Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Double-blind Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial of Three Antituberculosis Chemoprophylaxis Regimens in Patients with Silicosis in Hong Kong

Hong Kong Chest Service/Tuberculosis Research Centre, Madras/British Medical Research Council·1992·American Review of Respiratory Disease

Abstract

Abstract A double-blind placebo-controlled trial of antituberculosis chemoprophylaxis was undertaken in silicotic subjects in Hong Kong where there is a high prevalence of both silicosis and tuberculosis. During 1981 to 1987, 679 Chinese men with silicosis, with no history of previous antituberculosis chemotherapy and no evidence of active tuberculosis, were admitted to the trial and have been studied for between 2 and 5 yr. They were allocated at random to four series—rifampin for 12 wk (R3), isoniazid and rifampin for 12 wk (HR3), isoniazid alone for 24 wk (H6), or placebo (PI)—in a double-blind design with matching placebos for isoniazid and rifampin as appropriate. Active pulmonary tuberculosis developed more frequently during the 5 yr in the placebo series than in the three chemoprophylaxis series (p < 0.01, log-rank test), but there were no significant differences between the chemoprophylaxis series. The estimated proportions of patients with active pulmonary disease in the placebo series were 9% at 2 yr, 15% at 3 yr, 20% at 4 yr, and 27% at 5 yr. In contrast, in the three chemoprophylaxis series combined they were 5, 8, 10, and 13%, respectively. Thus, although chemoprophylaxis halved the proportion of patients in whom tuberculosis developed, this proportion was still substantial. There was no evidence that chemoprophylaxis led to the selection of drug-resistant strains of bacilli. Adverse effects were reported with a similar frequency in all four series, suggesting that few were drug related. During the first 12 wk, hepatic toxicity was reported in 8 (1%) patients (3 HR3, 3 H6, and 2 PI), but only 1 (H6) had symptomatic hepatitis. The serum alanine aminotransferase concentrations during chemoprophylaxis were higher in the HR3 and H6 series than in the R3 series (p < 0.001); there was no significant difference between the R3 and PI series. In conclusion, more effective antituberculosis chemoprophylaxis regimens for silicotic subjects are needed; rifampin on its own probably carries a very low risk of hepatic toxicity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1164/ajrccm/145.1.36

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
Hong Kong Chest Service/Tuberculosis Research Centre, M. M. R. C.
Venue
American Review of Respiratory Disease
Published
1992-01
Volume
145
Issue
1
Pages
36-41
ISSN
0003-0805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2200982879
Cited by
304
References
0
FWCI
4.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Double-blind Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial of Three Antituberculosis Chemoprophylaxis Regimens in Patients with Silicosis in Hong Kong. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm/145.1.36
The paper
Hong Kong Chest Service/Tuberculosis Research Centre, M. M. R. C. (1992). A Double-blind Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial of Three Antituberculosis Chemoprophylaxis Regimens in Patients with Silicosis in Hong Kong. American Review of Respiratory Disease. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm/145.1.36

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.