Alternative Methods for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Dose Adjustment of Tuberculosis Treatment in Clinical Settings: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background and objective: Quantifying exposure to drugs for personalized dose adjustment is of critical importance in patients with tuberculosis who may be at risk of treatment failure or toxicity due to individual variability in pharmacokinetics. Traditionally, serum or plasma samples have been used for drug monitoring, which only poses collection and logistical challenges in high-tuberculosis burden/low-resourced areas. Less invasive and lower cost tests using alternative biomatrices other than serum or plasma may improve the feasibility of therapeutic drug monitoring.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted to include studies reporting anti-tuberculosis drug concentration measurements in dried blood spots, urine, saliva, and hair. Reports were screened to include study design, population, analytical methods, relevant pharmacokinetic parameters, and risk of bias.

Results: A total of 75 reports encompassing all four biomatrices were included. Dried blood spots reduced the sample volume requirement and cut shipping costs whereas simpler laboratory methods to test the presence of drug in urine can allow point-of-care testing in high-burden settings. Minimal pre-processing requirements with saliva samples may further increase acceptability for laboratory staff. Multi-analyte panels have been tested in hair with the capacity to test a wide range of drugs and some of their metabolites.

Conclusions: Reported data were mostly from small-scale studies and alternative biomatrices need to be qualified in large and diverse populations for the demonstration of feasibility in operational settings. High-quality interventional studies will improve the uptake of alternative biomatrices in guidelines and accelerate implementation in programmatic tuberculosis treatment.

Fig. 1

Flowchart of the search of reports included in this systematic review. Chart from Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10. 1136 / bmj. n71 (http://www.prisma-statement.org)