Rifapentine vs. rifampicin for the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rifapentine (RPT) vs. rifampicin (RMP) for the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). DESIGN Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared combination drug regimens containing RPT with those containing RMP for the treatment of drug-susceptible or previously untreated PTB. RESULTS Nine RCTs were identified. Statistically significant differences were not found in the cure rates, severe adverse effects, severe hepatotoxicity or bacteriological relapse rates between the regimens containing once- or twice-weekly RPT and those containing daily RMP for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) negative patients, but were found in the bacteriological relapse rates between regimens containing once-weekly or less frequent RPT and those containing twice- or thrice-weekly RMP: the pooled relative risks in the two subgroups were respectively 1.71 (95%CI 1.13-2.58, P = 0.01) and 2.44 (95%CI 1.15-5.18, P = 0.02). The trial for HIV-positive patients did not show significant differences in the sputum conversion rate, severe adverse effects or bacteriological relapse rate between the RPT- and RMP-containing regimens; four of the five relapses were associated with the RPT-containing regimen, but none of the three relapses with the RMP-containing regimen produced monoresistance to rifamycin (RIF). CONCLUSION Once- or twice-weekly RPT and daily RMP have similar efficacy and safety for the treatment of HIV-negative PTB, but once-weekly or less frequent use of RPT, in comparison with twice- or thrice-weekly RMP, increases the risk of bacteriological relapse. RPT might increase the risk of resistance to RIF in HIV-positive patients.