Cargando…
Negligible risk of inducing resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis with single-dose rifampicin as post-exposure prophylaxis for leprosy
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for leprosy is administered as one single dose of rifampicin (SDR) to the contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients. SDR reduces the risk of developing leprosy among contacts by around 60 % in the first 2–3 years after receiving SDR. In countries where SDR is curre...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4897814/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27268059 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40249-016-0140-y |
_version_ | 1782436240699686912 |
---|---|
author | Mieras, Liesbeth Anthony, Richard van Brakel, Wim Bratschi, Martin W. van den Broek, Jacques Cambau, Emmanuelle Cavaliero, Arielle Kasang, Christa Perera, Geethal Reichman, Lee Richardus, Jan Hendrik Saunderson, Paul Steinmann, Peter Yew, Wing Wai |
author_facet | Mieras, Liesbeth Anthony, Richard van Brakel, Wim Bratschi, Martin W. van den Broek, Jacques Cambau, Emmanuelle Cavaliero, Arielle Kasang, Christa Perera, Geethal Reichman, Lee Richardus, Jan Hendrik Saunderson, Paul Steinmann, Peter Yew, Wing Wai |
author_sort | Mieras, Liesbeth |
collection | PubMed |
description | Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for leprosy is administered as one single dose of rifampicin (SDR) to the contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients. SDR reduces the risk of developing leprosy among contacts by around 60 % in the first 2–3 years after receiving SDR. In countries where SDR is currently being implemented under routine programme conditions in defined areas, questions were raised by health authorities and professional bodies about the possible risk of inducing rifampicin resistance among the M. tuberculosis strains circulating in these areas. This issue has not been addressed in scientific literature to date. To produce an authoritative consensus statement about the risk that SDR would induce rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, a meeting was convened with tuberculosis (TB) and leprosy experts. The experts carefully reviewed and discussed the available evidence regarding the mechanisms and risk factors for the development of (multi) drug-resistance in M. tuberculosis with a view to the special situation of the use of SDR as PEP for leprosy. They concluded that SDR given to contacts of leprosy patients, in the absence of symptoms of active TB, poses a negligible risk of generating resistance in M. tuberculosis in individuals and at the population level. Thus, the benefits of SDR prophylaxis in reducing the risk of developing leprosy in contacts of new leprosy patients far outweigh the risks of generating drug resistance in M. tuberculosis. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40249-016-0140-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4897814 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48978142016-06-09 Negligible risk of inducing resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis with single-dose rifampicin as post-exposure prophylaxis for leprosy Mieras, Liesbeth Anthony, Richard van Brakel, Wim Bratschi, Martin W. van den Broek, Jacques Cambau, Emmanuelle Cavaliero, Arielle Kasang, Christa Perera, Geethal Reichman, Lee Richardus, Jan Hendrik Saunderson, Paul Steinmann, Peter Yew, Wing Wai Infect Dis Poverty Scoping Review Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for leprosy is administered as one single dose of rifampicin (SDR) to the contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients. SDR reduces the risk of developing leprosy among contacts by around 60 % in the first 2–3 years after receiving SDR. In countries where SDR is currently being implemented under routine programme conditions in defined areas, questions were raised by health authorities and professional bodies about the possible risk of inducing rifampicin resistance among the M. tuberculosis strains circulating in these areas. This issue has not been addressed in scientific literature to date. To produce an authoritative consensus statement about the risk that SDR would induce rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, a meeting was convened with tuberculosis (TB) and leprosy experts. The experts carefully reviewed and discussed the available evidence regarding the mechanisms and risk factors for the development of (multi) drug-resistance in M. tuberculosis with a view to the special situation of the use of SDR as PEP for leprosy. They concluded that SDR given to contacts of leprosy patients, in the absence of symptoms of active TB, poses a negligible risk of generating resistance in M. tuberculosis in individuals and at the population level. Thus, the benefits of SDR prophylaxis in reducing the risk of developing leprosy in contacts of new leprosy patients far outweigh the risks of generating drug resistance in M. tuberculosis. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40249-016-0140-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4897814/ /pubmed/27268059 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40249-016-0140-y Text en © Mieras et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Scoping Review Mieras, Liesbeth Anthony, Richard van Brakel, Wim Bratschi, Martin W. van den Broek, Jacques Cambau, Emmanuelle Cavaliero, Arielle Kasang, Christa Perera, Geethal Reichman, Lee Richardus, Jan Hendrik Saunderson, Paul Steinmann, Peter Yew, Wing Wai Negligible risk of inducing resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis with single-dose rifampicin as post-exposure prophylaxis for leprosy |
title | Negligible risk of inducing resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis with single-dose rifampicin as post-exposure prophylaxis for leprosy |
title_full | Negligible risk of inducing resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis with single-dose rifampicin as post-exposure prophylaxis for leprosy |
title_fullStr | Negligible risk of inducing resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis with single-dose rifampicin as post-exposure prophylaxis for leprosy |
title_full_unstemmed | Negligible risk of inducing resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis with single-dose rifampicin as post-exposure prophylaxis for leprosy |
title_short | Negligible risk of inducing resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis with single-dose rifampicin as post-exposure prophylaxis for leprosy |
title_sort | negligible risk of inducing resistance in mycobacterium tuberculosis with single-dose rifampicin as post-exposure prophylaxis for leprosy |
topic | Scoping Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4897814/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27268059 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40249-016-0140-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mierasliesbeth negligibleriskofinducingresistanceinmycobacteriumtuberculosiswithsingledoserifampicinaspostexposureprophylaxisforleprosy AT anthonyrichard negligibleriskofinducingresistanceinmycobacteriumtuberculosiswithsingledoserifampicinaspostexposureprophylaxisforleprosy AT vanbrakelwim negligibleriskofinducingresistanceinmycobacteriumtuberculosiswithsingledoserifampicinaspostexposureprophylaxisforleprosy AT bratschimartinw negligibleriskofinducingresistanceinmycobacteriumtuberculosiswithsingledoserifampicinaspostexposureprophylaxisforleprosy AT vandenbroekjacques negligibleriskofinducingresistanceinmycobacteriumtuberculosiswithsingledoserifampicinaspostexposureprophylaxisforleprosy AT cambauemmanuelle negligibleriskofinducingresistanceinmycobacteriumtuberculosiswithsingledoserifampicinaspostexposureprophylaxisforleprosy AT cavalieroarielle negligibleriskofinducingresistanceinmycobacteriumtuberculosiswithsingledoserifampicinaspostexposureprophylaxisforleprosy AT kasangchrista negligibleriskofinducingresistanceinmycobacteriumtuberculosiswithsingledoserifampicinaspostexposureprophylaxisforleprosy AT pererageethal negligibleriskofinducingresistanceinmycobacteriumtuberculosiswithsingledoserifampicinaspostexposureprophylaxisforleprosy AT reichmanlee negligibleriskofinducingresistanceinmycobacteriumtuberculosiswithsingledoserifampicinaspostexposureprophylaxisforleprosy AT richardusjanhendrik negligibleriskofinducingresistanceinmycobacteriumtuberculosiswithsingledoserifampicinaspostexposureprophylaxisforleprosy AT saundersonpaul negligibleriskofinducingresistanceinmycobacteriumtuberculosiswithsingledoserifampicinaspostexposureprophylaxisforleprosy AT steinmannpeter negligibleriskofinducingresistanceinmycobacteriumtuberculosiswithsingledoserifampicinaspostexposureprophylaxisforleprosy AT yewwingwai negligibleriskofinducingresistanceinmycobacteriumtuberculosiswithsingledoserifampicinaspostexposureprophylaxisforleprosy |