ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2026
Infectious Disease Provider Perspectives on Shorter Tuberculosis Treatment Regimens.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Since 2020, Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines have preferentially recommended ≤4-month rifamycin-based regimens for tuberculosis infection. Since 2022, recommendations have included all-oral 6-month regimens (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and high-dose linezolid [BPaL] or BPaL plus moxifloxacin [BPaL-M]) for drug-resistant disease and a 4-month regimen (rifapentine, isoniazid, and moxifloxacin [HPMZ]) for drug-susceptible disease. Yet implementation of new regimens often lags behind guidelines. This survey aimed to characterize tuberculosis treatment practices of infectious disease clinicians and barriers to utilizing these regimens. Methods: A survey about tuberculosis treatment practices was distributed to 1501 North American adult infectious disease physician members of the IDSA's Emerging Infections Network. Percentages of respondents were calculated for each question. Open comment data were qualitatively analyzed. Results: Three hundred forty-nine clinicians completed the survey. Ninety-three percent of respondents preferentially opted for ≤4-month regimens for tuberculosis infection, with only 12% expressing concerns about treatment effectiveness. In contrast, 1% selected HPMZ for pulmonary drug-susceptible disease, and 5% reported experience with HPMZ. For confirmed drug-resistant disease, 39% reported that they would use BPaL or BPaL-M, with 40% unsure about regimen choice. Forty-three percent reported uncertainty about effectiveness of 4- and 6-month regimens for drug-susceptible disease and drug-resistant disease. Qualitative analysis highlighted barriers to the use of newer regimens for tuberculosis disease, including concerns about treatment toxicities related to HPMZ or linezolid, medication interactions, and rifapentine and bedaquiline availability. Conclusions: While infectious disease physicians preferentially use shorter regimens for tuberculosis infection, uptake of newer regimens for tuberculosis disease is low due to concerns about effectiveness and treatment toxicities. Enhanced adverse effect management and monitoring and shared decision-making can optimize the implementation of newer tuberculosis disease treatment regimens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.