Rationale

Rifapentine has potent activity in mouse models of tuberculosis chemotherapy but its optimal dose and exposure in humans are unknown.

Objectives

We conducted a randomized, partially blinded dose-ranging study to determine tolerability, safety, and antimicrobial activity of daily rifapentine for pulmonary tuberculosis treatment.

Methods

Adults with sputum smear-positive pulmonary tuberculosis were assigned rifapentine 10, 15, or 20 mg/kg or rifampin 10 mg/kg daily for 8 weeks (intensive phase), with isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol. The primary tolerability end point was treatment discontinuation. The primary efficacy end point was negative sputum cultures at completion of intensive phase.

Measurements and main results

A total of 334 participants were enrolled. At completion of intensive phase, cultures on solid media were negative in 81.3% of participants in the rifampin group versus 92.5% (P = 0.097), 89.4% (P = 0.29), and 94.7% (P = 0.049) in the rifapentine 10, 15, and 20 mg/kg groups. Liquid cultures were negative in 56.3% (rifampin group) versus 74.6% (P = 0.042), 69.7% (P = 0.16), and 82.5% (P = 0.004), respectively. Compared with the rifampin group, the proportion negative at the end of intensive phase was higher among rifapentine recipients who had high rifapentine areas under the concentration-time curve. Percentages of participants discontinuing assigned treatment for reasons other than microbiologic ineligibility were similar across groups (rifampin, 8.2%; rifapentine 10, 15, or 20 mg/kg, 3.4, 2.5, and 7.4%, respectively).

Conclusions

Daily rifapentine was well-tolerated and safe. High rifapentine exposures were associated with high levels of sputum sterilization at completion of intensive phase. Further studies are warranted to determine if regimens that deliver high rifapentine exposures can shorten treatment duration to less than 6 months. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00694629).

Abstract Background The major marker utilized to monitor COPD patients is forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). However, asingle measurement of FEV1 cannot reliably predict subsequent decline. Recent studies indicate that T lymphocytes and eosinophils are important determinants of disease stability in COPD. We therefore measured cytokine levels in the lung lavage fluid and plasma of COPD patients in order to determine if the levels of T cell or eosinophil related cytokines were predictive of the future course of the disease. Methods Baseline lung lavage and plasma samples were collected from COPD subjects with moderately severe airway obstruction and emphysematous changes on chest CT. The study participants were former smokers who had not had a disease exacerbation within the past six months or used steroids within the past two months. Those subjects who demonstrated stable disease over the following six months (ΔFEV1 % predicted = 4.7 ± 7.2; N = 34) were retrospectively compared with study participants who experienced a rapid decline in lung function (ΔFEV1 % predicted = -16.0 ± 6.0; N = 16) during the same time period and with normal controls (N = 11). Plasma and lung lavage cytokines were measured from clinical samples using the Luminex multiplex kit which enabled the simultaneous measurement of several T cell and eosinophil related cytokines. Results and Discussion Stable COPD participants had significantly higher plasma IL-2 levels compared to participants with rapidly progressive COPD (p = 0.04). In contrast, plasma eotaxin-1 levels were significantly lower in stable COPD subjects compared to normal controls (p < 0.03). In addition, lung lavage eotaxin-1 levels were significantly higher in rapidly progressive COPD participants compared to both normal controls (p < 0.02) and stable COPD participants (p < 0.05). Conclusion These findings indicate that IL-2 and eotaxin-1 levels may be important markers of disease stability in advanced emphysema patients. Prospective studies will need to confirm whether measuring IL-2 or eotaxin-1 can identify patients at risk for rapid disease progression.

With more than 900,000 confirmed cases worldwide and nearly 50,000 deaths during the first 3 months of 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has emerged as an unprecedented health care crisis. The spread of COVID-19 has been heterogeneous, resulting in some regions having sporadic transmission and relatively few hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and others having community transmission that has led to overwhelming numbers of severe cases. For these regions, health care delivery has been disrupted and compromised by critical resource constraints in diagnostic testing, hospital beds, ventilators, and health care workers who have fallen ill to the virus exacerbated by shortages of personal protective equipment. Although mild cases mimic common upper respiratory viral infections, respiratory dysfunction becomes the principal source of morbidity and mortality as the disease advances. Thoracic imaging with chest radiography and CT are key tools for pulmonary disease diagnosis and management, but their role in the management of COVID-19 has not been considered within the multivariable context of the severity of respiratory disease, pretest probability, risk factors for disease progression, and critical resource constraints. To address this deficit, a multidisciplinary panel comprised principally of radiologists and pulmonologists from 10 countries with experience managing patients with COVID-19 across a spectrum of health care environments evaluated the utility of imaging within three scenarios representing varying risk factors, community conditions, and resource constraints. Fourteen key questions, corresponding to 11 decision points within the three scenarios and three additional clinical situations, were rated by the panel based on the anticipated value of the information that thoracic imaging would be expected to provide. The results were aggregated, resulting in five main and three additional recommendations intended to guide medical practitioners in the use of chest radiography and CT in the management of COVID-19.

Background: An estimated 3 billion people, largely in low- and middle-income countries, rely on unclean fuels for cooking, heating, and lighting to meet household energy needs. The resulting exposure to household air pollution (HAP) is a leading cause of pneumonia, chronic lung disease, and other adverse health effects. In the last decade, randomized controlled trials of clean cooking interventions to reduce HAP have been conducted. We aim to provide guidance on how to interpret the findings of these trials and how they should inform policy makers and practitioners.Methods: We assembled a multidisciplinary working group of international researchers, public health practitioners, and policymakers with expertise in household air pollution from within academia, the American Thoracic Society, funders, nongovernmental organizations, and global organizations, including the World Bank and the World Health Organization. We performed a literature search, convened four sessions via web conference, and developed consensus conclusions and recommendations via the Delphi method.Results: The committee reached consensus on 14 conclusions and recommendations. Although some trials using cleaner-burning biomass stoves or cleaner-cooking fuels have reduced HAP exposure, the committee was divided (with 55% saying no and 45% saying yes) on whether the studied interventions improved measured health outcomes.Conclusions: HAP is associated with adverse health effects in observational studies. However, it remains unclear which household energy interventions reduce exposure, improve health, can be scaled, and are sustainable. Researchers should engage with policy makers and practitioners working to scale cleaner energy solutions to understand and address their information needs.

Rationale: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a rare, irreversible, and progressive disease of the lungs. Common genetic variants, in addition to nongenetic factors, have been consistently associated with IPF. Rare variants identified by candidate gene, family-based, and exome studies have also been reported to associate with IPF. However, the extent to which rare variants, genome-wide, may contribute to the risk of IPF remains unknown. Objectives: We used whole-genome sequencing to investigate the role of rare variants, genome-wide, on IPF risk. Methods: As part of the Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine Program, we sequenced 2,180 cases of IPF. Association testing focused on the aggregated effect of rare variants (minor allele frequency ⩽0.01) within genes or regions. We also identified individual rare variants that are influential within genes and estimated the heritability of IPF on the basis of rare and common variants. Measurements and Main Results: Rare variants in both TERT and RTEL1 were significantly associated with IPF. A single rare variant in each of the TERT and RTEL1 genes was found to consistently influence the aggregated test statistics. There was no significant evidence of association with other previously reported rare variants. The SNP heritability of IPF was estimated to be 32% (SE = 3%). Conclusions: Rare variants within the TERT and RTEL1 genes and well-established common variants have the largest contribution to IPF risk overall. Efforts in risk profiling or the development of therapies for IPF that focus on TERT, RTEL1, common variants, and environmental risk factors are likely to have the largest impact on this complex disease.