Infectious Disease Provider Perspectives on Shorter Tuberculosis Treatment Regimens (3497/3500)

Clicks: 2
ID: 317159
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #191 of 208 articles by views in Open forum infectious diseases

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 208 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Since 2020, IDSA/ATS/CDC guidelines have preferentially recommended ≤4-month rifamycin-based regimens for tuberculosis infection. Since 2022, recommendations include all-oral 6-month regimens (BPaL or BPaL-M) for drug-resistant disease and a 4-month regimen (HPMZ) for drug-susceptible disease. Yet implementation of new regimens often lags behind guidelines. This survey aimed to characterize tuberculosis treatment practices of infectious disease clinicians and barriers to utilizing these regimens. Methods A survey about tuberculosis treatment practices was distributed to 1501 North American adult infectious disease physician members of the IDSA’s Emerging Infections Network. Percentages of respondents were calculated for each question. Open comment data were qualitatively analyzed. Results 349 clinicians completed the survey. 93% of respondents preferentially opted for ≤4-month regimens for tuberculosis infection, with only 12% expressing concerns with treatment effectiveness. In contrast, 1% selected HPMZ for pulmonary drug-susceptible disease and 5% reported experience with HPMZ. For confirmed drug-resistant disease, 39% reported they would use BPaL or BPaL-M, with 40% unsure about regimen choice. 43% reported uncertainty about effectiveness of 4 and 6-month regimens for drug-susceptible disease and drug-resistant disease. Qualitative analysis highlighted barriers to the use of newer regimens for tuberculosis disease, including concerns about treatment toxicities related to HPMZ or linezolid, medication interactions, and rifapentine and bedaquiline availability. Conclusions While infectious disease physicians preferentially use shorter regimens for tuberculosis infection, uptake of newer regimens for tuberculosis disease is low, due to concerns about effectiveness and treatment toxicities. Enhanced adverse effect management and monitoring, and shared decision making can optimize the implementation of newer tuberculosis disease treatment regimens.
Reference Key
openalex_W7164568632 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Aliya Moreira, Dana Hassneiah, Susan E. Beekmann, Philip M. Polgreen, Maunank Shah, Ruvandhi R. Nathavitharana
Journal Open forum infectious diseases
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ofid/ofag330
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofag330
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.