Tuberculosis

[Guest]

Hope someone can help me. I was diagnosed with Lymph TB last june 2002. Since then I took Isoniazid and Rifampin until January 2003 (around 6/7 months). I then had a lab test again and was diagnosed negative. My dr declares that I am cured and no need of further treatment. However I read the article here that says the treatment should take longer. Is my treatment incomplete and may cause to a relapse?

[mrsibew]

I am a DOT (direct observation therapy) provider for two of our states counties. The course of treatment you took is adequate to treat your TB. While we use Ethambutal and PZA in the cases that are contagious on the onset of the TB treatment (for those that can tolerate them), we continue with the INH and Rifampin and b6,(helps with leg cramps and such), for the rest of the treatment. The guidelines have changed for length of therapy over the years, depending on type of TB and stage of infection. Standard course is 6-9 months, while more resistant types are treated longer or if there is a problem with regular meds, and a substitute has to be given, it can take longer. TB is treated with amount of dosages taken and if you took them in the prescribed manner that they were given, you should not have any problems with recurrence of the infection. The medication is designed to isolate and kill the TB virus. I have some patients who are only 2x's wkly and will come off in less than 7 months. We used to do all patients 5 days wkly with DOT and leave then their wkend meds to self-administer. Some are still being treated this way, but depends again on strain of TB that they encountered or if they are allergic to the normally given meds.