Home | About us | Editorial Board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionContact Us   |  Subscribe   |  Advertise   |  Login  Page layout
Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout
Lung India Official publication of Indian Chest Society  
  Users Online: 629   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 35  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 488-493

Utility of para-aminosalicylic acid in drug-resistant tuberculosis: Should it be classified as Group D3 or Group C?

Department of Pulmonary Medicine, T. N. Medical College, B. Y. L. Nair Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Jyotsna M Joshi
Department of Pulmonary Medicine, T. N. Medical College, B. Y. L. Nair Hospital, Mumbai - 400 008, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/lungindia.lungindia_141_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: The World Health Organization drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) 2016 guidelines reclassified para-aminosalicylic acid (PAS) as Group D3 “add-on” drug. We studied our DR-TB data wherein PAS was widely and preferably used as a substitute in the standardized regimen in varied situations and report its utility in DR-TB. Methodology: This retrospective observational study enrolled both pulmonary and extrapulmonary DR-TB patients receiving PAS in the programmatic management of DR-TB from March 2012 to June 2013. They were divided into seven subgroups on the basis of indication for PAS substitution in the standardized regimen for DR-TB cases. The clinical profile and outcomes were analyzed. Results: PAS was substituted in 250 cases (225 – pulmonary DR-TB and 25 – extrapulmonary DR-TB). PAS was used in (1) pre-extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) fluoroquinolones (FQs) – 136 (54.4%), (2) XDR-TB – 15 (6%), (3) substitute drug for serious adverse events – 3 (1.2%), (4) pregnant DR-TB patients – 5 (2%), (5) patients on successful private-based second-line therapy adopted under the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Program – 10 (4%), (6) substitute drug for previous FQ exposure – 5 (2%), and (7) Category V – 76 (30.4%). Although 51.2% had an unfavorable response (UFR) against 48.8% with FR, wide disparity was noted in subgroups. FR was observed in 68.4% pre-XDR-TB (FQ), 80% pregnant patients, 90% adopted from private on successful second-line therapy, 80% previous FQ exposure against 40% XDR-TB, 7.9% Category V, and 0% PAS substitution for adverse drug reactions (ADRs). UFR was seen in 31.6% pre-XDR-TB (FQ), 20% pregnant patients, 10% adopted from private on successful second-line therapy, 20% of previous FQ exposure against 60% XDR-TB, 92.1% Category V, and 100% on PAS substitution for ADR. Conclusion: In view of the safety and efficacy of PAS in our DR-TB patients except for XDR and Category V group, we recommend larger studies with PAS and consider its reclassification into Group C rather than Group D3.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded125    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal