Skip Navigation

Exposure to Rifampicin Is Strongly Reduced in Patients with Tuberculosis and Type 2 Diabetes

  1. Hanneke M. J. Nijland1,
  2. Rovina Ruslami4,
  3. Janneke E. Stalenhoef2,
  4. Erni J. Nelwan5,
  5. Bachti Alisjahbana3,
  6. Ron H. H. Nelwan5,
  7. Andre J. A. M. van der Ven2,
  8. Halim Danusantoso6,
  9. Rob E. Aarnoutse1, and
  10. Reinout van Crevel2
  1. 1Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands
  2. 2Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands
  3. 3Department of Internal Medicine, Hasan Sadikin Hospital, Bandung
  4. 4Department of Pharmacology, Medical Faculty, University of Padjadjaran, Bandung
  5. 5Division of Tropical Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
  6. 6Indonesian Tuberculosis Control Association, Jakarta Branch, Jakarta, Indonesia
  1. Reprints and correspondence: Dr. Reinout van Crevel, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (R.vanCrevel{at}aig.umcn.nl).
 
Next Section

Abstract

Background. Type 2 diabetes (DM) is a strong risk factor for tuberculosis (TB) and is associated with a slower response to TB treatment and a higher mortality rate. Because lower concentrations of anti-TB drugs may be a contributing factor, we compared the pharmacokinetics of rifampicin in patients with TB, with and without DM.

Methods. Seventeen adult Indonesian patients with TB and DM and 17 age- and sex-matched patients with TB and without DM were included in the study during the continuation phase of TB treatment. All patients received 450 mg of rifampicin (10 mg/kg) and 600 mg of isoniazid 3 times weekly. Steady-state plasma concentrations of rifampicin and its metabolite desacetylrifampicin were assessed at 0, 2, 4, and 6 h after drug intake.

Results. Geometric means of rifampicin exposure (AUC0–6 h) were 12.3 mg × h/L (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0–24.2) in patients with TB and DM, and 25.9 mg × h/L (95% CI, 21.4–40.2) in patients with TB only (P = .003). Similar differences were found for the maximum concentration of rifampicin. No significant differences in time to maximum concentration of rifampicin were observed. The AUC0–6 h of desacetylrifampicin was also much lower in patients with TB and DM versus patients with TB only (geometric mean, 0.60 vs. 3.2 mg × h/L; P = .001). Linear regression analysis revealed that higher body weight (P < .001), the presence of DM (P = .06), and plasma glucose concentration (P = .016) were correlated with exposure to rifampicin.

Conclusion. Exposure (AUC0–6 h) to rifampicin was 53% lower in Indonesian patients with TB and DM, compared with patients with TB only. Patients with TB and DM who have a higher body weight may need a higher dose of rifampicin.

Worldwide, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes (DM) is increasing—especially in developing countries, where tuberculosis (TB) is highly endemic. More specifically, it is estimated that, in 20 years, 75% of the patients with DM will live in countries that harbor the majority of cases of TB [1]. As a result, a growing number of patients with TB will have DM. Recent studies from Saudi Arabia [2], Russia [3], and from our own group in Indonesia [4] reveal that 10%–30% of patients with TB may have DM at this time. This is important, because DM seems to be associated with a less favorable response to TB treatment [5, 6]. Indeed, in a large Indonesian cohort of patients with TB, the presence of DM was associated with significantly lower sputum conversion rates after 8 weeks of treatment (B Alisjahbana et al., unpublished data).

Altered pharmacokinetics of anti-TB drugs may explain the adverse effect of DM on the response to TB treatment. It has been shown that patients who have DM have lower plasma concentrations of certain drugs [7, 8]. If this also applies to anti-TB drugs, this might explain the slower response to TB treatment in patients with DM. Lower plasma concentrations of anti-TB drugs have been associated with clinical failure and acquired drug resistance [9–11]. For rifampicin, a key drug in TB treatment, available evidence suggests that its efficacy is dependent on exposure to the drug or to the maximum drug concentrations achieved [12].

Recent studies, including ours, have reported low plasma concentrations of anti-TB drugs in patients with TB [13–16], but thus far, no studies have systematically examined the pharmacokinetics of TB drugs in patients with DM. Therefore, in the present study, we compared plasma concentrations of rifampicin in patients with TB with and without DM.

Previous SectionNext Section

Methods

Study design and recruitment of subjects. We conducted a prospective pharmacokinetic study in the urban outpatient TB clinic Perkumpulan Pemberantasan Tuberculosis Indonesia, in Jakarta, Indonesia. Within the context of a larger study that evaluated the effect of DM on the immune response in patients with TB, patients with TB who had DM were included, and age- and sex-matched patients with TB who did not have DM were selected as control subjects.

Diagnosis of TB was based on clinical symptoms and chest radiography examination and was confirmed by microscopic detection of acid-fast bacilli and culture positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Treatment consisted of a standard regimen of daily rifampicin, isoniazid, pyrazinamid, and ethambutol for 2 months, as well as rifampicin and isoniazid 3 times weekly for another 4 months, according to the Indonesian National Tuberculosis Program. All patients were administered identical TB drugs from a national manufacturer. Isoniazid and rifampicin were formulated in separate tablets. Bioequivalence of the rifampicin tablets to an international reference standard was established previously [17]. All patients were included after at least 2 weeks of TB treatment in the continuation phase. The Indonesian National Tuberculosis Program recommends 450 mg of rifampicin (10 mg/kg, considering the lower average body weight of Indonesian people) and 600 mg of isoniazid 3 times a week during the continuation phase.

Capillary and venous blood glucose levels were measured in all patients before the start of TB treatment. Newly established DM was diagnosed according to World Health Organization criteria [18]—that is, a fasting blood glucose value of ⩾7.0 mmol/L, a capillary blood glucose value of ⩾6.1 mmol/L, or a random plasma glucose value of ⩾11.1 mmol/L, measured at 2 different time points. A diagnosis of DM was also accepted if patients already had established DM and were receiving antidiabetic agents. At the time of blood sampling for measurement of rifampicin pharmacokinetics, DM was confirmed, because hyperglycemia may disappear during TB treatment [19]. This confirmation showed that capillary fasting blood glucose concentrations were ⩾6.1 mmol/L in all patients, and the fasting blood glucose concentration from plasma was ⩾7.0 mmol/L in all but 1 subject whose DM was very strictly controlled (table 1). In accordance with national guidelines, patients with TB and DM were treated with oral antidiabetic drugs after 2–4 weeks of TB treatment. Study subjects had to be at least 18 years of age and were not allowed to use any drug that is known to affect the pharmacokinetics of rifampicin. Patients were excluded if they were pregnant or lactating, if they had gastrointestinal tract problems (e.g., diarrhea or vomiting on the days before the pharmacokinetic assessment), if they were HIV positive, or if they had an elevated creatinine level (>1.25 times above the upper limit of normal) or alanine transaminase level (>2 times the upper limit of normal). The study protocol of the main DM-immune response study was approved by the local institutional review board. Written informed consent for the pharmacokinetic substudy was obtained from all subjects.

Figure 1
Figure 1

Mean plasma concentration (mg/L) over time (h) of rifampicin in 17 patients with tuberculosis (TB; open circles) and 17 patients with TB and with type 2 diabetes (DM; closed squares), with standard deviations. P value of comparison between groups <.05.

Figure 2
Figure 2

Natural logarithm of the area under the curve (AUC0–6 h) of rifampicin versus body weight (kg) for patients with tuberculosis (TB; dashed line) and for patients with TB and with type 2 diabetes (DM; solid line).

Table 1
Table 1

Characteristics of patients with tuberculosis (TB) and of patients with TB and type 2 diabetes (TB-DM).

Pharmacokinetic assessment. From 11 P.M. on the day preceding the study day until 4 h after drug intake on the study day, patients refrained from the intake of any food or drugs other than the study medication. Considering that the patients did not consume any food, they also did not take any prescribed antidiabetic drugs during this period.

On the day of pharmacokinetic assessment, the patients were administered 450 mg of rifampicin and 600 mg of isoniazid with 230 mL of still water. Serial venous blood samples were collected just prior to and 2, 4, and 6 h after witnessed drug intake in a fasting state. Plasma was immediately separated from blood samples and frozen at -20°C and was transferred to storage at -80°C within 60 h until transport on dry ice to The Netherlands for bioanalysis. The stability of rifampicin and its metabolite desacetylrifampicin under these conditions has been validated previously.

Bioanalysis. Total rifampicin concentrations and the concentrations of its main metabolite, desacetylrifampicin, were analyzed using a validated high-performance liquid chromatography method with UV detection. Two hundred µL of acetonitrile and 10 µL of ascorbic acid solution were added to 200 µL of plasma sample. The mixture was vortexed for 20 s and centrifuged for 5 min, at which time 400 µL of 10 mmol/L potassium dihydrogen phosphate was added. The mixture was then vortexed and centrifuged again. Two hundred µL of the clear supernatant was injected in the high-performance liquid chromatography apparatus. Chromatographic analysis was performed on an Omnispher 5 C18 column (250 × 4.6 mm; Varian) protected with a Chromguard RP guard column (10 × 3 mm; Varian). The mobile phase consisted of 10 mmol/L potassium dihydrogen phosphate (pH, 4.5) and acetonitrile (percent by volume, 62% : 38%). The flow rate was set at 1 mL/min, and the wavelength for UV detection was 334 nm. Rifampicin and desacetylrifampicin retention times were 7.8 min and 3.6 min, respectively. The lower limits of quantitation for rifampicin and desacetylrifampicin were 0.28 mg/L and 0.15 mg/L, respectively. Accuracy was 99.8%, 100.4%, and 100.4% for the rifampicin standard concentrations of 2.9 mg/L, 9.5 mg/L, and 23.7 mg/L, respectively. The accuracy of the desacetylrifampicin standard concentrations of 0.09 mg/L, 2.25 mg/L, and 27.0 mg/L was 103.9%, 102.4%, and 102.6%, respectively. Intraday precision and between-day precision (coefficient of variation, %) ranged from 0.7% to 1.1% and from 0.1% to 0.6% for rifampicin, and from 0.9% to 2.9% and from 0.5% to 3.6% for desacetylrifampicin, respectively.

Pharmacokinetic analysis. Pharmacokinetic parameters of rifampicin and desacetylrifampicin were calculated using noncompartmental methods. The area under the plasma concentration time curve from time 0 h until 6 hours after the dose (AUC0–6 h) was assessed using the linear trapezoidal rule. The highest observed plasma concentration was defined as Cmax, and the corresponding sampling time was defined as Tmax. Cmax and Tmax were determined directly from the plasma concentration-time data. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using the WinNonlin software package, version 4.1 (Pharsight Corporation). The relative exposure of the metabolite desacetylrifampicin versus rifampicin was expressed as the ratio of the metabolite and the parent drug.

Data and statistical analysis. Differences in AUC0–6 h and Cmax values in patients with TB versus patients with TB and DM were tested with an independent sample t test on the natural logarithm-transformed pharmacokinetic data. Pearson's χ2 test was used to determine the difference in proportions of patients reaching a reference peak plasma concentration of 8 mg/L for rifampicin [20, 21]. Values for Tmax were not transformed and were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Univariate analyses were performed for the separate groups (patients with TB and patients with TB and DM) to assess the effect of sex, age, body weight, and fasting plasma glucose level. A multivariate linear regression analysis with forced entry was performed to assess the variation in rifampicin pharmacokinetics (AUC0–6 h and Cmax) attributable to the presence of DM and other variables that emerged from the univariate analyses. All statistical evaluations were performed with SPSS for Windows, version 12.0.1 (SPSS). P values <.05 were considered to be statistically significant in all analyses.

Previous SectionNext Section

Results

Patients. Thirty-six patients with pulmonary TB were recruited for the study, of whom 2 were excluded from further analysis. Rifampicin concentrations in 1 patient could not be analyzed because of interference from endogenous substances. Analysis of the second excluded patient revealed a trough plasma rifampicin concentration of 2.8 mg/L before witnessed drug intake, which suggests that the patient had already taken the drug before arrival at the clinic. The remaining 34 patients presented with a 2–6-month history of cough (100% of patients), shortness of breath (85%), fever (91%), night sweats (68%), and weight loss (85%). All patients had chest radiograph abnormalities, and the results of sputum microscopy and culture for M. tuberculosis were positive for all patients. Characteristics of these patients are presented in table 1. Twelve (71%) of 17 patients with TB and DM used an oral antidiabetic treatment at the time of plasma rifampicin measurement. Glibenclamide was most commonly used; only 1 patient used glipizid. No patient was treated with metformin or insulin. Two patients used captopril for the treatment of hypertension. Concurrent use of glibenclamide, glipizide, or captopril is not known to affect the pharmacokinetics of anti-TB drugs. As expected, body weight and body mass index were significantly higher in the TB-DM group (table 1). As a result, the rifampicin dose per kilogram of body weight was lower for patients in the TB-DM group.

Pharmacokinetics of rifampicin and desacetylrifampicin. Marked interindividual variability was observed in exposure to rifampicin (range [AUC0–6 h], 5.5–71.6 mg × h/L). Patients with TB and DM had significantly lower rifampicin plasma concentrations than did patients with TB and without DM (table 2). The mean exposure to rifampicin (AUC0–6 h) in patients with TB and DM was 53% lower than the exposure in patients with TB only (figure 1). Similar differences were found for Cmax, and a strong correlation was observed between AUC0–6 h and Cmax in both patients with TB only and patients with TB and DM (Pearson correlation coefficients, 0.983 and 0.987, respectively; P < .01). The percentage of patients who reached a reference value of at least 8 mg/L for rifampicin was significantly lower in patients with TB and DM compared with patients with TB only. Although median rifampicin Tmax values differed between patients with TB and DM and patients with TB only, this difference did not reach statistical significance at all. With regard to desacetylrifampicin, the AUC0–6 h and Cmax values were significantly lower in the TB-DM group, whereas the Tmax was not different. The geometric mean of the desacetylrifampicin/rifampicin AUC0–6 h ratio was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.11–0.15) in the TB-only group, and 0.09 (95% CI, 0.06–0.11) in the TB-DM group (P = .009).

Table 2
Table 2

Pharmacokinetic parameters of rifampicin and desacetylrifampicin in 17 patients with tuberculosis and type 2 diabetes (TB-DM) and in 17 patients with TB only.

Univariate analyses. In the TB-DM group, no statistically significant difference was found in exposure between male and female patients (AUC0–6 h, 18.8 vs. 13.0 mg × h/L; not significant). In the TB-only group, male patients had lower rifampicin exposure than female patients (mean AUC0–6 h, 24.4 vs. 42.5 mg × h/L; P = .048). Age did not display a significant correlation with rifampicin pharmacokinetics. Body weight inversely correlated with rifampicin exposure, both in the TB-DM group (Pearson correlation coefficient, -0.462; P = .062) and in the TB-only group (Pearson correlation coefficient, -0.468; P = .058) (figure 2). The parallel lines in figure 2 demonstrate an equal effect of body weight on exposure in both groups. In addition, the difference between the dashed (TB) and solid (TB-DM) lines illustrates a clear effect of the presence of DM on the exposure to rifampicin. Fasting plasma glucose showed an inverse correlation with AUC0–6 h (Pearson correlation coefficient, -0.476; P = .004) in the group as a whole.

Multivariate analysis. The assumptions for multivariate linear regression were met, including the absence of multicollinearity, the independence of the outcome value, and the linearity of the model. The effect of the independent variables “body weight” and “DM” on the dependent variable “the natural logarithm of AUC0–6h” were assessed in Model 1 (table 3). The absolute difference in the natural logarithm of AUC0–6 h between patients with TB only and patients with TB and DM was 0.745. Every additional kilogram of body weight decreased the natural logarithm of AUC0–6 h by 0.035. The weight difference between patients with TB only and patients with TB and DM was approximately 9.5 kg. The weight-corrected portion in the absolute difference for the presence of DM was 0.425, corresponding with 57% of the difference in exposure to rifampicin between groups.

Table 3
Table 3

Regression analysis of independent associations of various variables with exposure to rifampicin.

A second regression analysis was performed in which fasting blood glucose level was assessed as an independent variable for the natural logarithm of AUC0–6 h. The presence of DM and fasting blood glucose level cannot be assessed simultaneously in 1 model, because these variables are highly correlated. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that fasting blood glucose level was significantly associated with rifampicin AUC0–6 h (table 3) and Cmax (data not shown). Every extra millimole of fasting blood glucose per liter resulted in a decrease of the natural logarithm of AUC0–6 h of 0.114. The mean difference of approximately 4 mmol/L in fasting plasma glucose between patients with TB only and patients with TB and DM corresponds with 61% of the difference in exposure to rifampicin. Fasting blood glucose and DM status show equal effects on the dependent variable natural logarithm of AUC0–6 h. Thus, body weight and DM and hyperglycemia are strongly and inversely associated with rifampicin AUC0–6 h and Cmax.

Previous SectionNext Section

Discussion

In this study, we showed that exposure (AUC0–6 h) to rifampicin was 53% lower in Indonesian patients with TB and DM compared with patients with TB who did not have DM. Similarly, Cmax of rifampicin was above the target concentration of 8 mg/L in only 1 (6%) of 17 patients with TB and DM compared with 8 (47%) of 17 patients with TB who did not have DM. A higher body weight and the presence of DM contributed to lower rifampicin exposure. In addition, more profound hyperglycemia was associated with lower plasma rifampicin concentrations.

The magnitude of the difference in AUC0–6 h and Cmax values of rifampicin between patients with TB and DM and patients with TB only was much larger than anticipated and is likely to be clinically relevant. A 50% lower exposure to a key TB drug such as rifampicin may cause clinical failures and may favor the emergence of drug resistance. In fact, the findings of this study suggest that the unfavorable response of patients with DM to anti-TB drugs [5, 6] may at least partially be explained by differences in pharmacokinetics. If these findings are confirmed, higher fixed dosages of rifampicin may be warranted for patients with DM and a higher body weight. If available, physicians may consider the assessment of plasma concentrations of rifampicin in patients with DM in order to individualize dosing. In this case, we would advise the use of multiple time point sampling.

Several mechanisms have been postulated to explain the altered pharmacokinetics of anti-TB drugs in patients with DM. The absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of drugs could all be changed in patients with DM [8]. With regard to absorption, gastrointestinal tract problems are common in patients with DM. In this study, patients with diarrhea and vomiting were excluded from the study beforehand. Gastroparesis (delayed gastric emptying) could decrease the rate of drug absorption, as reflected in an increase in Tmax and a decrease in rifampicin Cmax. However, this study did not reveal any marked difference in Tmax between the 2 study groups, which suggests that delayed absorption was not responsible for a lower Cmax in patients with TB and DM. It should be acknowledged that the number of sampling points may have been too small to detect a change in Tmax. Furthermore, it is unlikely that gastroparesis is associated with reduced absorption of rifampicin, because this drug is not subject to saturable first-pass metabolism after multiple doses and it does not have an absorption window in the gastrointestinal tract [22, 23].

The low exposure to rifampicin in patients with TB and DM may possibly be explained by the highly pH-dependent solubility and absorption of rifampicin [23, 24]. DM-associated hyperglycemia—which is strongly related to rifampicin exposure in this study—can reduce secretion of gastric hydrochloric acid (which results in a higher gastric pH) [7, 25], which, in turn, has been associated with a decrease in rifampicin absorption [23]. This hypothesis needs confirmation, because gastric pH was not measured in our study, and other studies have not observed any effect of antacids on the pharmacokinetics of rifampicin [26].

With regard to metabolism and excretion, our results suggest that the metabolism of rifampicin to the metabolite desacetylrifampicin was reduced—or excretion of this metabolite was increased—in patients with TB and DM, at least in the first 6 h after drug administration. However, these findings do not explain the low exposure to rifampicin in patients with TB and DM; on the contrary, decreased metabolism of rifampicin in the hepatocytes of patients with DM might be explained by the expression of advanced glycosylation end-products in the liver [27], which impairs the normal function of basement membranes of cells, for example [28].

Linear regression analysis revealed an unexpectedly strong effect of body weight on the exposure to rifampicin. These results emphasize that rifampicin should be carefully dosed on the basis of body weight, as recommended by the World Health Organization and others [20]. Apparently, uniform dosing of rifampicin for all Indonesian patients ("one dose fits all") is inadequate. As was clearly shown, the fact that patients with TB and DM generally had higher body weights can only partially explain the differences in rifampicin pharmacokinetics.

This study was limited by the small sample size and by the limited number of time points for pharmacokinetic assessment. In addition, this study only assessed the pharmacokinetics of rifampicin in the continuation phase of treatment. Furthermore, this study focused on pharmacokinetics and did not assess the outcome of TB treatment.

In summary, we showed that exposure to rifampicin was strongly reduced in patients with TB and with DM. Patients with TB and concomitant DM and who have a higher body weight may possibly need a higher dose of rifampicin. Screening for DM at TB diagnosis could be worthwhile, and physicians may consider pharmacokinetic assessment of rifampicin in this patient group (if available). Additional studies are warranted to assess the influence of DM—as well as the possible benefit of active treatment of DM—on the pharmacokinetics of TB drugs and the outcome of TB treatment.

Previous SectionNext Section

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the patients for their participation in this study. The staff at the outpatient clinic Perkumpulan Pemberantasan Tuberculosis Indonesia is warmly thanked for their cooperation. Cees Tack (diabetologist) and Huub Straatman (statistician) are thanked for their valuable input. Marga de Graaff-Teulen is acknowledged for the analysis of the plasma samples.

Financial support. Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) and PRIOR, a research network supported by the Netherlands Foundation for Advancement of Tropical Research (NWO-WOTRO).

Potential conflicts of interest. All authors: no conflicts.

  • Received April 28, 2006.
  • Accepted June 13, 2006.
Previous Section
 

References

  1. ↵
    1. King H,
    2. Aubert RE,
    3. Herman WH
    . Global burden of diabetes, 1995–2025: prevalence, numerical estimates, and projections. Diabetes Care 1998;21:1414-31.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Singla R,
    2. Khan N,
    3. Al-Sharif N,
    4. Ai-Sayegh MO,
    5. Shaikh MA,
    6. Osman MM
    . Influence of diabetes on manifestations and treatment outcome of pulmonary TB patients. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2006;10:74-9.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Coker R,
    2. McKee M,
    3. Atun R,
    4. et al
    . Risk factors for pulmonary tuberculosis in Russia: case-control study. BMJ 2006;332:85-7.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Alisjahbana B
    . Diabetes mellitus is strongly associated with tuberculosis in Indonesia. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2006;10:1-5.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. Guptan A,
    2. Shah A
    . Tuberculosis and diabetes: an appraisal. Ind J Tub 2000;47:3-8.
  6. ↵
    1. Boucot KR
    . Diabetes mellitus and pulmonary tuberculosis. J Chronic Dis 1957;6:256-79.
    CrossRefMedline
  7. ↵
    1. Groop LC,
    2. Luzi L,
    3. DeFronzo RA,
    4. Melander A
    . Hyperglycaemia and absorption of sulphonylurea drugs. Lancet 1989;2:129-30.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Gwilt PR,
    2. Nahhas RR,
    3. Tracewell WG
    . The effects of diabetes mellitus on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in humans. Clin Pharmacokinet 1991;20:477-90.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Sahai J,
    2. Gallicano K,
    3. Swick L,
    4. et al
    . Reduced plasma concentrations of antituberculosis drugs in patients with HIV infection. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:289-93.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Weiner M,
    2. Benator D,
    3. Burman W,
    4. et al
    . Association between acquired rifamycin resistance and the pharmacokinetics of rifabutin and isoniazid among patients with HIV and tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:1481-91.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Ridzon R,
    2. Whitney CG,
    3. McKenna MT,
    4. et al
    . Risk factors for rifampin mono-resistant tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;157:1881-4.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Jayaram R,
    2. Gaonkar S,
    3. Kaur P,
    4. et al
    . Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of rifampin in an aerosol infection model of tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003;47:2118-24.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Tappero JW,
    2. Bradford WZ,
    3. Agerton TB,
    4. et al
    . Serum concentrations of antimycobacterial drugs in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis in Botswana. Clin Infect Dis 2005;41:461-9.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Ruslami R,
    2. Nijland H,
    3. Aarnoutse R,
    4. et al
    . Evaluation of high- versus standard-dose rifampin in Indonesian patients with pulmonary tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006;50:822-3.
    FREE Full Text
    1. van Crevel R,
    2. Alisjahbana B,
    3. de Lange WC,
    4. et al
    . Low plasma concentrations of rifampicin in tuberculosis patients in Indonesia. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2002;6:497-502.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. McIlleron H,
    2. Wash P,
    3. Burger A,
    4. Norman J,
    5. Folb PI,
    6. Smith P
    . Determinants of rifampin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol pharmacokinetics in a cohort of tuberculosis patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006;50:1170-7.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. van Crevel R,
    2. Nelwan RH,
    3. Borst F,
    4. et al
    . Bioavailability of rifampicin in Indonesian subjects: a comparison of different local drug manufacturers. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2004;8:500-3.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. WHO
    . Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications. Report no. 344. 1999. Available at: http://www.diabetes.org.uk/infocentre/carerec/diagnosi.doc. Accessed 18 August 2006.
  19. ↵
    1. Oluboyo PO,
    2. Erasmus RT
    . The significance of glucose intolerance in pulmonary tuberculosis. Tubercle 1990;71:135-8.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Peloquin CA
    . Therapeutic drug monitoring in the treatment of tuberculosis. Drugs 2002;62:2169-83.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    1. Iseman MD
    . A clinician's guide to tuberculosis. Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 1999.
  22. ↵
    1. Fleisher D,
    2. Li C,
    3. Zhou Y,
    4. Pao LH,
    5. Karim A
    . Drug, meal and formulation interactions influencing drug absorption after oral administration: clinical implications. Clin Pharmacokinet 1999;36:233-54.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    1. Kenny MT,
    2. Strates B
    . Metabolism and pharmacokinetics of the antibiotic rifampin. Drug Metab Rev 1981;12:159-218.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    1. Panchagnula R,
    2. Agrawal S,
    3. Ashokraj Y,
    4. et al
    . Fixed dose combinations for tuberculosis: lessons learned from clinical, formulation and regulatory perspective. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 2004;26:703-21.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    1. Angervall L,
    2. Dotevall G
    . The gastric mucosa in diabetes mellitus: a functional and histopathological study. Acta Med Scand 1961;169:339-49.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Peloquin CA,
    2. Namdar R,
    3. Singleton MD,
    4. Nix DE
    . Pharmacokinetics of rifampin under fasting conditions, with food, and with antacids. Chest 1999;115:12-8.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Brownlee M,
    2. Cerami A,
    3. Vlassara H
    . Advanced glycosylation end products in tissue and the biochemical basis of diabetic complications. N Engl J Med 1988;318:1315-21.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Bernstein G
    . The diabetic stomach: management strategies for clinicians and patients. Diabetes Spectrum 2000;13:11. Available at: http://journal.diabetes.org/diabetesspectrum/00v13n1/pg11.htm. Accessed 18 August 2006.
| Table of Contents

This Article

  1. Clin Infect Dis. (2006) 43 (7): 848-854. doi: 10.1086/507543
  1. AbstractFree
  2. » Full Text (HTML)Free
  3. Full Text (PDF)Free

Classifications

Share

  1. Email this article

Navigate This Article

Current Issue

  1. March 1, 2012 54 (5)
  1. Clinical Infectious Diseases
  1. Alert me to new issues

Most