, Volume 74, Issue 8, pp 839–854 | Cite as

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in the Treatment of Tuberculosis: An Update

  • Abdullah Alsultan
  • Charles A. Peloquin
Current Opinion


Tuberculosis (TB) is the world’s second leading infectious killer. Cases of multidrug-resistant (MDR-TB) and extremely drug-resistant (XDR-TB) have increased globally. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) remains a standard clinical technique for using plasma drug concentrations to determine dose. For TB patients, TDM provides objective information for the clinician to make informed dosing decisions. Some patients are slow to respond to treatment, and TDM can shorten the time to response and to treatment completion. Normal plasma concentration ranges for the TB drugs have been defined. For practical reasons, only one or two samples are collected post-dose. A 2-h post-dose sample approximates the peak serum drug concentration (Cmax) for most TB drugs. Adding a 6-h sample allows the clinician to distinguish between delayed absorption and malabsorption. TDM requires that samples are promptly centrifuged, and that the serum is promptly harvested and frozen. Isoniazid and ethionamide, in particular, are not stable in human serum at room temperature. Rifampicin is stable for more than 6 h under these conditions. Since our 2002 review, several papers regarding TB drug pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and TDM have been published. Thus, we have better information regarding the concentrations required for effective TB therapy. In vitro and animal model data clearly show concentration responses for most TB drugs. Recent studies emphasize the importance of rifamycins and pyrazinamide as sterilizing agents. A strong argument can be made for maximizing patient exposure to these drugs, short of toxicity. Further, the very concept behind ‘minimal inhibitory concentration’ (MIC) implies that one should achieve concentrations above the minimum in order to maximize response. Some, but not all clinical data are consistent with the utility of this approach. The low ends of the TB drug normal ranges set reasonable ‘floors’ above which plasma concentrations should be maintained. Patients with diabetes and those infected with HIV have a particular risk for poor drug absorption, and for drug–drug interactions. Published guidelines typically describe interactions between two drugs, whereas the clinical situation often is considerably more complex. Under ‘real–life’ circumstances, TDM often is the best available tool for sorting out these multi-drug interactions, and for providing the patient safe and adequate doses. Plasma concentrations cannot explain all of the variability in patient responses to TB treatment, and cannot guarantee patient outcomes. However, combined with clinical and bacteriological data, TDM can be a decisive tool, allowing clinicians to successfully treat even the most complicated TB patients.


Rifampicin Isoniazid Linezolid Moxifloxacin Therapeutic Drug Monitoring 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Charles Peloquin does not have funding or conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review. Abdullah Alsultan does not have funding or conflict of interest relevant to the content of this review. The authors acknowledge academic support from King Saud University for Dr. Sultan.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. Global TB report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peloquin CA. Therapeutic drug monitoring in the treatment of tuberculosis. Drugs. 2002;62(15):2169–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB): 2013 update. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    East African-British Medical Research Councils. Controlled clinical trial of four short-course (6-month) regimens of chemotherapy for treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. Third report. Lancet. 1974;2(7875):237–40.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singapore Tuberculosis Service-British Medical Research Council. Clinical trial of six-month and four-month regimens of chemotherapy in the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis: the results up to 30 months. Tubercle. 1981;62(2):95–102.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    British Thoracic Association. A controlled trial of six months chemotherapy in pulmonary tuberculosis. Second report: results during the 24 months after the end of chemotherapy. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1982;126(3):460–2.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Singapore Tuberculosis Service/British Medical Research Council. Long-term follow-up of a clinical trial of six-month and four-month regimens of chemotherapy in the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1986;133(5):779–83.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fox W, Ellard GA, Mitchison DA. Studies on the treatment of tuberculosis undertaken by the British Medical Research Council tuberculosis units, 1946–1986, with relevant subsequent publications. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1999;3(10 Suppl 2):S231–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    American Thoracic Society. Targeted tuberculin testing and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2000;49(RR-6):1–51.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sterling TR, Villarino ME, Borisov AS, et al. Three months of rifapentine and isoniazid for latent tuberculosis infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(23):2155–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blumberg HM, Burman WJ, Chaisson RE, et al. American Thoracic Society/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Infectious Diseases Society of America: treatment of tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;167(4):603–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Somoskovi A, Parsons LM, Salfinger M. The molecular basis of resistance to isoniazid, rifampin, and pyrazinamide in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Respir Res. 2001;2(3):164–8.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang Y, Mitchison D. The curious characteristics of pyrazinamide: a review. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2003;7(1):6–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zimhony O, Cox JS, Welch JT, et al. Pyrazinamide inhibits the eukaryotic-like fatty acid synthetase I (FASI) of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Nat Med. 2000;6(9):1043–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhang Y, Wade MM, Scorpio A, et al. Mode of action of pyrazinamide: disruption of Mycobacterium tuberculosis membrane transport and energetics by pyrazinoic acid. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;52(5):790–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mitchison DA. Role of individual drugs in the chemotherapy of tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2000;4(9):796–806.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hernandez-Pando R, Jeyanathan M, Mengistu G, et al. Persistence of DNA from Mycobacterium tuberculosis in superficially normal lung tissue during latent infection. Lancet. 2000;356(9248):2133–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bishai WR. Rekindling old controversy on elusive lair of latent tuberculosis. Lancet. 2000;356(9248):2113–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Flynn JL, Chan J. Tuberculosis: latency and reactivation. Infect Immun. 2001;69(7):4195–201.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lenaerts AJ, Hoff D, Aly S, et al. Location of persisting mycobacteria in a Guinea pig model of tuberculosis revealed by r207910. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51(9):3338–45.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gomez JE, McKinney JD. M. tuberculosis persistence, latency, and drug tolerance. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2004;84(1–2):29–44.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ruslami R, Nijland H, Aarnoutse R, et al. Evaluation of high- versus standard-dose rifampin in Indonesian patients with pulmonary tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50(2):822–3.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kreis B, Pretet S, Birenbaum J, et al. Two three-month treatment regimens for pulmonary tuberculosis. Bull Int Union Tuberc. 1976;51(1):71–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Diacon AH, Patientia RF, Venter A, et al. Early bactericidal activity of high-dose rifampin in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis evidenced by positive sputum smears. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51(8):2994–6.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steingart KR, Jotblad S, Robsky K, et al. Higher-dose rifampin for the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011;15(3):305–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Burman WJ, Gallicano K, Peloquin C. Comparative pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the rifamycin antibacterials. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2001;40(5):327–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peloquin CA. Using therapeutic drug monitoring to dose the antimycobacterial drugs. Clin Chest Med. 1997;18(1):79–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reported Tuberculosis in the United States, 2012. 2013; Available from
  29. 29.
    Heysell SK, Moore JL, Keller SJ, Houpt ER. Therapeutic drug monitoring for slow response to tuberculosis treatment in a state control program, Virginia, USA. Emerg Infect Dis. 2010;16(10):1546–53.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Magis-Escurra C, van den Boogaard J, Ijdema D, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring in the treatment of tuberculosis patients. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2012;25(1):83–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Babalik A, Mannix S, Francis D, Menzies D. Therapeutic drug monitoring in the treatment of active tuberculosis. Can Respir J. 2011;18(4):225–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Holland DP, Hamilton CD, Weintrob AC, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of antimycobacterial drugs in patients with both tuberculosis and advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. Pharmacotherapy. 2009;29(5):503–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Van Tongeren L, Nolan S, Cook VJ, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring in the treatment of tuberculosis: a retrospective analysis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013;17(2):221–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Li J, Burzynski JN, Lee YA, et al. Use of therapeutic drug monitoring for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients. Chest. 2004;126(6):1770–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ray J, Gardiner I, Marriott D. Managing antituberculosis drug therapy by therapeutic drug monitoring of rifampicin and isoniazid. Intern Med J. 2003;33(5–6):229–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Heysell SK, Moore JL, Staley D, et al. Early therapeutic drug monitoring for isoniazid and rifampin among diabetics with newly diagnosed tuberculosis in Virginia, USA. Tuberc Res Treat. 2013;2013.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Prahl JB, Johansen IS, Frimodt-Møller N, Andersen AB. Clinical significance of 2-hour plasma concentrations of first-line tuberculosis drugs (abstract). Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; Denver, CO2013.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    A controlled trial of six months chemotherapy in pulmonary tuberculosis. First Report: results during chemotherapy. British Thoracic Association. Br J Dis Chest. 1981;75(2):141–53.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mehta JB, Shantaveerapa H, Byrd RP Jr, et al. Utility of rifampin blood levels in the treatment and follow-up of active pulmonary tuberculosis in patients who were slow to respond to routine directly observed therapy. Chest. 2001;120(5):1520–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kimerling ME, Phillips P, Patterson P, et al. Low serum antimycobacterial drug levels in non-HIV-infected tuberculosis patients. Chest. 1998;113(5):1178–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yew WW. Therapeutic drug monitoring in antituberculosis chemotherapy. Ther Drug Monit. 1998;20(5):469–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    McIlleron H, Wash P, Burger A, et al. Determinants of rifampin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol pharmacokinetics in a cohort of tuberculosis patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006;50(4):1170–7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chideya S, Winston CA, Peloquin CA, et al. Isoniazid, rifampin, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide pharmacokinetics and treatment outcomes among a predominantly HIV-infected cohort of adults with tuberculosis from Botswana. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48(12):1685–94.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Babalik A, Ulus IH, Bakirci N, et al. Pharmacokinetics and serum concentrations of antimycobacterial drugs in adult Turkish patients. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013;17(11):1442–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sprague DA, Ensom MH. Limited-sampling strategies for anti-infective agents: systematic review. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2009;62(5):392–401.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pranger AD, Kosterink JG, van Altena R, et al. Limited-sampling strategies for therapeutic drug monitoring of moxifloxacin in patients with tuberculosis. Ther Drug Monit. 2011;33(3):350–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Alffenaar JW, Kosterink JG, van Altena R, et al. Limited sampling strategies for therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Ther Drug Monit. 2010;32(1):97–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Parker SP, Cubitt WD. The use of the dried blood spot sample in epidemiological studies. J Clin Pathol. 1999;52(9):633–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Edelbroek PM, van der Heijden J, Stolk LM. Dried blood spot methods in therapeutic drug monitoring: methods, assays, and pitfalls. Ther Drug Monit. 2009;31(3):327–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vu DH, Bolhuis MS, Koster RA, et al. Dried blood spot analysis for therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(11):5758–63.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vu DH, Koster RA, Alffenaar JW, et al. Determination of moxifloxacin in dried blood spots using LC-MS/MS and the impact of the hematocrit and blood volume. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2011;879(15–16):1063–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vu DH, Koster RA, Bolhuis MS, et al. Simultaneous determination of rifampicin, clarithromycin and their metabolites in dried blood spots using LC-MS/MS. Talanta. 2014;121:9–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Burhan E, Ruesen C, Ruslami R, et al. Isoniazid, rifampin, and pyrazinamide plasma concentrations in relation to treatment response in Indonesian pulmonary tuberculosis patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(8):3614–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pasipanodya JG, McIlleron H, Burger A, et al. Serum drug concentrations predictive of pulmonary tuberculosis outcomes. J Infect Dis. 2013;208(9):1464–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Weiner M, Burman W, Vernon A, et al. Low isoniazid concentrations and outcome of tuberculosis treatment with once-weekly isoniazid and rifapentine. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;167(10):1341–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Weiner M, Benator D, Burman W, et al. Association between acquired rifamycin resistance and the pharmacokinetics of rifabutin and isoniazid among patients with HIV and tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40(10):1481–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Chigutsa E, Pasipanodya J, Visser ME, et al. Multivariate adaptive regression splines analysis of the effect of drug concentration and MIC on sterilizing activity in patients on multidrug therapy (abstract). Clinical Pharmacology of Tuberculosis Drugs; Denver, CO2013.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Srivastava S, Gumbo T. In vitro and in vivo modeling of tuberculosis drugs and its impact on optimization of doses and regimens. Curr Pharm Des. 2011;17(27):2881–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Pasipanodya J, Gumbo T. An oracle: antituberculosis pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics, clinical correlation, and clinical trial simulations to predict the future. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(1):24–34.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nuermberger E, Grosset J. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic issues in the treatment of mycobacterial infections. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004;23(4):243–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Davies GR, Nuermberger EL. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in the development of anti-tuberculosis drugs. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2008;88(Suppl 1):S65–74.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ahmad Z, Fraig MM, Bisson GP, et al. Dose-dependent activity of pyrazinamide in animal models of intracellular and extracellular tuberculosis infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(4):1527–32.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gumbo T, Louie A, Deziel MR, et al. Selection of a moxifloxacin dose that suppresses drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis, by use of an in vitro pharmacodynamic infection model and mathematical modeling. J Infect Dis. 2004;190(9):1642–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Nuermberger E. Using animal models to develop new treatments for tuberculosis. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;29(5):542–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pasipanodya J, Srivastava S, Gumbo T. New susceptibility breakpoints and the regional variability of MIC distribution in Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(10):5428.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Gumbo T, Louie A, Deziel MR, et al. Concentration-dependent Mycobacterium tuberculosis killing and prevention of resistance by rifampin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51(11):3781–8.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gumbo T, Dona CS, Meek C, Leff R. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of pyrazinamide in a novel in vitro model of tuberculosis for sterilizing effect: a paradigm for faster assessment of new antituberculosis drugs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009;53(8):3197–204.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Jayaram R, Gaonkar S, Kaur P, et al. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of rifampin in an aerosol infection model of tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2003;47(7):2118–24.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Jayaram R, Shandil RK, Gaonkar S, et al. Isoniazid pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics in an aerosol infection model of tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48(8):2951–7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Boulanger C, Hollender E, Farrell K, et al. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of rifabutin in combination with lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with HIV infection and active tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(9):1305–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Pasipanodya JG, Gumbo T. Clinical and toxicodynamic evidence that high-dose pyrazinamide is not more hepatotoxic than the low doses currently used. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(7):2847–54.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Talbert Estlin KA, Sadun AA. Risk factors for ethambutol optic toxicity. Int Ophthalmol. 2010;30(1):63–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hasenbosch RE, Alffenaar JW, Koopmans SA, et al. Ethambutol-induced optical neuropathy: risk of overdosing in obese subjects. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2008;12(8):967–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Chang KC, Leung CC, Grosset J, Yew WW. Treatment of tuberculosis and optimal dosing schedules. Thorax. 2011;66(11):997–1007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Srivastava S, Pasipanodya JG, Meek C, et al. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis not due to noncompliance but to between-patient pharmacokinetic variability. J Infect Dis. 2011;204(12):1951–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Peloquin CA. Tuberculosis drug serum levels. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33(4):584–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Peloquin CA. Pharmacological issues in the treatment of tuberculosis. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2001;953:157–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Holdiness MR. Clinical pharmacokinetics of the antituberculosis drugs. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1984;9(6):511–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Peloquin C. Antituberculosis drugs: pharmacokinetics. In: LB H, editor. Drug susceptibility in the chemotherapy of mycobacterial infections. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1991. p. 89–122.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Dooley KE, Chaisson RE. Tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus: convergence of two epidemics. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009;9(12):737–46.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Dooley KE, Tang T, Golub JE, et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on treatment outcomes of patients with active tuberculosis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2009;80(4):634–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Alisjahbana B, Sahiratmadja E, Nelwan EJ, et al. The effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus on the presentation and treatment response of pulmonary tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(4):428–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Dostalek M, Akhlaghi F, Puzanovova M. Effect of diabetes mellitus on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of drugs. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2012;51(8):481–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Ruslami R, Nijland HM, Adhiarta IG, et al. Pharmacokinetics of antituberculosis drugs in pulmonary tuberculosis patients with type 2 diabetes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54(3):1068–74.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Nijland HM, Ruslami R, Stalenhoef JE, et al. Exposure to rifampicin is strongly reduced in patients with tuberculosis and type 2 diabetes. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;43(7):848–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Diagnostic Standards and Classification of Tuberculosis in Adults and Children. This official statement of the American Thoracic Society and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, July 1999. This statement was endorsed by the Council of the Infectious Disease Society of America, September 1999. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;161(4 Pt 1):1376–95.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Kotler DP, Gaetz HP, Lange M, et al. Enteropathy associated with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Ann Intern Med. 1984;101(4):421–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Gillin JS, Shike M, Alcock N, et al. Malabsorption and mucosal abnormalities of the small intestine in the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102(5):619–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Peloquin CA, MacPhee AA, Berning SE. Malabsorption of antimycobacterial medications. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(15):1122–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Gordon SM, Horsburgh CR, Peloquin CA, et al. Low serum levels of oral antimycobacterial agents in patients with disseminated Mycobacterium avium complex disease. J Infect Dis. 1993;168(6):1559–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Peloquin CA, Nitta AT, Burman WJ, et al. Low antituberculosis drug concentrations in patients with AIDS. Ann Pharmacother. 1996;30(9):919–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Sahai J, Gallicano K, Swick L, et al. Reduced plasma concentrations of antituberculosis drugs in patients with HIV infection. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(4):289–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Gurumurthy P, Ramachandran G, Hemanth Kumar AK, et al. Decreased bioavailability of rifampin and other antituberculosis drugs in patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus disease. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48(11):4473–5.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Gurumurthy P, Ramachandran G, Hemanth Kumar AK, et al. Malabsorption of rifampin and isoniazid in HIV-infected patients with and without tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38(2):280–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Taylor B, Smith PJ. Does AIDS impair the absorption of antituberculosis agents? Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1998;2(8):670–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Peloquin CA, Berning SE, Huitt GA, Iseman MD. AIDS and TB drug absorption. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1999;3(12):1143–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    McIlleron H, Rustomjee R, Vahedi M, et al. Reduced antituberculosis drug concentrations in HIV-infected patients who are men or have low weight: implications for international dosing guidelines. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(6):3232–8.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Narita M, Hisada M, Thimmappa B, et al. Tuberculosis recurrence: multivariate analysis of serum levels of tuberculosis drugs, human immunodeficiency virus status, and other risk factors. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32(3):515–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Kaplan JE, Benson C, Holmes KK, et al. Guidelines for prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections in HIV-infected adults and adolescents: recommendations from CDC, the National Institutes of Health, and the HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2009;58(Rr-4):1–207.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Burman WJ, Gallicano K, Peloquin C. Therapeutic implications of drug interactions in the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus-related tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;28(3):419–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Narita M, Stambaugh JJ, Hollender ES, et al. Use of rifabutin with protease inhibitors for human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients with tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30(5):779–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Weiner M, Benator D, Peloquin CA, et al. Evaluation of the drug interaction between rifabutin and efavirenz in patients with HIV infection and tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41(9):1343–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Schwiesow JN, Iseman MD, Peloquin CA. Concomitant use of voriconazole and rifabutin in a patient with multiple infections. Pharmacotherapy. 2008;28(8):1076–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Benator DA, Weiner MH, Burman WJ, et al. Clinical evaluation of the nelfinavir–rifabutin interaction in patients with tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus infection. Pharmacotherapy. 2007;27(6):793–800.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Durant J, Clevenbergh P, Garraffo R, et al. Importance of protease inhibitor plasma levels in HIV-infected patients treated with genotypic-guided therapy: pharmacological data from the Viradapt Study. AIDS. 2000;14(10):1333–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Angel JB, Khaliq Y, Monpetit ML, et al. An argument for routine therapeutic drug monitoring of HIV-1 protease inhibitors during pregnancy. AIDS. 2001;15(3):417–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Back D, Gatti G, Fletcher C, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring in HIV infection: current status and future directions. AIDS. 2002;16(Suppl 1):S5–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Cengiz K. Increased incidence of tuberculosis in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Nephron. 1996;73(3):421–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Hu HY, Wu CY, Huang N, et al. Increased risk of tuberculosis in patients with end-stage renal disease: a population-based cohort study in Taiwan, a country of high incidence of end-stage renal disease. Epidemiol Infect. 2014:142(1):191–9.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Chia S, Karim M, Elwood RK, FitzGerald JM. Risk of tuberculosis in dialysis patients: a population-based study. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1998;2(12):989–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Cuss FM, Carmichael DJ, Linington A, Hulme B. Tuberculosis in renal failure: a high incidence in patients born in the Third World. Clin Nephrol. 1986;25(3):129–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Malone RS, Fish DN, Spiegel DM, et al. The effect of hemodialysis on isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;159(5 Pt 1):1580–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Malone RS, Fish DN, Spiegel DM, et al. The effect of hemodialysis on cycloserine, ethionamide, para-aminosalicylate, and clofazimine. Chest. 1999;116(4):984–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Peloquin CA, Jaresko GS, Yong CL, et al. Population pharmacokinetic modeling of isoniazid, rifampin, and pyrazinamide. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41(12):2670–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Peloquin CA, Namdar R, Dodge AA, Nix DE. Pharmacokinetics of isoniazid under fasting conditions, with food, and with antacids. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1999;3(8):703–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Pasipanodya JG, Srivastava S, Gumbo T. Meta-analysis of clinical studies supports the pharmacokinetic variability hypothesis for acquired drug resistance and failure of antituberculosis therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55(2):169–77.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Cho HJ, Koh WJ, Ryu YJ, et al. Genetic polymorphisms of NAT2 and CYP2E1 associated with antituberculosis drug-induced hepatotoxicity in Korean patients with pulmonary tuberculosis. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2007;87(6):551–6.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Ben Mahmoud L, Ghozzi H, Kamoun A, et al. Polymorphism of the N-acetyltransferase 2 gene as a susceptibility risk factor for antituberculosis drug-induced hepatotoxicity in Tunisian patients with tuberculosis. Pathol Biol (Paris). 2012;60(5):324–30.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Ohno M, Yamaguchi I, Yamamoto I, et al. Slow N-acetyltransferase 2 genotype affects the incidence of isoniazid and rifampicin-induced hepatotoxicity. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2000;4(3):256–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Azuma J, Ohno M, Kubota R, et al. NAT2 genotype guided regimen reduces isoniazid-induced liver injury and early treatment failure in the 6-month four-drug standard treatment of tuberculosis: a randomized controlled trial for pharmacogenetics-based therapy. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69(5):1091–101.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Peloquin CA, Namdar R, Singleton MD, Nix DE. Pharmacokinetics of rifampin under fasting conditions, with food, and with antacids. Chest. 1999;115(1):12–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Ellard GA, Fourie PB. Rifampicin bioavailability: a review of its pharmacology and the chemotherapeutic necessity for ensuring optimal absorption. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1999;3(11 Suppl 3):S301–8 discussion S17–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Ellard GA. The evaluation of rifampicin bioavailabilities of fixed-dose combinations of anti-tuberculosis drugs: procedures for ensuring laboratory proficiency. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1999;3(11 Suppl 3):S322–4 discussion S51–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Acocella G, Bertrand A, Beytout J, et al. Comparison of three different regimens in the treatment of acute brucellosis: a multicenter multinational study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989;23(3):433–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Peloquin C. What is the ‘right’ dose of rifampin? Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2003;7(1):3–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Boeree M, Diacon A, Dawson R, et al. What Is the “Right” Dose of Rifampin? (abstract) The annual Conference on retroviruses and opportunistic infections; Atlanta, GA2013.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    (CDC) CfDCaP. Updated guidelines for the use of rifabutin or rifampin for the treatment and prevention of tuberculosis among HIV-infected patients taking protease inhibitors or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2000;49(9):185–9.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Hafner R, Bethel J, Power M, et al. Tolerance and pharmacokinetic interactions of rifabutin and clarithromycin in human immunodeficiency virus-infected volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1998;42(3):631–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Temple ME, Nahata MC. Rifapentine: its role in the treatment of tuberculosis. Ann Pharmacother. 1999;33(11):1203–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Gao XF, Li J, Yang ZW, Li YP. Rifapentine vs. rifampicin for the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2009;13(7):810–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Tam CM, Chan SL, Kam KM, et al. Rifapentine and isoniazid in the continuation phase of a 6-month regimen. Final report at 5 years: prognostic value of various measures. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2002;6(1):3–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Dorman SE, Goldberg S, Stout JE, et al. Substitution of rifapentine for rifampin during intensive phase treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis: Study 29 of the tuberculosis trials consortium. J Infect Dis. 2012;206(7):1030–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Savic R, Weiner M, Mac Kenzie W, et al. PKPD analysis of rifapentine in patients during intensive phase treatment for tuberculosis from Tuberculosis Trial Consortium Studies 29 and 29X (abstract). Clinical Pharmacology of Tuberculosis Drugs; Denver, CO2013.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Peloquin CA, Bulpitt AE, Jaresko GS, et al. Pharmacokinetics of pyrazinamide under fasting conditions, with food, and with antacids. Pharmacotherapy. 1998;18(6):1205–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Weiner IM, Tinker JP. Pharmacology of pyrazinamide: metabolic and renal function studies related to the mechanism of drug-induced urate retention. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1972;180(2):411–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Horn DL, Hewlett D Jr, Alfalla C, et al. Limited tolerance of ofloxacin and pyrazinamide prophylaxis against tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(17):1241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Lou HX, Shullo MA, McKaveney TP. Limited tolerability of levofloxacin and pyrazinamide for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis prophylaxis in a solid organ transplant population. Pharmacotherapy. 2002;22(6):701–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Papastavros T, Dolovich LR, Holbrook A, et al. Adverse events associated with pyrazinamide and levofloxacin in the treatment of latent multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. CMAJ. 2002;167(2):131–6.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Peloquin CA, Bulpitt AE, Jaresko GS, et al. Pharmacokinetics of ethambutol under fasting conditions, with food, and with antacids. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1999;43(3):568–72.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Tappero JW, Bradford WZ, Agerton TB, et al. Serum concentrations of antimycobacterial drugs in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis in Botswana. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41(4):461–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Zhu M, Burman WJ, Starke JR, et al. Pharmacokinetics of ethambutol in children and adults with tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2004;8(11):1360–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Peloquin CA. Mycobacterium avium complex infection. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations that may improve clinical outcomes. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1997;32(2):132–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Zhu M, Burman WJ, Jaresko GS, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of intravenous and intramuscular streptomycin in patients with tuberculosis. Pharmacotherapy. 2001;21(9):1037–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Demczar DJ, Nafziger AN, Bertino JS Jr. Pharmacokinetics of gentamicin at traditional versus high doses: implications for once-daily aminoglycoside dosing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997;41(5):1115–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Peloquin CA, Berning SE, Huitt GA, et al. Once-daily and twice-daily dosing of p-aminosalicylic acid granules. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;159(3):932–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Andries A, Isaakidis P, Das M, et al. High rate of hypothyroidism in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients co-infected with HIV in Mumbai, India. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e78313.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Hwang TJ, Wares DF, Jafarov A, et al. Safety of cycloserine and terizidone for the treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis: a meta-analysis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013;17(10):1257–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Carroll MW, Lee M, Cai Y, et al. Frequency of adverse reactions to first- and second-line anti-tuberculosis chemotherapy in a Korean cohort. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2012;16(7):961–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Zhu M, Nix DE, Adam RD, et al. Pharmacokinetics of cycloserine under fasting conditions and with high-fat meal, orange juice, and antacids. Pharmacotherapy. 2001;21(8):891–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Auclair B, Nix DE, Adam RD, et al. Pharmacokinetics of ethionamide administered under fasting conditions or with orange juice, food, or antacids. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45(3):810–4.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Ziganshina LE, Titarenko AF, Davies GR. Fluoroquinolones for treating tuberculosis (presumed drug-sensitive). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:Cd004795.Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Moadebi S, Harder CK, Fitzgerald MJ, et al. Fluoroquinolones for the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. Drugs. 2007;67(14):2077–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Berning SE. The role of fluoroquinolones in tuberculosis today. Drugs. 2001;61(1):9–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Pranger AD, van Altena R, Aarnoutse RE, et al. Evaluation of moxifloxacin for the treatment of tuberculosis: 3 years of experience. Eur Respir J. 2011;38(4):888–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Rustomjee R, Lienhardt C, Kanyok T, et al. A Phase II study of the sterilising activities of ofloxacin, gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin in pulmonary tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2008;12(2):128–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Wang JY, Wang JT, Tsai TH, et al. Adding moxifloxacin is associated with a shorter time to culture conversion in pulmonary tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2010;14(1):65–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Jawahar MS, Banurekha VV, Paramasivan CN, et al. Randomized clinical trial of thrice-weekly 4-month moxifloxacin or gatifloxacin containing regimens in the treatment of new sputum positive pulmonary tuberculosis patients. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e67030.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Dawson R, Diacon A. PA-824, moxifloxacin and pyrazinamide combination therapy for tuberculosis. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2013;22(7):927–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Dorman SE, Johnson JL, Goldberg S, et al. Substitution of moxifloxacin for isoniazid during intensive phase treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009;180(3):273–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Koh WJ, Lee SH, Kang YA, et al. Comparison of levofloxacin versus moxifloxacin for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(7):858–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Demolis JL, Kubitza D, Tenneze L, Funck-Brentano C. Effect of a single oral dose of moxifloxacin (400 mg and 800 mg) on ventricular repolarization in healthy subjects. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2000;68(6):658–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Peloquin CA, Hadad DJ, Molino LP, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of levofloxacin, gatifloxacin, and moxifloxacin in adults with pulmonary tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(3):852–7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Fish DN, Chow AT. The clinical pharmacokinetics of levofloxacin. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1997;32(2):101–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Nijland HM, Ruslami R, Suroto AJ, et al. Rifampicin reduces plasma concentrations of moxifloxacin in patients with tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(8):1001–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Weiner M, Burman W, Luo CC, et al. Effects of rifampin and multidrug resistance gene polymorphism on concentrations of moxifloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51(8):2861–6.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Dooley K, Flexner C, Hackman J, et al. Repeated administration of high-dose intermittent rifapentine reduces rifapentine and moxifloxacin plasma concentrations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(11):4037–42.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Corrao G, Zambon A, Bertu L, et al. Evidence of tendinitis provoked by fluoroquinolone treatment: a case-control study. Drug Saf. 2006;29(10):889–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Lauzardo M, Peloquin CA. Antituberculosis therapy for 2012 and beyond. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2012;13(4):511–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Garcia-Tapia A, Rodriguez JC, Ruiz M, Royo G. Action of fluoroquinolones and Linezolid on logarithmic- and stationary-phase culture of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Chemotherapy. 2004;50(5):211–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Rodriguez JC, Ruiz M, Lopez M, Royo G. In vitro activity of moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, gatifloxacin and linezolid against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2002;20(6):464–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Sotgiu G, Centis R, D’Ambrosio L, et al. Efficacy, safety and tolerability of linezolid containing regimens in treating MDR-TB and XDR-TB: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir J. 2012;40(6):1430–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Alffenaar JW, van Altena R, Harmelink IM, et al. Comparison of the pharmacokinetics of two dosage regimens of linezolid in multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis patients. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2010;49(8):559–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Park IN, Hong SB, Oh YM, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of daily-half dose linezolid in patients with intractable multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;58(3):701–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Andes D, van Ogtrop ML, Peng J, Craig WA. In vivo pharmacodynamics of a new oxazolidinone (linezolid). Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46(11):3484–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Rayner CR, Forrest A, Meagher AK, et al. Clinical pharmacodynamics of linezolid in seriously ill patients treated in a compassionate use programme. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2003;42(15):1411–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Gopal M, Padayatchi N, Metcalfe JZ, O’Donnell MR. Systematic review of clofazimine for the treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013;17(8):1001–7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Garrelts JC. Clofazimine: a review of its use in leprosy and Mycobacterium avium complex infection. DICP. 1991;25(5):525–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Infectious Disease Pharmacokinetics Laboratory, College of Pharmacy and Emerging Pathogens InstituteUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations