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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Chong, K. C., Leung, C. C., Yew, W. W., Zee, B. C. Y., Tam, G. C. H., Wang, M. H., Jia, K. M., Chung, P. H., Lau, S. Y. F., Han, X., et al. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-41256-4 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Hong Kong Chest Service/Tuberculosis Research Centre, M. M. R. C.
- Venue
- American Review of Respiratory Disease
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.