Efficacy of anti-tuberculosis drugs for the treatment of latent tuberculosis infection: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Despite the availability of three network meta-analyses (NMA) examining the efficacy, treatment completion, and adverse events associated with all latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) treatments, there is currently no evidence to support the notion that the benefits of these treatments outweigh the potential risks. This NMA aimed to conduct a comprehensive comparison and update of the efficacy, treatment completion rates and adverse events associated with recommended treatment options for LTBI for individuals with confirmed LTBI, as outlined in the 2020 World Health Organization (WHO) Consolidated Guidelines for TB preventive treatment. A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE and Scopus databases was conducted until April 2023. The NMA was applied to estimate the risk difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using a combination of direct and indirect evidence. The risk–benefit assessment was employed to evaluate the feasibility of the extra benefits in relation to the extra risks. The primary outcomes of interest in this study were active TB disease, completion rates, and adverse events. The meta-analysis incorporated data from 15 studies, which collectively demonstrated that the administration of a placebo resulted in a significant increase in the risk of developing TB disease by 1.279%, compared to the daily intake of isoniazid for 6 months (6H). Furthermore, treatment completion rates were significantly higher when using isoniazid plus rifapentine weekly for 3 months (3HP) and rifampicin daily for 4 months (4R), as compared to 6H. Considering adverse events, the combination of 3HP, 4R, and isoniazid administered daily for 9 months (referred to as 9H) significantly decreased adverse events by 4.53% in comparison to 6H. The risk–benefit assessment showed that alternative treatment regimens (9H, 4R, 3HR and 3HP) had a lower incidence of adverse events, while demonstrating a higher efficacy in preventing TB, as compared to 6H. This review indicates that there were no significant differences observed among various active treatment options in terms of their efficacy in preventing active TB. Moreover, completion rates were higher in 3HP and 4R, and a reduction in adverse events was observed in 3HP, 4R, and 9H.