Neity was identified (p = 0.0246 and I2 = 75.85 ). The null hypothesis was not

Neity was identified (p = 0.0246 and I2 = 75.85 ). The null Bay 41-4109 chemical information hypothesis was not GSK1363089MedChemExpress XL880 rejected (p = 0.4091), suggesting that there was no statistical evidence that the number of patients with AEs differed between treatment groups. A forest plot (Fig. 5) showed that the 95 CI range for the log OR contained zero (log OR: 0.24, 95 CI: -0.32 to 0.79), indicating that the OR between treatments was statistically equal to one. Therefore, meta-analysis results did not reveal a statistically significant difference between 4-FDC and SD treatments in terms of the number of patients with AEs. For the analysis of the number of patients with gastrointestinal AEs, all five studies collected related data and were included in the analysis. The fixed-effects model was chosen because heterogeneity was not identified (p = 0.5656). The null hypothesis was rejected (p = 0.0006), suggesting that there was statistical evidence that the chance of occurrence of gastrointestinal AEs differed between treatment groups. A forest plot (Fig. 6) showed that the 95 CI range for the log OR did not contain zero (log OR: 0.50, 95 CI: 0.22?.79), indicating that the OR between treatments was statistically different from one. The meta-analytic measure (log OR) revealed that the SD treatment was associated with a 1.65-fold [i.e., exp (0.5) = 1.65] greater likelihood of gastrointestinal AEs than the 4-FDC treatment.Su (2002) Gravendeel (2003) Zaka (2008) Bartacek (2009) Lienhardt (2011)2.65 [ ?.30 , 5.61 ] 0.61 [ 0.18 , 1.03 ] 0.31 [ ?.50 , 1.12 ] 0.34 [ ?.17 , 0.84 ] 0.63 [ ?.37 , 1.63 ]FE Model0.50 [ 0.22 , 0.79 ]?.00 0.2.4.6.Log Odds RatioFig. 6 ?Forest plot for number of patients with gastrointestinal adverse effects.DiscussionOn the basis of the pooled results of the RCTs, 4-FDC therapy failed to show benefits over the SD regimen in culture conversion after 2 or 6 months of treatment. However, the results did not demonstrate complete inferiority of FDC compared to SD regimens when using the strict definition applied in this review. Except for one study that identified better treatment satisfaction,22 none of the included studies identified improved patient adherence among TB patients treated with 4-FDC compared to those treated with SD formulations. Most of the side effects that were reported by the studies in this review were not considered serious and could be managed through symptomatic palliation in both groups of patients (4-FDC and SD). Even in a study that reported 176 patients (86 ) with at least one AE associated with treatment, only two patients abandoned the study because of AEs.26 Gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and malabsorption, can hinder achievement of optimal blood concentrations of antiTB drugs in patients co-infected with HIV.27 This observation suggests that 4-FDC therapy, by causing fewer gastrointestinal side effects, would benefit co-infected patients. Some patientsSu (2002) Gravendeel (2003) Bartacek (2009) Lienhardt (2011)0.16 [ ?.02 , 1.34 ] 0.70 [ ?.82 , 3.21 ] 1.63 [ ?.54 , 3.80 ] ?.20 [ ?.29 , ?.12 ]FE Model0.05 [ ?.82 , 0.92 ]?.?.2.Log Odds RatioFig. 4 ?Forest plot for default.b r a z i l i a n j o u r n a l o f m i c r o b i o l o g y 4 8 (2 0 1 7) 198?reported stopping medication because of AEs,28 whereas others indicated that they were not informed about side effects or what to do to counter them.29?1 No ophthalmic AEs (ocular toxic effects) were reported that could be associated with the new drug (EMB). Retrobulbar optic neuri.Neity was identified (p = 0.0246 and I2 = 75.85 ). The null hypothesis was not rejected (p = 0.4091), suggesting that there was no statistical evidence that the number of patients with AEs differed between treatment groups. A forest plot (Fig. 5) showed that the 95 CI range for the log OR contained zero (log OR: 0.24, 95 CI: -0.32 to 0.79), indicating that the OR between treatments was statistically equal to one. Therefore, meta-analysis results did not reveal a statistically significant difference between 4-FDC and SD treatments in terms of the number of patients with AEs. For the analysis of the number of patients with gastrointestinal AEs, all five studies collected related data and were included in the analysis. The fixed-effects model was chosen because heterogeneity was not identified (p = 0.5656). The null hypothesis was rejected (p = 0.0006), suggesting that there was statistical evidence that the chance of occurrence of gastrointestinal AEs differed between treatment groups. A forest plot (Fig. 6) showed that the 95 CI range for the log OR did not contain zero (log OR: 0.50, 95 CI: 0.22?.79), indicating that the OR between treatments was statistically different from one. The meta-analytic measure (log OR) revealed that the SD treatment was associated with a 1.65-fold [i.e., exp (0.5) = 1.65] greater likelihood of gastrointestinal AEs than the 4-FDC treatment.Su (2002) Gravendeel (2003) Zaka (2008) Bartacek (2009) Lienhardt (2011)2.65 [ ?.30 , 5.61 ] 0.61 [ 0.18 , 1.03 ] 0.31 [ ?.50 , 1.12 ] 0.34 [ ?.17 , 0.84 ] 0.63 [ ?.37 , 1.63 ]FE Model0.50 [ 0.22 , 0.79 ]?.00 0.2.4.6.Log Odds RatioFig. 6 ?Forest plot for number of patients with gastrointestinal adverse effects.DiscussionOn the basis of the pooled results of the RCTs, 4-FDC therapy failed to show benefits over the SD regimen in culture conversion after 2 or 6 months of treatment. However, the results did not demonstrate complete inferiority of FDC compared to SD regimens when using the strict definition applied in this review. Except for one study that identified better treatment satisfaction,22 none of the included studies identified improved patient adherence among TB patients treated with 4-FDC compared to those treated with SD formulations. Most of the side effects that were reported by the studies in this review were not considered serious and could be managed through symptomatic palliation in both groups of patients (4-FDC and SD). Even in a study that reported 176 patients (86 ) with at least one AE associated with treatment, only two patients abandoned the study because of AEs.26 Gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and malabsorption, can hinder achievement of optimal blood concentrations of antiTB drugs in patients co-infected with HIV.27 This observation suggests that 4-FDC therapy, by causing fewer gastrointestinal side effects, would benefit co-infected patients. Some patientsSu (2002) Gravendeel (2003) Bartacek (2009) Lienhardt (2011)0.16 [ ?.02 , 1.34 ] 0.70 [ ?.82 , 3.21 ] 1.63 [ ?.54 , 3.80 ] ?.20 [ ?.29 , ?.12 ]FE Model0.05 [ ?.82 , 0.92 ]?.?.2.Log Odds RatioFig. 4 ?Forest plot for default.b r a z i l i a n j o u r n a l o f m i c r o b i o l o g y 4 8 (2 0 1 7) 198?reported stopping medication because of AEs,28 whereas others indicated that they were not informed about side effects or what to do to counter them.29?1 No ophthalmic AEs (ocular toxic effects) were reported that could be associated with the new drug (EMB). Retrobulbar optic neuri.