Efficacy and safety of low-dose rifabutin-based 7-day triple therapy as a third- or later-line Helicobacter pylori eradication regimen.

BACKGROUND: Rifabutin-based regimens are used as rescue therapy for refractory Helicobacter pylori infection; however, the duration for which treatment is required and side effects are concerning. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of 7-day rifabutin, amoxicillin, and vonoprazan triple therapy as third- or later-line treatment for H. pylori infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who did not respond to second-line therapy were enrolled. After H. pylori infection was confirmed with the culture method, the patients received rifabutin-containing triple therapy (20 mg vonoprazan b.i.d., 500 mg amoxicillin q.i.d., and 150 mg rifabutin q.d.) for 7 days. Twelve weeks after the eradication therapy, successful eradication was confirmed using a 13 C urea breath test or the H. pylori stool antigen test. The results obtained from our previous study that reported a 10-day or 14-day esomeprazole based rifabutin-containing triple therapy as a third- or fourth-line rescue therapy treated patients were used as historical control. We determined the minimum inhibitory concentrations of amoxicillin and rifabutin. We also evaluated whether the patients were positive for the mutation of the rpoB gene. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses showed that our regimen resulted in a high eradication rate (91.2%, 95% CI: 84%-99% and 92.7%, 95% CI: 86%-100%, respectively). Adverse events occurred in 31.6% of the patients, and two patients discontinued the therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a 7-day low-dose rifabutin-based triple therapy with vonoprazan and amoxicillin. Our results suggest that our regimen was effective and safe as a third- or later-line H. pylori eradication regimen. To clarify what component in this regimen are critical, subsequent studies using a factorial design (comparing vonoprazan-amoxicillin dual therapy vs. vonoprazan-rifabutin triple therapy) will be needed.

Rifabutin pharmacokinetics and safety among TB/HIV-coinfected children receiving lopinavir/ritonavir-containing second-line ART.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options are limited for TB/HIV-coinfected children who require PI-based ART. Rifabutin is the preferred rifamycin for adults on PIs, but the one study evaluating rifabutin with PIs among children was stopped early due to severe neutropenia. METHODS: We evaluated rifabutin safety and plasma pharmacokinetics among coinfected children 3-15 years of age receiving rifabutin 2.5 mg/kg daily with standard doses of lopinavir/ritonavir. The AUC0-24 at 2, 4 and 8 weeks after rifabutin initiation was described using intensive sampling and non-compartmental analysis. Clinical and laboratory toxicities were intensively monitored at 12 visits throughout the study. RESULTS: Among 15 children with median (IQR) age 13.1 (10.9-14.0) years and weight 25.5 (22.3-30.5) kg, the median (IQR) rifabutin AUC0-24 was 5.21 (4.38-6.60) µg·h/mL. Four participants had AUC0-24 below 3.8 µg·h/mL (a target for the population average exposure) at week 2 and all had AUC0-24 higher than 3.8 µg·h/mL at the 4 and 8 week visits. Of 506 laboratory evaluations during rifabutin, grade 3 and grade 4 abnormalities occurred in 16 (3%) and 2 (0.4%) instances, respectively, involving 9 (60%) children. Specifically, grade 3 (n = 4) and grade 4 (n = 1) neutropenia resolved without treatment interruption or clinical sequelae in all patients. One child died at week 4 of HIV-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: In children, rifabutin 2.5 mg/kg daily achieved AUC0-24 comparable to adults and favourable HIV and TB treatment outcomes were observed. Severe neutropenia was relatively uncommon and improved with ongoing rifabutin therapy. These data support the use of rifabutin for TB/HIV-coinfected children who require lopinavir/ritonavir.

Rifabutin triple therapy for first-line and rescue treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Due to the increasing resistance of Helicobacter pylori, there is a need for novel antibiotic treatment protocols. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to determine the effectiveness and safety of rifabutin triple therapy for H. pylori infection. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of prospective clinical trials with a treatment arm consisting of proton pump inhibitor, amoxicillin, and rifabutin and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: Thirty-three prospective studies including 44 datasets were identified. Meta-analysis of four RCTs for rescue treatment found no difference between treatment groups (odds ratio [OR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.437-1.791, I2  = 68.1%, P = 0.733). Only one RCT compared rifabutin therapy with control for first-line treatment of H. pylori infection (OR 3.78, 95% CI 2.44-5.87, P < 0.0001). Treatment was more likely to be successful in Asian versus non-Asian populations (81.0% vs 72.4%, P = 0.001) and when daily amoxicillin dose was ≥ 3000 mg or proton pump inhibitor dose was ≥ 80 mg or treatment duration was 14 days (80.6% vs 66.0%, P = 0.0001). The overall event rate for adverse effects was 24.8% (729/2937) (95% CI 0.23-0.26), and the pooled OR for adverse effects in the treatment versus control group was 0.93 (95% CI 0.50-1.75) (I2  = 79.76, P = 0.82). CONCLUSION: Evidence for the effectiveness of rifabutin for the first-line treatment of H. pylori infection in adults is limited, and studies comparing rifabutin with conventional first-line treatments are lacking.

Pharmacokinetic study of two different rifabutin doses co-administered with lopinavir/ritonavir in African HIV and tuberculosis co-infected adult patients.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the pharmacokinetic profile of 150 mg rifabutin (RBT) taken every other day (every 48 h) versus 300 mg RBT taken every other day (E.O.D), both in combination with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), in adult patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and tuberculosis (TB) co-infection. METHODS: This is a two-arm, open-label, pharmacokinetic, randomised study conducted in Burkina Faso between May 2013 and December 2015. Enrolled patients were randomised to receive either 150 mg RBT EOD (arm A, 9 subjects) or 300 mg RBT EOD (arm B, 7 subjects), both associated with LPV/r taken twice daily. RBT plasma concentrations were evaluated after 2 weeks of combined HIV and TB treatment. Samples were collected just before drug ingestion and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12 h after drug ingestion to measure plasma drug concentration using an HPLC-MS/MS assay. RESULTS: The Cmax and AUC0-12h medians in arm A (Cmax = 296 ng/mL, IQR: 205-45; AUC0-12h = 2528 ng.h/mL, IQR: 1684-2735) were lower than those in arm B (Cmax = 600 ng/mL, IQR: 403-717; AUC0-12h = 4042.5 ng.h/mL, IQR: 3469-5761), with a statistically significant difference in AUC0-12h (p = 0.044) but not in Cmax (p = 0.313). No significant differences were observed in Tmax (3 h versus 4 h). Five patients had a Cmax below the plasma therapeutic limit (< 300 ng/mL) in the 150 mg RBT arm, while the Cmax was above this threshold for all patients in the 300 mg RBT arm. Additionally, at 48 h after drug ingestion, all patients had a mycobacterial minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) above the limit (> 64 ng/mL) in the 300 mg RBT arm, while 4/9 patients had such values in the 150 mg RBT arm. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed that the 150 mg dose of rifabutin ingested EOD in combination with LPV/r is inadequate and could lead to selection of rifamycin-resistant mycobacteria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PACTR201310000629390, 28th October 2013.

Safety and efficacy of rifabutin among HIV/TB-coinfected children on lopinavir/ritonavir-based ART.

BACKGROUND: TB is the leading cause of death among HIV-infected children, yet treatment options for those who require PI-based ART are suboptimal. Rifabutin is the preferred rifamycin for adults on PI-based ART; only one study has evaluated its use among children on PIs and two of six children developed treatment-limiting neutropenia. METHODS: Since 2009, rifabutin has been available for HIV/TB-coinfected children requiring PI-based ART in the Harvard/APIN programme in Nigeria. We retrospectively analysed laboratory and clinical toxicities at baseline and during rifabutin therapy, and examined HIV/TB outcomes. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2015, 48 children received rifabutin-containing TB therapy with PI (lopinavir/ritonavir)-based ART: 50% were female with a median (IQR) baseline age of 1.7 (0.9-5.0) years and a median (IQR) CD4+ cell percentage of 15% (9%-25%); 52% were ART experienced. Eighty-five percent completed the 6 month rifabutin course with resolution of TB symptoms and 79% were retained in care at 12 months. Adverse events (grade 1-4) were more common at baseline (27%) than during rifabutin treatment (15%) (P = 0.006). Absolute neutrophil count was lower during rifabutin compared with baseline (median = 1762 versus 2976 cells/mm3, respectively), but only one instance (2%) of grade 3 neutropenia occurred during rifabutin treatment. CONCLUSIONS: With clinical and laboratory monitoring, our data suggest that rifabutin is a safe option for TB therapy among children on PI-based ART. By contrast with the only other study of this combination in children, severe neutropenia was rare. Furthermore, outcomes from this cohort suggest that rifabutin is effective, and a novel option for children who require PI-based ART. Additional study of rifabutin plus PIs in children is urgently needed.

Tuberculosis-HIV treatment with rifampicin or rifabutin: are the outcomes different?

BACKGROUND: Rifamycins are a group of antibiotics mainly used in the treatment of tuberculosis (TB), however they interact with antiretroviral therapy (ART). Rifabutin allows more regimens options for concomitant imunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment compared to rifampicin. OBJECTIVE: Compare the outcomes of TB-HIV co-infected patients who used rifampicin or rifabutin. METHODS: We analysed data from a prospective cohort study at National Institute of Infectious Diseases Evandro Chagas, Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brazil. Patients who were treated for TB and HIV with rifampicin or rifabutin, from February 2011 to September 2016 were included. FINDINGS: There were 130 TB-HIV patients, of whom 102 were treated with rifampicin and 28 with rifabutin. All patients in the rifabutin-treated group and 55% of the rifampicin-treated group patients were ART-experienced. Patients treated with rifampicin had similar abandon and cure rates, interruptions in treatment due to adverse reactions, immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome and a similar mortality rate as those treated with rifabutin. However, rifampicin-treated patients had higher CD4 counts and more frequently undetectable HIV viral load by the end of treatment (67% versus 18%, p < 0.001) compared to rifabutin-treated patients, even when only ART-experienced patients were evaluated (66,6% versus 36,3%, p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who used rifabutin had worst immune and virological control. This group had more ART-experienced patients. New and simpler regimens are needed for patients who do not respond to previous antiretroviral therapies.

Rifabutin: where do we stand in 2016?

Rifabutin is a spiro-piperidyl-rifamycin structurally closely related to rifampicin that shares many of its properties. We attempted to address the reasons why this drug, which was recently recognized as a WHO Essential Medicine, still had a far narrower range of indications than rifampicin, 24 years after its launch. In this comprehensive review of the classic and more recent rifabutin experimental and clinical studies, the current state of knowledge about rifabutin is depicted, relying on specific pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, antimicrobial properties, resistance data and side effects compared with rifampicin. There are consistent in vitro data and clinical studies showing that rifabutin has at least equivalent activity/efficacy and acceptable tolerance compared with rifampicin in TB and non-tuberculous mycobacterial diseases. Clinical studies have emphasized the clinical benefits of low rifabutin liver induction in patients with AIDS under PIs, in solid organ transplant patients under immunosuppressive drugs or in patients presenting intolerable side effects related to rifampicin. The contribution of rifabutin for rifampicin-resistant, but rifabutin-susceptible, Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates according to the present breakpoints has been challenged and is now controversial. Compared with rifampicin, rifabutin's lower AUC is balanced by higher intracellular penetration and lower MIC for most pathogens. Clinical studies are lacking in non-mycobacterial infections.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of rifabutin in young HIV-infected children receiving rifabutin and lopinavir/ritonavir.

OBJECTIVES: Co-treatment of HIV and TB in young children is complicated by limited treatment options and complex drug-drug interactions. Rifabutin is an alternative to rifampicin for adults receiving a ritonavir-boosted PI. We aimed to evaluate the short-term safety and pharmacokinetics of rifabutin when given with lopinavir/ritonavir in children. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted an open-label study of rifabutin dosed at 5 mg/kg three times a week in HIV-infected children≤5 years of age receiving lopinavir/ritonavir. Intensive steady-state pharmacokinetic sampling was conducted after six doses. The Division of AIDS 2004, clarification 2009, table for grading severity of adverse events was used to classify drug toxicities. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01259219. RESULTS: Six children completed the study prior to closure by institutional review boards. The median (range) AUC0-48 of rifabutin was 6.91 (3.52-8.67) µg ·â€Šh/mL, the median (range) Cmax of rifabutin was 0.39 (0.19-0.46) µg/mL, the median (range) AUC0-48 of 25-O-desacetyl rifabutin was 5.73 (2.85-9.13) µg ·â€Šh/mL and the median (range) Cmax of 25-O-desacetyl rifabutin was 0.17 (0.08-0.32) µg/mL. The neutrophil count declined in all children; two children experienced grade 4 neutropenia, which resolved rapidly without complications. There was strong correlation between AUC0-48 measures and neutrophil counts. CONCLUSIONS: Rifabutin dosed at 5 mg/kg three times per week resulted in lower AUC0-48, AUC0-24 and Cmax values for rifabutin and 25-O-desacetyl rifabutin compared with adults receiving 150 mg of rifabutin daily, the current recommended dose. We observed high rates of severe transient neutropenia, possibly due to immaturity of CYP3A4 in young children. It remains unclear whether a safe and effective rifabutin dose exists for treatment of TB in children receiving lopinavir/ritonavir.

Safety of rifabutin replacing rifampicin in the treatment of tuberculosis: a single-centre retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The safety of rifabutin replacing rifampicin among adults having rifampicin-related adverse reactions (ARs) during the treatment of tuberculosis remains unknown. METHODS: From June 2006 to June 2010, a total of 2868 newly treated tuberculosis patients without HIV infection in a referral hospital were screened in this retrospective cohort study. RESULTS: Among the screened patients, a total of 221 (8%) patients who received rifabutin replacing rifampicin were included. Of these patients, 158 (72%) tolerated rifabutin during treatment, but 47 (21%) and 16 (7%) experienced mild and severe rifabutin-related ARs (including neutropenia, severe hepatitis and uveitis), respectively, and needed to discontinue rifabutin. Those having previous rifampicin-related arthralgia, dermatological events and cholestasis had a higher AR recurrence rate (60%, 23% and 9%, respectively) than others (5% for hepatitis and gastrointestinal intolerance and 0% for flu-like syndrome, neutropenia and others; P < 0.01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that females (OR 3.35; 95% CI 1.06-10.56; P = 0.04) and patients with hepatitis virus B (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection (OR 3.72; 95% CI 1.19-11.67; P = 0.02) were at a higher risk of rifabutin-related severe ARs. No development of new drug resistance and no relapse of tuberculosis were found during 2 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Rifabutin replacing rifampicin was well tolerated in most adults who had rifampicin-related ARs. Females and those with HCV or HBV coinfection were more prone to rifabutin-related severe ARs and required more cautious monitoring.

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of the interaction between etravirine and rifabutin or clarithromycin in HIV-negative, healthy volunteers: results from two Phase 1 studies.

OBJECTIVES: Drug-drug interactions between etravirine and rifabutin or clarithromycin were examined in two separate open-label, randomized, two-period, crossover trials in HIV-negative, healthy volunteers. METHODS: Rifabutin study: 16 participants received 300 mg of rifabutin once daily (14 days) and then 800 mg of etravirine twice daily (Phase 2 formulation; 21 days) plus 300 mg of rifabutin once daily (days 8-21). Clarithromycin study: 16 participants received 200 mg of etravirine twice daily (commercial formulation; 8 days) and then 500 mg of clarithromycin twice daily (13 days) plus 200 mg of etravirine twice daily (days 6-13). A 14 day washout period between treatments was mandatory in both studies. Full pharmacokinetic profiles of each drug and safety/tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Rifabutin decreased etravirine exposure by 37%; etravirine decreased rifabutin and 25-O-desacetyl rifabutin exposure by 17%. Clarithromycin increased etravirine exposure by 42%, whereas etravirine decreased clarithromycin exposure by 39% and increased 14-OH clarithromycin exposure by 21%. No serious adverse events were reported in either trial. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term etravirine coadministration with rifabutin or clarithromycin was well tolerated. Etravirine can be coadministered with 300 mg of rifabutin once daily in the absence of an additional potent cytochrome P450 inducer. No dose adjustments are required upon etravirine/clarithromycin coadministration, but alternatives to clarithromycin are recommended when used for Mycobacterium avium complex prophylaxis or treatment.

Rifabutin-based high-dose proton-pump inhibitor and amoxicillin triple regimen as the rescue treatment for Helicobacter pylori.

BACKGROUND: Rifabutin has been known to be effective in multidrug-resistant Helicobacter pylori-harboring patients undergoing treatment failure for H. pylori infection. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of 7-day treatment regimen consisting rifabutin daily but increasing the dose of amoxicillin and lansoprazole in patients who have failed first and second eradication and to assess the side effect profiles in South Korea. METHODS: From December 2007 to May 2013, 59 H. pylori-infected patients with two previous eradication failures were enrolled for this study prospectively. The eligible patients were randomly assigned to either group A or B. Group A received lansoprazole 30 mg bid, amoxicillin 1.0 g tid and rifabutin 150 mg bid during 7 days, whereas group B received lansoprazole 60 mg bid, amoxicillin 1.0 g tid and rifabutin 150 mg bid during 7 days. RESULTS: In group A, H. pylori eradication was achieved in 25 (78.1%) of the 32 patients in the ITT analysis and in 25 (80.6%) of the 31 patients in the PP analysis. In group B, H. pylori eradication was achieved in 26 (96.3%) of the 27 patients in the ITT analysis and in 27 (100%) of the 26 patients in the PP analysis. There was statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of the eradication rates in PP analysis (p = .047), whereas a marginally statistical significance was found in terms of the eradication rates in ITT analysis (p = .051). Reported side effects were mild, and treatment was well tolerated. No major changes in physical examination or in standard laboratory parameters were observed after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Rifabutin-based high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI)-combined therapy as empirical rescue treatment is more effective than standard dose PPI-combined rifabutin-based therapy, safe and best tolerable in third-line therapy in the Korean population. The key to successful rescue therapy with rifabutin-amoxicillin-PPI regimen may be to increase doses of PPI.

Use of rifabutin for the treatment of a latent tuberculosis infection in a patient after solid organ transplantation.

Latent tuberculosis infection is an important problem for solid organ transplant recipients because of the frequency of its occurrence and its potential for reactivation. Because of the high mortality rate associated with active tuberculosis infections in transplant recipients, guidelines from the American Thoracic Society recommend treatment for latent tuberculosis in this population. However, the choice of treatments is often difficult because liver transplant recipients may be more sensitive to isoniazid hepatotoxicity, and rifampin has significant drug interactions with the calcineurin inhibitors used for immunosuppression. Two prior case reports described success with the use of rifabutin, a rifampin alternative, as part of a multidrug treatment regimen for active tuberculosis in posttransplant patients; however, there is no prior literature describing any experience with rifabutin for the treatment of latent tuberculosis in the posttransplant setting. We present a summary of tacrolimus drug levels and corresponding dose requirements for a single posttransplant patient during the administration of 3 different latent tuberculosis drug regimens: rifampin alone, rifampin plus ketoconazole, and rifabutin. In this patient's case, rifabutin allowed the maintenance of adequate tacrolimus levels, although an approximate 2.5-fold increase in the dose was required. Rifampin alone was associated with inadequate immunosuppressant levels, and rifampin plus ketoconazole was associated with a problematically prolonged QT interval and concerns about inadequate tuberculosis treatment.

[Clinical experience using rifabutin for treating infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis in elderly Japanese patients].

OBJECTIVES: To clarify whether rifabutin (RBT) can be used for treating tuberculosis in elderly Japanese patients in the clinical setting. METHOD: We performed a clinical chart review from Oct 2008 to Dec 2011, for patients who were diagnosed with tuberculosis and were prescribed rifabutin, at the Fukujuji Hospital (180 beds for respiratory medicine, including 60 for TB). Primarily, we focused on characteristics of patients, the cause for RBT indication, and success rate of treatment. RESULTS: During the study period, 1129 patients were diagnosed with tuberculosis, and among these, 42 (3.7%) patients were prescribed RBT. Of these, 39 patients were included in this study (3 were excluded because their prescription was terminated within 2 weeks because of reasons other than adverse effects). In all, 69% patients were male. Mean age was 69 years, and mean body mass index was 19.1 +/- 3.4 kg/m2. RFP-related adverse effects were observed in 28 patients (72%; age, 73 years); these included gastrointestinal complications in 16, liver dysfunction in 7, skin rashes in 6, and renal dysfunction and thrombocytopenia in 1 each). Additional medication was required in 6 patients, and RBT-resistant TB was noted in 5 patients (28%; age, 60 years). A success rate of 71.4% was observed in cases of RFP-related adverse effects, and that of 81.8% was observed in cases of other reasons. Except for the patient who experienced renal dysfunction, RBT could be used in all patients who experienced RFP-related adverse effects. CONCLUSION: RBT showed a relatively good success rate, even in patients who experienced RFP-related adverse effects. Thus, RBT could be an alternative in cases of RFP-related adverse effects, even in elderly patients.

A Phase 1, Open-Label, Fixed-Sequence, Drug-Drug Interaction Study of Zanubrutinib with Rifabutin in Healthy Volunteers.

Zanubrutinib is a second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor that is primarily metabolized by CYP3A enzymes. Previous drug-drug interaction (DDI) studies have demonstrated that co-administration of zanubrutinib with rifampin, a strong CYP3A inducer, reduces zanubrutinib plasma concentrations, potentially impacting activity. The impact of the co-administration of zanubrutinib with less potent CYP3A inducers is unclear. This phase 1, open-label, fixed-sequence DDI study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of zanubrutinib when co-administered with steady-state rifabutin, a known CYP3A inducer less potent than rifampin, in 13 healthy male volunteers (NCT04470908). Co-administration of zanubrutinib with rifabutin resulted in a less than 2-fold reduction of zanubrutinib exposures. Overall, zanubrutinib was well tolerated. The results of this study provide useful information for the evaluation of the DDI between rifabutin and zanubrutinib. In conjunction with safety and efficacy data from other clinical studies, these results will be taken into consideration to determine the appropriate dose recommendation of zanubrutinib when co-administered with CYP3A inducers.

Third-line and rescue therapy for refractory Helicobacter pylori infection: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Due to increasing resistance rates of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) to different antibiotics, failures in eradication therapies are becoming more frequent. Even though eradication criteria and treatment algorithms for first-line and second-line therapy against H. pylori infection are well-established, there is no clear recommendation for third-line and rescue therapy in refractory H. pylori infection. AIM: To perform a systematic review evaluating the efficacy and safety of rescue therapies against refractory H. pylori infection. METHODS: A systematic search of available rescue treatments for refractory H. pylori infection was conducted on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed search platform based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the effectiveness of H. pylori infection rescue therapies were included. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included in the analysis of mean eradication rates as rescue therapy, and 21 of these were selected for analysis of mean eradication rate as third-line treatment. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple-therapy as third-line treatment, mean eradication rates of 81.6% and 84.4%, 79.4% and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. For third-line quadruple therapy, mean eradication rates of 69.2% and 72.1% were found for bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT), 88.9% and 90.9% for bismuth quadruple therapy, three-in-one, Pylera® (BQT-Pylera), and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT) in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For rifabutin-, sitafloxacin-, levofloxacin-, or metronidazole-based triple therapy as rescue therapy, mean eradication rates of 75.4% and 78.8%, 79.4 and 81.5%, 55.7% and 60.6%, and 62.0% and 63.0% were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For quadruple therapy as rescue treatment, mean eradication rates of 76.7% and 79.2% for BQT, 84.9% and 87.8% for BQT-Pylera, and 61.3% and 64.2% for non-BQT were found in ITT and PP analysis, respectively. For susceptibility-guided therapy, mean eradication rates as third-line and rescue treatment were 75.0% in ITT and 79.2% in PP analysis. CONCLUSION: We recommend sitafloxacin-based triple therapy containing vonoprazan in regions with low macrolide resistance profile. In regions with known resistance to macrolides or unavailability of bismuth, rifabutin-based triple therapy is recommended.

Drug-induced corneal deposits: an up-to-date review.

This review assesses different clinical aspects of the various known drug-induced corneal deposits, based on the corneal layer involved (epithelium, stroma and/or endothelium), and based on the drug class. The most well-known condition caused by drug deposits is vortex keratopathy, or corneal verticillata, which is a whorl-like opacity in the corneal epithelium. Vortex keratopathy is commonly caused by certain cationic amphiphilic drugs such as amiodarone, antimalarials, suramin, tamoxifen, chlorpromazine and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. These deposits usually occur once a certain dose of the drug is reached. Most cases present with mild to moderate symptoms with minimal visual impairment. Most of these deposits resolve automatically, after months to years of drug cessation. Notably, other drug classes can cause deposits in all three layers of the cornea. Chlorpromazine, gold, rifabutin, indomethacin and tyrosine kinase inhibitors can cause stromal deposits, with reduced visual acuity when the anterior stroma is involved. Chlorpromazine and rifabutin can also cause deposits in the endothelial layer of the cornea. Regardless of the type of corneal deposit, local therapies such as topical lubricants or corticosteroids may help improve symptoms. Drug cessation or modification can also be helpful but should be weighed against the systemic risks of the underlying disease.

A Case Series of Rifabutin Use in Staphylococcal Prosthetic Infections.

This case series describes seven patients who received rifabutin in place of rifampin combined with conventional antimicrobial therapy for treatment of hardware-associated staphylococcal infections. Infection recurrence, defined as need for unplanned surgical intervention within the evaluable follow up period after starting rifabutin, occurred in two patients. Two patients experienced possible treatment-associated adverse effects. Findings support future work to examine rifabutin use, when rifampin is not suitable, for adjunctive treatment of staphylococcal hardware infections. IMPORTANCE This work evaluates real-world data and clinical outcomes when rifabutin is used in place of rifampin for adjunctive management of staphylococcal hardware-associated infections. This is the second case study looking at this specific use of rifabutin, signifying the current lack of clinical data in this area. Assessing use of rifabutin in this capacity is clinically important given its lower propensity for drug interactions compared to rifampin.

Rifabutin as salvage therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: Cornerstones and novelties.

When several Helicobacter pylori eradication treatments fail, guidelines recommend a cultured guided approach; however, culture is not widely available. Therefore, a rifabutin based regimen could be the best solution. Rifabutin indeed shows a low rate of antibiotic resistance. Rifabutin is generally used in combination with amoxicillin in a triple therapy, with eradication rates about 80% in third-line regimens. The ideal duration of this therapy should range between 10 and 12 d. Combinations with antibiotics other than amoxicillin have demonstrated even better results, such as vonoprazan, which is a type of novel acid suppressor drug. Finally, a new formulation of triple therapy in a single capsule is under investigation, which is a field that deserves further investigation. Some notes of caution about rifabutin should be mentioned. This drug is used to treat tuberculosis or atypical mycobacteria; therefore, before starting a rifabutin-based eradication regimen, Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection should be thoroughly tested, since its use could promote the development of antibiotic resistance, thus affecting its effectiveness against Koch's bacillus. Additionally, some serious side effects must be evaluated before starting any rifabutin-based therapy. Adverse effects include fever, nausea, vomiting and bone marrow suppression. For this reason, full blood count surveillance is required.