↓ Skip to main content

Protocol for a feasibility randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of N-acetylcysteine in reducing adverse drug reactions among adults treated for multidrug-resist…

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Protocol for a feasibility randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of N-acetylcysteine in reducing adverse drug reactions among adults treated for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Tanzania
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, April 2023
DOI 10.1186/s40814-023-01281-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stellah G. Mpagama, Happiness C. Mvungi, Peter M. Mbelele, Hadija H. Semvua, Alphonce A. Liyoyo, Kristen Petros de Guex, Derek Sloan, Gibson S. Kibiki, Martin Boeree, Patrick P. J. Phillips, Scott K. Heysell

Abstract

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) frequently occur in patients using second-line anti-tuberculosis medicine for treatment of multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). ADRs contribute to treatment interruptions which can compromise treatment response and risk acquired drug resistance to critical newer drugs such as bedaquiline, while severe ADRs carry considerable morbidity and mortality. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has shown promise in reducing ADRs for medications related to TB in case series or randomized controlled trials in other medical conditions, yet evidence is lacking in MDR-TB patients. TB endemic settings have limited capacity to conduct clinical trials. We designed a proof-of-concept clinical trial primarily to explore the preliminary evidence on the protective effect of NAC among people treated for MDR-TB with second-line anti-TB medications. This is a proof-of-concept randomized open label clinical trial with 3 treatment arms including a control arm, an interventional arm of NAC 900 mg daily, and an interventional arm of NAC 900 mg twice-daily administered during the intensive phase of MDR-TB treatment. Patients initiating MDR-TB treatment will be enrolled at Kibong'oto National Center of Excellence for MDR-TB in the Kilimanjaro region of Tanzania. The minimum anticipated sample size is 66; with 22 participants in each arm. ADR monitoring will be performed at baseline and daily follow-up over 24 weeks including blood and urine specimen collection for hepatic and renal function and electrolyte abnormalities, and electrocardiogram. Sputum will be collected at baseline and monthly thereafter and cultured for mycobacteria as well as assayed for other molecular targets of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Adverse drug events will be analysed over time using mixed effect models. Mean differences between arms in change of the ADRs from baseline (with 95% confidence intervals) will be derived from the fitted model. Given that NAC promotes synthesis of glutathione, an intracellular antioxidant that combats the impact of oxidative stress, it may protect against medication induced oxidative damage in organs such as liver, pancreas, kidney, and cells of the immune system. This randomized controlled trial will determine if NAC leads to fewer ADRs, and if this protection is dose dependent. Fewer ADRs among patients treated with MDR-TB may significantly improve treatment outcomes for multidrug regimens that necessitate prolonged treatment durations. Conduct of this trial will set the needed infrastructure for clinical trials. PACTR202007736854169 Registered 03 July 2020.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Student > Postgraduate 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Unknown 10 63%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Chemistry 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unknown 10 63%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2023.
All research outputs
#15,525,894
of 23,847,962 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#735
of 1,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,584
of 409,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#29
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,847,962 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,106 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 409,544 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.