Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Purpose: In the present study, we determined the prevalence of obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD), hyposecretory MGD, grossly normal MG, and hypersecretory MGD in patients with dry eye syndrome using lipid layer thickness (LLT) and MG dropout. Methods: Eighty-eight patients with dry eye syndrome were included in the study. Patients were categorized into four groups according to the LLT and weighted total meiboscore. The proportion of patients in each group was calculated. The age, sex, Ocular Surface Disease Index, LLT, Schirmer, tear film breakup time, cornea stain, weighted total meiboscore, expressibility, and quality of meibum were compared between the four groups. Results: Fifteen eyes (17.0%) had obstructive MGD, two eyes (2.3%) had hyposecretory MGD, 40 eyes (45.5%) had grossly normal MG, and 17 eyes (19.3%) had hypersecretory MGD. The obstructive MGD group was younger than the grossly normal MG group. In obstructive MGD, the ratio of men to women was higher than that of the other groups. However, Ocular Surface Disease Index, Schirmer, tear film breakup time, and corneal stain did not show statistically significant differences between the four groups. The meibum expressibility of the hyposecretoy MGD group was worse than those of the other groups. The meibum expressibility of the hyposecretoy MGD group was poor than those of the obstructive and hypersecretory MGD group. Conclusions This categorization was expected to help determine the best treatment method for dry eye syndrome, according to the MG status.

BACKGROUND: Based on trends demonstrated in the United States, a very insignificant number of people have shown a predisposition to left-sided skin cancer. However, to date, no systematic review or meta-analysis has demonstrated the predominance of left-sided skin cancers over right-sided skin malignancies. OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed all data pertaining to locations of skin cancers. METHODS: All data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method (random-effects weighting); an inverse variance model featuring fixed-effects weighting was applied to explore the robustness of modeling. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 test. Dichotomous outcomes with respect to the prevalence of left- and right-sided skin cancers are presented as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Nine studies were included in our evaluation. Our study sample included: 182,840 patients with malignant melanoma (MM), 1,419 patients with basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and 331 patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Meta-analyses of pooled observational data revealed greater prevalence of left-sided MM compared to right-sided MM (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.89~0.92, p<0.01), while left-sided SCC was more prevalent than right-sided SCC (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71~0.97, p=0.02). However, right-sided BCC was more prevalent than left-sided BCC (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95~1.19, p=0.26). CONCLUSION: Observational studies vary greatly in terms of design, methodological quality, and types of patients studied. Of note, only a few studies analyzing BCC and SCC were included in our present meta-analysis. Additionally, a selection and reporting bias could have affected our results. Our meta-analysis suggests that both MM and SCC demonstrate a left-side bias, but BCC does not.
Bias (Epidemiology) ; Carcinoma, Basal Cell ; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell ; Humans ; Melanoma ; Methods ; Population Characteristics ; Prevalence* ; Skin Neoplasms* ; Skin* ; United States

BACKGROUND: Based on trends demonstrated in the United States, a very insignificant number of people have shown a predisposition to left-sided skin cancer. However, to date, no systematic review or meta-analysis has demonstrated the predominance of left-sided skin cancers over right-sided skin malignancies. OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed all data pertaining to locations of skin cancers. METHODS: All data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method (random-effects weighting); an inverse variance model featuring fixed-effects weighting was applied to explore the robustness of modeling. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 test. Dichotomous outcomes with respect to the prevalence of left- and right-sided skin cancers are presented as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Nine studies were included in our evaluation. Our study sample included: 182,840 patients with malignant melanoma (MM), 1,419 patients with basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and 331 patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Meta-analyses of pooled observational data revealed greater prevalence of left-sided MM compared to right-sided MM (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.89~0.92, p<0.01), while left-sided SCC was more prevalent than right-sided SCC (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71~0.97, p=0.02). However, right-sided BCC was more prevalent than left-sided BCC (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95~1.19, p=0.26). CONCLUSION: Observational studies vary greatly in terms of design, methodological quality, and types of patients studied. Of note, only a few studies analyzing BCC and SCC were included in our present meta-analysis. Additionally, a selection and reporting bias could have affected our results. Our meta-analysis suggests that both MM and SCC demonstrate a left-side bias, but BCC does not.
Bias (Epidemiology) ; Carcinoma, Basal Cell ; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell ; Humans ; Melanoma ; Methods ; Population Characteristics ; Prevalence* ; Skin Neoplasms* ; Skin* ; United States