Skip to main content

Evaluation of microscopically quantitative loads of bacilli as early predictors of TB treatment outcome

Journal
The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (Q1)
Published
31 July 2026
Study design
Randomized controlled trial
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
Authors
I Vellere, B K Jacobs, A K J Maug, M A Hossain, B C De Jong, L Lynen, et al.
PMID
42538629
DOI
10.5588/ijtld.26.0051

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

<sec><title>BACKGROUND</title>Two-month smear conversion has been adopted instead of cultures to predict unfavourable bacteriological outcomes in TB treatment. However, this approach is limited by lower sensitivity and specificity.</sec><sec><title>OBJECTIVE</title>In absence of early-stage biomarkers of treatment response, we investigated the association between bacteriological outcome and microscopy data with auramine and fluorescein diacetate stains at baseline and during the first 2 weeks of treatment in the context of the OneRIF trial. This is a secondary analysis of data collected during the OneRIF trial.</sec><sec><title>RESULTS</title>Failure or relapse occurred in 15 patients of 321 treated with double-dose R. Only quantitative baseline auramine significantly predicted failure or relapse: for every 100 bacilli per field increase, there was 5% higher odds of having an unfavourable bacteriological outcome.</sec><sec><title>CONCLUSION</title>While quantitative baseline auramine predicted having an unfavourable bacteriological outcome, considering our small data we could not identify any added value in implementing quantitative bacillary load in the first 2 weeks of treatment. These findings should be interpreted with caution as we were limited by the relatively low number of failure and relapse.</sec>.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.