Levofloxacin based non-rifampicin anti-tuberculous therapy: An effective alternative in renal transplant recipients in resource limited setting.

INTRODUCTION: Rifampicin is one of the most effective components of anti-tuberculous therapy (ATT). Since rifampicin is a hepatic enzyme (CYP3A4) inducer, in a post-renal transplant recipient, the dose of calcineurin inhibitors needs to be up-regulated and frequently monitored. In resource-limited (low- and lower-middle-income countries) setting this is not always feasible. Therefore, we evaluated a non-rifampicin-based ATT using levofloxacin in kidney transplant recipients. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the medical records of renal transplant recipients diagnosed with tuberculosis in our institute between 2014 and 2017. After a brief discussion with patients regarding the nature and course of ATT, those who opted for a non-rifampicin based therapy due to financial constraints were included in the study and followed for a minimum of 6 months period after the completion of ATT. RESULTS: Out of the 550 renal transplant recipients, 67 (12.2%) developed tuberculosis after a median period of 24 (1-228) months following transplantation, of them, 64 patients opted for non-rifampicin-based ATT. The mean age was 37.6 years. Only 25% were given anti-thymocyte globulin based induction, while the majority (56; 87.5%) of them were on tacrolimus-based triple-drug maintenance therapy. Extrapulmonary tuberculosis was noted in 33% of cases, while 12 (18.7%) had disseminated disease. The median duration of treatment was 12 months and the cure rate of 93.7% (n = 60) was achieved at the end of therapy. CONCLUSION: Levofloxacin based ATT appears to be a safe and effective alternative of rifampicin in kidney transplant recipients who cannot afford heightened tacrolimus dosage.

Cost-effectiveness of the introduction of specialized oral care with laser therapy in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Oral mucositis (OM) is one of the side effects of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), resulting in major morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the introduction of a specialized oral care program including laser therapy in the care of patients receiving HSCT with regard to morbidity associated with OM. Clinical information was gathered on 167 patients undergoing HSCT and divided according to the presence (n = 91) or absence (n = 76) of laser therapy and oral care. Cost analysis included daily hospital fees, parenteral nutrition (PN) and prescription of opioids. It was observed that the group without laser therapy (group II) showed a higher frequency of severe degrees of OM (relative risk = 16.8, 95% confidence interval -5.8 to 48.9, p < 0.001), with a significant association between this severity and the use of PN (p = 0.001), prescription of opioids (p < 0.001), pain in the oral cavity (p = 0.003) and fever > 37.8°C (p = 0.005). Hospitalization costs in this group were up to 30% higher. The introduction of oral care by a multidisciplinary staff including laser therapy helps reduce morbidity resulting from OM and, consequently, helps minimize hospitalization costs associated with HSCT, even considering therapy costs.