligible for analysis.

224 693 households of index patients with MDR tuberculosis were enrolled in the study.

225 A total of 35 patients with MDR tuberculosis were included in the study.

226 A total of 393 patients with MDR tuberculosis were included in the study; 171 (43.5%)

227 Independent predictors of acquired MDR tuberculosis were initial isoniazid resistance (odds

228 168 cases of MDR tuberculosis were reported in the eight states durin

229 atients diagnosed with multi-drug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis were evaluated by phenotypic drug-susc

230 of age with a diagnosis of culture-confirmed MDR-tuberculosis were included in this retrospective coh

231 Overall, patients with MDR tuberculosis who had phenotypic DST heterogeneity we

232 HIV-infected patients with MDR tuberculosis with phenotypic DST heterogeneity also

233 ion of tuberculosis and multidrug resistant (MDR) tuberculosis with gastric lavage aspirate (GLA) sam

234 Treatment of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis with linezolid is characterized by hig

235 tuberculosis (including multidrug-resistant [MDR] tuberculosis), with increasing rifampicin-monoresis

236 One in 688 patients acquired MDR tuberculosis, with crude risks varying greatly by in

237 ients with drug-susceptible tuberculosis and MDR-tuberculosis, with the goal of shortening and simpli

238 ogies can be used to reverse the epidemic of MDR tuberculosis within a decade.

239 ive or more children (aged </=16 years) with MDR tuberculosis within a defined treatment cohort.

240 version than with HIV-infected patients with MDR tuberculosis without phenotypic DST heterogeneity (a

241 WHO estimates roughly 630 000 cases of MDR tuberculosis worldwide, with great variation in the