Extensively Drug-Resistant TB Outcomes Remain Poor in Europe
Only four out of 10 patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in Europe achieved successful treatment outcomes, a rate markedly lower than that for other forms of drug-resistant tuberculosis and comparable with cure rates from the pre-antibiotic era.
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers conducted a retrospective observational cohort study across 16 countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region to evaluate treatment outcomes in 188 patients (median age, 42 years; 79.3% men) with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis.
Data collected included patient characteristics, disease localisation, prior treatments, phenotypic and genotypic drug susceptibility testing results, and treatment regimens.
Treatment outcomes were categorised as successful, failure (microbiological or clinical reasons including regimen changes), lost to follow-up (treatment interrupted for 2 or more months), or not evaluated.
TAKEAWAY:
Among the 188 patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, 48.4%, 34.0%, and 17.6% of Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains were resistant to bedaquiline alone, linezolid alone, and both drugs, respectively.
Among 156 patients with available data for treatment outcomes, 40.2% (95% CI, 28.4%-53.2%) achieved successful outcomes in a pooled analysis accounting for between-country heterogeneity.
Patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis had lower pooled success rates (P < .0001) and significantly higher pooled rates of treatment failure and death (P < .0001 and P = .008, respectively) than those with multidrug-/rifampicin-resistant or preextensively drug-resistant tuberculosis.
The likelihood of an unsuccessful outcome decreased with each additional effective drug in the regimen (P = .026) but increased among patients treated in upper-middle-income countries compared with that among those treated in high-income countries (P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
"[The study] findings underscore the need for improved, rapid DST [drug susceptibility testing] tools and effective, shorter treatment regimens for extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis," the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Yousra Kherabi, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France, and Ole Skouvig Pedersen, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on July 15, 2025, in The Lancet Regional Health - Europe.
LIMITATIONS:
The coverage of the WHO European Region was limited. Most of the participating centres were specialist or referral centres, which may have introduced selection bias and limiting generalisability. Although the use of WHO-defined outcomes simplified data collection, it constrained a detailed understanding of treatment failures. Moreover, individual-level data were available only for patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, which may have introduced confounding from unmeasured patient-level factors.
DISCLOSURES:
This study did not receive any funding. One author reported serving as a co-principal investigator of clinical trials testing new regimens for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, and some authors reported receiving honoraria for speaking engagements or serving on advisory boards of various pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
14 minutes ago
- Forbes
Nature Credits Show the Path to Market-Driven ProSocial AI
In July 2025, the European Union took a big step toward market-driven environmental restoration with the launch of its Roadmap towards Nature Credits. The initiative could not only shift how society thinks about climate change but also fundamentally reshape how we approach prosocial artificial intelligence and its role in addressing global challenges. Why? Understanding The EU Nature Credits Framework The EU's nature credits roadmap creates quantifiable biodiversity certification units that reward those who actively contribute to ecosystem restoration and conservation, including farmers, foresters, fishers, landowners and local communities. This market-based mechanism complements public funding by creating financial incentives for nature-positive actions, with the ambitious goal of establishing a fully operational biodiversity market by 2027. What makes it particularly compelling is how it transforms environmental stewardship from a cost center into a value-generating activity. By creating tradable credits for measurable biodiversity improvements, the EU is essentially gamifying conservation, turning positive environmental impact into a competitive advantage. This is twice important in a geopolitical context in which the US is set to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement in January 2026, and plans to revoke the 2009 declaration, known as the endangerment finding, which concluded that planet-warming greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health. The Prosocial AI Connection The nature credits framework offers a fascinating parallel to the development of prosocial AI systems, AI systems which are tailored, trained, tested and targeted to bring out the best in and for people and planet. Just as the EU seeks to quantify and reward positive environmental outcomes, we need mechanisms to measure and incentivize AI systems that generate positive social impact. The parallels are intriguing: Quantifiable Impact: Nature credits require verifiable, measurable improvements to biodiversity. Similarly, prosocial AI systems need clear metrics for social benefit — whether that's reducing bias, improving accessibility, or enhancing community well-being. Market-Driven Innovation: By creating economic value around positive environmental outcomes, the EU is harnessing market forces for good. Prosocial AI could similarly benefit from frameworks that reward systems demonstrating genuine social benefit, perhaps through certification programs or priority access to computing resources. Stakeholder Engagement: The nature credits roadmap explicitly involves diverse stakeholders, from farmers to local communities. Prosocial AI development requires similar inclusive approaches, ensuring that affected communities have meaningful input into AI system design and deployment. Bridging Digital And Natural Ecosystems The EU's approach reveals something about modern challenges, which has always been true about society. Everything is connected within a continuum of constant change. Solutions and problems are part of an organically evolving kaleidoscope. In an increasingly hybrid setting, this is twice true. Whatever issue we are facing is the cause and consequence of interconnected systems that require systemic solutions. Consider how AI could accelerate the nature credits program itself. Machine learning algorithms could monitor biodiversity changes in real-time, automatically verify credit-worthy conservation actions, and optimize restoration strategies across vast landscapes. Conversely, the nature credits framework demonstrates principles that prosocial AI can adopt. The emphasis on transparency, measurable outcomes, and stakeholder inclusion creates a template for responsible technology development. The Commission's establishment of an expert group to mobilize expertise and share best practices mirrors the collaborative governance models that prosocial AI initiatives need. Criticisms On The Nature Credits Logic Not everyone embraces this market-driven approach. Friends of the Earth Europe warns of greenwashing whereby nature credits could become 'a political distraction that will weaken environmental regulation, undermine public investment and prioritise corporate profits over real ecological action'. These concerns echo debates in AI ethics about whether market mechanisms can truly align profit motives with social good. The key might be robust yet agile governance frameworks that prevent abuse while maintaining innovation incentives. For both nature credits and prosocial AI, this means strong oversight, transparent metrics and accountability mechanisms that ensure genuine positive impact rather than superficial compliance. Which ultimately comes back to human mindsets and the intentions, both personal and political, that drive agendas and action to implement them. A Vision For Integrated Impact? Imagine a future where AI systems optimizing supply chains automatically factor in nature credit implications, where machine learning models help communities identify the most impactful conservation opportunities, and where prosocial AI principles guide the technology platforms that will manage global biodiversity markets. This convergence is more than theory. The EU's commitment to allocating 10% of its 2026-27 budget to biodiversity while exploring innovative financing mechanisms demonstrates how traditional policy tools can evolve. Similarly, prosocial AI needs both dedicated resources and creative approaches that go beyond conventional regulatory frameworks. The nature credits roadmap also highlights the importance of timing and scale. Environmental challenges can't wait for perfect solutions, and neither can the social challenges that AI systems could help address. The EU's timeline — establishing expert groups by 2025 and operational markets by 2027 — shows how ambitious but achievable goals could drive rapid progress. Practical Implementation: The CREDITS Framework Drawing lessons from the EU's nature credits initiative, organizations developing prosocial AI systems can apply this practical framework: Certify measurable social impact through transparent, verifiable metrics — just as nature credits quantify biodiversity improvements, prosocial AI needs clear success indicators that stakeholders can trust and verify. Reward positive outcomes by creating economic incentives for socially beneficial AI development, whether through preferential procurement policies, tax incentives, or market advantages that make prosocial approaches profitable. Engage diverse stakeholders throughout the development process, ensuring that affected communities have meaningful input and that benefits are distributed equitably rather than concentrated among technology developers. Develop collaborative governance frameworks that bring together technical experts, community representatives, and policymakers to guide responsible development and prevent harmful applications. Integrate impact considerations into core business processes rather than treating social benefit as an add-on, making prosocial principles fundamental to system design and operation. Track long-term outcomes with the same rigor applied to financial performance, recognizing that genuine social impact often takes time to manifest and requires sustained commitment beyond initial deployment. Sustain efforts overtime. Healing the planet is not a quick fix – but the consequence of systemic, ongoing effort. The EU's nature credits program isn't just about biodiversity — it's about reimagining how we create positive change in complex systems. For prosocial AI, it offers a roadmap toward market-driven social benefits that could transform how we build and deploy intelligent systems. The question isn't whether we can afford to pursue prosocial AI, but whether we can afford not to.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
These 4 Habits Could Help You Avoid Cognitive Decline, New Study Says
Reviewed by Dietitian Mandy Enright, M.S., RDN, RYTKey Points A new study suggests exercise, diet and regular healthcare check-ups may lower dementia risk. That includes physical exercise—ideally six times per week—and mental exercises to keep you sharp. Following the MIND diet, a combination of the Mediterranean and DASH diets, may also support better brain disease (AD) and related dementias are significant public health challenges for many reasons. More people are being affected by dementia, and the condition can bring heavy emotional, social and financial burdens. And as much as you or a loved one may want to lower your dementia risk, it can be hard to figure out where to start. Memory decline in older adults often has multiple causes, so effective treatments ideally tackle several targets at once. While new medications that target amyloid (a group of proteins linked to Alzheimer's) show promise in slowing the disease in its early stages, they don't address other common problems like blood vessel damage in the brain, which can also contribute to memory loss. This highlights the need for better, more comprehensive treatments. Non-drug approaches, like improving lifestyle factors, offer a safe, affordable, and accessible way to reduce dementia risk. A groundbreaking study in Finland (called the Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability, or FINGER) showed that combining certain healthy lifestyle changes improved memory and thinking in older adults at risk for dementia. To determine if the positive results from the FINGER study in Finland could also apply to a larger and more diverse group of people in the United States who are at risk for dementia, researchers studied this method's impact on brain health and thinking abilities, and the results were published in JAMA. This study was called the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk, or U.S. POINTER. How Was This Study Conducted? Researchers recruited subjects for this study by using electronic health records and by working with local community organizations to reach people directly. The goal was to include older adults (ages 60 to 79) who didn't have memory problems but were at higher risk of developing dementia. To qualify, participants had to meet specific criteria regarding both lifestyle factors and risk factors. Those factors included having low physical activity levels—meaning less than 60 minutes of moderate exercise per week—and not following the MIND diet, which is designed to support brain health. As for risk factors, participants needed to meet at least two of the following conditions: A close family member (like a parent or sibling) had memory problems. They had health risks like high blood pressure, high cholesterol or high blood sugar. They identified as part of a racial or ethnic group that is often underrepresented in research, such as Native American, Black, Middle Eastern, or Hispanic or Latino. They were in the older age range (70 to 79 years old) or were male, as men are often underrepresented in dementia prevention studies. Both groups focused on improving brain health through physical activity, cognitive activity, healthy eating, social engagement and heart health monitoring. The difference between the two groups was in how the program was delivered. The first group was the structured group, and participants in this group received extra support from trained professionals and worked closely with peer teams of 10-15 people for motivation and accountability. Participants attended 38 team meetings over two years, and meetings were led by trained navigators and specialists. They also participated in the following: Physical exercise: 30-35 minutes of moderate-to-intense aerobic activity four times a week, plus strength and flexibility exercises twice a week. Cognitive exercise: Computer-based brain training program three times a week for 30 minutes, plus regular engagement in other intellectually challenging and social activities. Nutrition: Adherence to the MIND diet, which emphasizes dark leafy greens, berries, nuts, whole grains, olive oil and fish, and limits sugar and unhealthy fats. Health monitoring: Regular check-ins (every 6 months) on blood pressure, weight and lab results. The second group was the self-guided group. This group was more independent but still had access to resources and support from peer teams and navigators from the Alzheimer's Association. Participants received publicly available resources about healthy lifestyle changes, such as tips on exercise, diet and brain health. They only attended six peer team meetings over two years, and had their health checked once a year during clinic visits, following standard health guidelines. This study measured brain health and thinking abilities using a global cognitive score, which combined results from three key areas: executive function, which includes skills like planning, problem-solving, and multitasking; episodic memory, which focuses on remembering specific events or experiences; and processing speed, which measures how quickly the brain can handle information. To calculate the global score, participants completed a series of brain tests during clinic visits at the start of the study and every six months for two years. What Did The Study Find? Both groups in the U.S. POINTER study showed improvements in overall brain function over time as measured by their global cognitive scores. After adjusting for certain factors, the structured group improved slightly faster than the self-guided group, and this difference was statistically significant. When focusing on the different cognitive areas the researchers measured, here is what they found: Executive Function: In planning, problem-solving and multitasking, the structured group improved more than the self-guided group, and the difference was statistically significant. Processing Speed: In gauging how long the brain took to process information, the structured group also showed slightly greater improvement—however, this difference was not statistically significant. Episodic Memory: As for remembering specific events, both groups improved at about the same rate, with no meaningful difference between them. The structured program seemed to have the biggest impact on participants who started the study with lower cognitive function. However, the structured program worked similarly well regardless of participants' sex, age or heart health at the start of the study. Additionally, the effects of the structured program were the same for people with or without the APOE ε4 gene, which research has linked to a higher risk of Alzheimer's disease. In summary, the structured program provided the most benefit for executive function and was especially helpful for participants who started with lower cognitive abilities. Other factors like age, sex and genetic risk didn't seem to change how effective the program was. This study has a few limitations to consider. First, the results might not apply to everyone because the study only took place at five sites, included participants specifically at higher risk for cognitive decline and required a significant two-year commitment from participants. Second, the study wasn't designed to measure whether the interventions could prevent cognitive impairment or dementia, so those outcomes remain unknown. It's also worth noting that the self-guided group wasn't a true 'no-intervention' control group, as they still received some resources and support. Plus, participants knew which group they were in, which could have influenced their behavior or results. Additionally, it's unclear how long the benefits of the structured program will last, how easily it could be scaled up for larger populations or how meaningful the improvements are in the long term. How Does This Apply to Real Life? This study highlights the power of lifestyle changes when it comes to supporting brain health and reducing the risk of memory decline. It shows that combining regular exercise, a brain-healthy diet, mental stimulation and social engagement may make a real difference, especially for people at higher risk of dementia. The structured program, which provided extra guidance and support, was particularly effective in improving skills like planning, problem-solving and multitasking. This observation suggests that having a clear plan and access to professional support may help people stick to healthy habits and see better results. But the self-guided group, which had more flexibility, showed improvements, proving that small, consistent changes in daily life can still benefit brain health. This means that adopting healthier habits like staying active, following the MIND diet, engaging in mentally challenging activities, and staying socially connected can be a practical and accessible way to protect brain health. While the study focused on older adults at risk for dementia, the findings are a reminder that it's never too early or too late to start making positive changes. Our Expert Take A study recently published in JAMA provides valuable evidence that lifestyle changes can play a significant role in supporting brain health and reducing the risk of cognitive decline. In particular, these findings highlight the potential of combining regular exercise, a brain-healthy diet, mental stimulation and social engagement to improve cognitive health, especially for those at higher risk of dementia. Both structured and self-guided programs led to improvements in overall brain function, with the structured program showing slightly greater benefits, particularly in areas like planning, problem-solving, and multitasking. Importantly, the study also demonstrated that even small, self-guided changes can make a meaningful difference, making these strategies accessible to a wide range of people. Read the original article on EATINGWELL
Medscape
3 hours ago
- Medscape
How Safe Is Pancreatic Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy?
TOPLINE: A recent retrospective study found that pancreatic stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) was associated with a low 90-day mortality rate, but early hospitalizations and adverse events, including infections and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities, were common. METHODOLOGY: SBRT is increasingly used for treating pancreatic cancer, but data on acute morbidity, mortality, and the risk for severe late GI toxicity following the procedure remain limited. Using a single-institution registry, researchers analyzed data from 507 patients with pancreatic cancer (median age, 70 years; 49.7% women) who received SBRT between February 2006 and July 2023, with outcomes abstracted from electronic medical records. GI toxicities were categorized as early (occurring within 90 days of SBRT) or late events of grade 3 or higher, which included upper GI bleeding, pseudoaneurysm, and fistula. SBRT was delivered at 9-12 Gy in three fractions (n = 278; 54.8%), 18-25 Gy in a single fraction (n = 78; 15.4%), or 5-8 Gy in five fractions (n = 147; 29.0%). The total radiation dose was converted to the biologically effective dose (BED). Overall, 37.5% of patients received SBRT preoperatively or postoperatively; 49.5% of patients were treated for unresectable or medically inoperable disease. Median follow-up from the end of SBRT was 21.2 months, and median overall survival was 18 months. TAKEAWAY: Median overall survival in the full cohort of patients was 18.0 months; 7.5% of patients (n = 38) died within 90 days of receiving SBRT, with most causes of death attributed to disease progression (47.3%), and 18.4% (n = 7) died from infection (n = 6) or pulmonary embolism (n = 1). The cause of death for the remaining 13 patients was unknown. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24.3%) were hospitalized within 90 days, most often due to infection, followed by acute GI toxicity. Among patients with sufficient follow-up to assess late GI toxicity, the crude rate of radiation therapy-attributed toxicity of grade 3 or higher was 13.3%. Of those patients, 32 had upper GI bleeding, 11 had radiation enteritis, 8 had pseudoaneurysm, and 3 had fistula. The median time to high-grade GI bleeding was 10.9 months. After adjusting for SBRT dose, surgical resection was associated with a significantly reduced risk for high-grade GI toxicity (hazard ratio, 0.57; P = .047). Lower-dose regimens were also associated with lower risk for severe GI toxicity: 2-year actuarial risks for high-grade GI toxicity were 25.0%, 19.4%, and 16.0% for very high, high, and moderate BED, respectively. IN PRACTICE: 'Our findings demonstrate that pancreatic SBRT is associated with relatively low mortality rates within the first 90 days after treatment,' the authors of the study wrote. However, SBRT also came with notable risks for adverse events, especially infections and GI toxicity. 'Infections were a major cause of hospital admission. Severe gastrointestinal toxicity primarily occurred as a late event and was associated with the absence of prior surgery and the use of high-BED SBRT regimens,' the authors of the study wrote, adding that 'future radiation dose-escalation studies should mandate long-term follow-up to monitor patients for late-onset severe gastrointestinal toxicity.' SOURCE: This study, led by Susannah G. Ellsworth, MD, University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, was published online in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included retrospective design and a large proportion of patients who were lost to follow-up. Changes in the SBRT regimen from single and three fractions to five fractions and evolving chemotherapy regimens could have introduced confounding and bias. Additionally, shorter survival in some subgroups might have led to an underestimation of late toxicity rates. DISCLOSURES: The authors reported receiving no funding for the study and disclosed having no relevant conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
