no. (% of susceptible)
*AMK, amikacin; CAP, capreomycin; EMB, ethambutol; ETA, ethionamide; FQ, fluoroquinolone; INH, isoniazid; KAN, kanamycin; OFX, ofloxacin; MDR TB, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; RIF, rifampin; STR, streptomycin; PAS, para-aminosalicylic acid; XDR, extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. †RIF and INH. ‡RIF, INH, EMB, and STR. §KAN,AMK, and CAP. ¶RIF, INH, a second-line injectable drug, and an FQ.
Among 117 patients for whom final DST results from SRCAMB were available, results for the baseline and final isolates differed for 32 (27.3%) and the isolates were successfully genotyped. Of these, genotype results for isolate pairs matched for 17 (53.1%) patients and were eligible for inclusion in numerators for respective analyses of acquired drug resistance ( Figure ). Of 41 paired isolates with baseline susceptibility to > 1 first-line drug, resistance to a first-line drug was acquired in 3 (7.3%) ( Table 1 ). Of 161 paired isolates with baseline susceptibility to > 1 second-line injectable agents, resistance to > 1 second-line injectable agents was acquired in 7 (4.4%): resistance to kanamycin by 4 (4.0%) of 99, to amikacin by 1 (0.7%) of 141, and to capreomycin by 3 (1.9%) of 158. Resistance to ofloxacin was acquired by 6 (3.7%) of 161, and XDR TB was acquired by 4 (2.4%) of 164 over the course of treatment for MDR TB.
Acquired resistance to capreomycin was significantly associated with receiving the following drugs or drug groups: <3 effective drugs (p = 0.008), an ineffective fluoroquinolone (p = 0.009), or ineffective para-aminosalicylic acid (p = 0.02). Furthermore, acquired resistance to capreomycin was associated with not having received ofloxacin (regardless of baseline DST results) (p = 0.003), baseline resistance to ofloxacin (p = 0.008), and baseline resistance to para-aminosalicylic acid (p = 0.03) ( Table 2 ). In addition, patients whose isolates acquired resistance to capreomycin were more likely to have received moxifloxacin (instead of ofloxacin) in the treatment regimen.
Variable† | Total | Acquired capreomycin resistance, no. (%) | p value‡ | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | |||
Received ≥3 effective drugs | ||||
Yes | 126 | 0 | 126 (100) | 0.008 |
No | 32 | 3 (9.4) | 29 (90.6) | |
Ever received effective FQ treatment§ | ||||
Yes | 148 | 1 (0.7) | 147 (99.3) | 0.009 |
No | 9 | 2 (22.2) | 7 (77.8) | |
Ever received effective PAS treatment§ | ||||
Yes | 110 | 0 (0) | 110 (100) | 0.02 |
No | 46 | 3 (6.5) | 43 (93.5) | |
Previous treatment with FQ | ||||
Yes | 28 | 2 (7.1) | 26 (92.9) | 0.08 |
No | 130 | 1 (0.8) | 129 (99.2) | |
Previous PAS treatment¶ | ||||
Yes | 23 | 2 (8.7) | 21 (91.3) | 0.08 |
No | 112 | 1 (0.9) | 111 (99.1) | |
First time patient treated for MDR TB | ||||
Yes | 134 | 1 (0.7) | 133 (99.3) | 0.06 |
No | 24 | 2 (8.3) | 22 (91.7) | |
Baseline ofloxacin DST result | ||||
Resistant | 9 | 2 (22.2) | 7 (77.8) | 0.008 |
Susceptible | 149 | 1 (0.7) | 148 (99.3) | |
Baseline PAS DST result | ||||
Resistant | 47 | 3 (6.4) | 44 (93.6) | 0.03 |
Susceptible | 111 | 0 (0) | 111 (100) | |
Received OFX during episode | ||||
Yes | 135 | 0 (0) | 135 (100) | 0.003 |
No | 23 | 3 (13) | 20 (87) | |
Received MOX during episode | ||||
Yes | 31 | 3 (9.7) | 28 (90.3) | 0.007 |
No | 127 | 0 (0) | 127 (100) |
*CAP, capreomycin; DST, drug-susceptibility test; FQ, fluoroquinolone; MDR TB, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; MOX, moxifloxacin; OFX, ofloxacin; PAS, para-aminosalicylic acid. †Certain variables were tested for association but omitted from table because results were not statistically significant at α = 0.1. ‡Fisher exact test. §Patient(s) who did not receive treatment with the respective drug during the current episode of MDR TB were not included in the analysis. ¶For 23 patients, history of treatment with PAS was unknown.
Acquired resistance to ofloxacin was significantly more common among patients who were underweight (p = 0.02) ( Table 3 ). Patients with acquired ofloxacin resistance were more likely to have received moxifloxacin (p = 0.006), to have had fluoroquinolones switched during treatment (p = 0.05), and to be receiving a third-line drug during the current episode (p = 0.01).
Variable† | Total | Acquired ofloxacin resistance, no. (%) | p value‡ | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | |||
Enrollment cohort | ||||
2005–2006 | 64 | 0 (0) | 64 (100) | 0.08 |
2007–2008 | 97 | 6 (6.2) | 91 (93.8) | |
Body mass index <18.5 at MDR TB diagnosis | ||||
Yes | 35 | 4 (11.4) | 31 (88.6) | 0.02 |
No | 126 | 2 (1.6) | 124 (98.4) | |
Hospitalized at time of enrollment | ||||
Yes | 159 | 5 (3.1) | 154 (96.9) | 0.07 |
No | 2 | 1 (50) | 1 (50) | |
Ever received MOX during current episode | ||||
Yes | 26 | 4 (15.4) | 22 (84.6) | 0.007 |
No | 135 | 2 (1.5) | 133 (98.5) | |
Changed FQ during current episode | ||||
Yes | 10 | 2 (20) | 8 (80) | 0.05 |
No | 151 | 4 (2.6) | 147 (97.4) | |
Ever received a third-line drug during episode | ||||
Yes | 79 | 6 (7.6) | 73 (92.4) | 0.01 |
No | 82 | 0 (0) | 82 (100) |
*FQ, fluoroquinolone; OFX, ofloxacin; MDR TB, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; MOX, moxifloxicin. †Certain variables were tested for association but omitted from table because results were not statistically significant at α = 0.1. ‡Fisher exact test.
Acquired XDR TB was more frequent among those receiving <3 effective drugs than among those receiving > 3 effective drugs (p = 0.03) and among those who were underweight (p = 0.03) ( Table 4 ). Those who acquired XDR TB were more likely to be receiving moxifloxacin during the current episode (p = 0.02). Patients in whom isolates acquired resistance to any second-line companion drug (ethionamide or para-aminosalicylic acid) were less likely to have received ofloxacin (p = 0.003) and more likely to be receiving moxifloxacin (p<0.001) during the current episode ( Table 5 ).
Variable† | Total | Acquired extensive drug resistance, no. (%) | p value‡ | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | |||
Treated with ≥3 effective drugs | ||||
Yes | 129 | 1 (0.8) | 128 (99.2) | 0.03 |
No | 35 | 3 (8.6) | 32 (91.4) | |
Ever received effective FQ§ | ||||
Yes | 160 | 3 (1.9) | 157 (98.1) | 0.07 |
No | 3 | 1 (33.3) | 2 (66.7) | |
Body mass index <18.5 at MDR TB diagnosis | ||||
Yes | 36 | 3 (8.3) | 33 (91.7) | 0.03 |
No | 128 | 1 (0.8) | 127 (99.2) | |
Baseline OFX susceptibility result | ||||
Resistant | 3 | 1 (33.3) | 2 (66.7) | 0.07 |
Susceptible | 161 | 3 (1.9) | 158 (98.1) | |
Ever received OFX during current episode | ||||
Yes | 144 | 2 (1.4) | 142 (98.6) | 0.07 |
No | 20 | 2 (10) | 18 (90) | |
Ever received MOX during current episode | ||||
Yes | 29 | 3 (10.3) | 26 (89.7) | 0.02 |
No | 135 | 1 (0.7) | 134 (99.3) |
*FQ, fluoroquinolone; OFX, ofloxacin; MDR TB, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; MOX, moxifloxicin †Certain variables were tested for association but omitted from table because results were not statistically significant at α = 0.1. ‡Fisher exact test. §Patients who did not receive treatment with the respective drug during the current episode of MDR TB were not included in the analysis.
Variable† | Total | Acquired resistance to ETA or PAS, no. (%) | p value‡ | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | |||
Enrollment cohort | ||||
2005–2006 | 58 | 0 (0) | 58 (100) | 0.08 |
2007–2008 | 95 | 6 (6.3) | 89 (93.7) | |
Thoracic surgery during current episode | ||||
Yes | 2 | 1 (50) | 1 (50) | 0.08 |
No | 151 | 5 (3.3) | 146 (96.7) | |
Ever received OFX during current episode | ||||
Yes | 133 | 2 (1.5) | 131 (98.5) | 0.003 |
No | 20 | 4 (20) | 16 (80) | |
Ever received MOX during current episode | ||||
Yes | 28 | 5 (17.9) | 23 (82.1) | <0.001 |
No | 125 | 1 (0.8) | 124 (99.2) | |
Ever received a third-line drug during current episode | ||||
Yes | 77 | 6 (7.8) | 71 (92.2) | 0.03 |
No | 76 | 0 (0) | 76 (100) |
*OFX, ofloxacin; MDR TB, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; MOX, moxifloxacin. †Certain variables were tested for association but omitted from table because results were not statistically significant at α = 0.1. ‡Fisher exact test.
Of 171 patients for whom baseline DST results were available, treatment was successfully completed for 94 (55.0%), treatment failed for 18 (10.5%), 20 (11.7%) died, and 39 (22.8%) defaulted from treatment. Poor treatment outcomes (treatment failure or death) were more likely among patients whose MDR TB acquired resistance to capreomycin (100% vs. 25.9%; p = 0.02) or ofloxacin (83.3% vs. 22.7%; p = 0.004) or became XDR TB (100% vs. 24.4%; p = 0.004) than among those in whom the respective resistance was not acquired ( Table 6 ). Patients who received an effective fluoroquinolone were statistically less likely to have poor treatment outcomes than were those who received an ineffective fluoroquinolone (25.6% vs. 85.7%; p = 0.002). Patients who received any third-line drug were more likely to have previously received treatment for MDR TB (21.6% vs. 8.4%; p = 0.02), have resistance to >4 drugs at baseline (72.7% vs. 47.0%; p<0.001), and experience treatment failure or die (42.0% vs. 20.6%; p = 0.01) than those who did not receive any third-line drug. According to multivariable analysis, compared with no acquired resistance, acquired resistance to ofloxacin was associated with 10.2-fold (95% CI 1.1–95.1) increased odds of poor outcome when confounding was controlled for ( Table 6 ). Compared with not receiving a third-line drug, treatment with a third-line drug was associated with 2.7-fold (95% CI 1.2–5.7) increased odds of poor treatment outcome when confounding was controlled for. Compared with not receiving effective fluoroquinolone treatment, effective treatment with a fluoroquinolone was associated with 16.7-fold (95% CI 1.9–100.0) increased the odds of successful treatment outcome when confounding was controlled for.
Variable† | Total | Successful treatment outcome, no. (%)‡ | Poor treatment outcome, no. (%)§ | Fisher exact p value | aOR (95% CI)¶ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall | 132 | 94 (71.2) | 38 (28.8) | ||
Acquired resistance to any second-line drug# | |||||
Yes | 13 | 6 (46.2) | 7 (53.8) | 0.05 | 1.93 (0.54–6.88) |
No | 118 | 88 (74.6) | 30 (25.4) | ||
Acquired resistance to CAP# | |||||
Yes | 3 | 0 | 3 (100) | 0.02 | NR |
No | 116 | 86 (74.1) | 30 (25.9) | ||
Acquired resistance to OFX# | |||||
Yes | 6 | 1 (16.7) | 5 (83.3) | 0.004 | 10.18 (1.09–95.08) |
No | 119 | 92 (77.3) | 27 (22.7) | ||
Acquired XDR# | |||||
Yes | 4 | 0 (0) | 4 (100) | 0.004 | NR |
No | 123 | 93 (75.6) | 30 (24.4) | ||
Ever received effective FQ** | |||||
Yes | 125 | 93 (74.4) | 32 (25.6) | 0.002 | 0.06 (0.01–0.53)†† |
No | 7 | 1 (14.3) | 6 (85.7) | ||
Ever received CAP during current episode | |||||
Yes | 104 | 67 (64.4) | 37 (35.6) | 0.08 | 1.42 (0.49–4.05) |
No | 33 | 27 (81.8) | 6 (18.2) | ||
Ever received MOX during current episode | |||||
Yes | 27 | 14 (51.9) | 13 (48.1) | 0.06 | 1.48 (0.56–3.90) |
No | 110 | 80 (72.7) | 30 (27.3) | ||
Ever received third-line drug during current episode | |||||
Yes | 69 | 40 (58) | 29 (42) | 0.01 | 2.68 (1.25–5.75) |
No | 68 | 54 (79.4) | 14 (20.6) |
*aOR, adjusted odds ratio; CAP, capreomycin; FQ, fluoroquinolone; MDR TB, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; MOX, moxifloxacin; NR, no result; OFX, ofloxacin; XDR, extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. †Certain variables were tested for association but omitted from table because results were not statistically significant at α = 0.1. ‡Cure or treatment completion. §Death or treatment failure. ¶aOR for poor treatment outcome versus successful treatment outcome controlling for extent of drug resistance at baseline, severity of disease, and previous treatment for MDR TB. #Patient(s) with baseline TB resistance to the respective drug (or drug groups) were not included in the analysis. **Patient(s) who did not receive treatment with the respective drug during the current episode of MDR TB were not included in the analysis ††16.67 (95% CI 1.89–100.0) aOR of successful treatment outcome vs. poor treatment outcome.
This study measured the frequency with which drug resistance was acquired during MDR TB treatment and identified statistically significant associations for acquiring resistance to a specific drug or group of drugs in a population of MDR TB patients being managed in a high-quality TB program. The rates of acquired resistance to the 2 essential groups of drugs for MDR TB treatment were 4.3% for second-line injectable agents and 3.7% for fluoroquinolones, the middle of the range recently reported for GLC-approved programs ( 21 ). In this study, odds of treatment failure or death were 10.2-fold higher among those with acquired resistance to ofloxacin than among those without, further supporting the value of this class of drugs in successful MDR TB treatment. Although this study focused on 1 region of Russia, it reflects the broader global context of increasing use of second-line drugs and rapidly emerging resistance as exemplified by the global phenomenon of XDR TB reported in 2006 ( 22 , 23 ).
We found that the highest proportion of acquired second-line drug resistance was to any second-line injectable agent (4.3%), most frequently kanamycin (4.0%). Given the high baseline level of kanamycin resistance, the cross-resistance between second-line injectable agents, and the rate of acquired resistance to second-line injectable agents illustrated in this study, treating MDR TB with second-line injectable agents is becoming less of an effective option ( 24 ). Furthermore, because of the common baseline resistance to kanamycin, most of the acquired XDR TB was the result of acquired ofloxacin resistance. Historically in Arkhangelsk Oblast, kanamycin was widely used for TB treatment along with 2–3 other drugs, including first- and second-line drugs, whereas fluoroquinolones were rarely used for TB treatment before GLC approval in 2003 ( 12 , 25 ). Acquired resistance to fluoroquinolones during MDR TB treatment was reported for 11.2% of cases in 9 countries, including Russia, possibly because of the high mutation frequency of the gyrA and gyrB genes ( 21 , 26 – 28 ). Of any single second-line drug tested in this study, acquired resistance to ofloxacin occurred second most often. Most patients whose isolates acquired resistance to either of the second-line companion drugs tested also experienced acquired resistance to a second-line injectable agent, ofloxacin, or both (i.e., acquired extensive drug resistance), making TB in these patients virtually untreatable with available drugs ( 28 ).
As seen elsewhere and in this population of MDR TB patients for whom prevalence of baseline resistance to kanamycin, ethionamide, and para-aminosalicylic acid was high, baseline susceptibility to and use of fluoroquinolones were essential for preventing further resistance to second-line injectable agents, preventing acquired XDR TB, and increasing treatment success ( 29 , 30 ). With fewer effective treatment options, the risk for acquired resistance to additional drugs increases ( 28 ). This study illustrates the value of effective use of bactericidal drugs such as fluoroquinolones and companion drugs (especially para-aminosalicylic acid) in preventing acquired resistance to second-line injectable agents during treatment for MDR TB. Other studies reported a significant association between use of thioamides and treatment success but not with para-aminosalicylic acid ( 31 ).
WHO recommends that MDR TB be treated with > 4 second-line drugs to which M. tuberculosis is likely to be susceptible plus pyrazinamide, creating a regimen of > 5 drugs during the intensive phase of treatment ( 1 ). Many factors make creating such a regimen challenging, including availability of timely DST results for second-line drugs and availability of multiple drugs within a class of second-line drugs. In this setting, in which baseline DST results for multiple second-line drugs were available, M. tuberculosis treated with > 3 effective drugs were less likely to acquire resistance to each of the drugs or drug groups tested than were M. tuberculosis treated with <3 effective drugs. However, this association was only statistically significant for acquired resistance to capreomycin and for acquired extensive drug resistance. Treatment with > 4 effective drugs had a similar, but not statistically significant, inverse association with acquired drug resistance.
Acquired resistance to ofloxacin was not associated with any of the effective treatment variables. The treatment and patient management characteristics that were associated with acquired ofloxacin resistance may be an artifact of clinical management practices when treatment regimens fail and probably reflect confounding. The treatment for severe disease or a failing regimen will often be switched to a newer generation fluoroquinolone because these are thought to be more effective and because cross-resistance within the class is not complete ( 32 , 33 ). Therefore, the only significant risk factor for acquired ofloxacin resistance in this population was being underweight, which is a risk factor for incident TB and an indicator of disease severity, regardless of drug susceptibility ( 34 ).
Other studies have found that the main risk factors for acquired drug resistance included empiric re-treatment (i.e., without reference to DST) and unsupervised treatment ( 35 , 36 ). In this study population, drug resistance was acquired among patients with MDR TB even though the patients had received individualized treatment, and directly observed therapy was mandatory for all patients in the program.
The MDR TB treatment outcomes for this population are consistent with previously reported outcomes. Treatment success for this population (55%) was greater than the WHO-reported worldwide average (48%) but less than published results of individualized MDR TB treatment programs ( 31 , 37 ). This study indicates that treatment failure and death are significantly more common among patients who experienced acquired resistance to capreomycin or ofloxacin or who acquired XDR TB than among patients who did not, providing even more evidence that these drugs are essential for successful treatment of MDR TB ( 38 ).
This study had several limitations. First, the relatively small sample size limited statistical power of our analyses. Second, testing of M. tuberculosis for susceptibility to second-line drugs is difficult and not well standardized ( 39 ), which could have caused patient misclassification for both the effective treatment and acquired resistance variables because both sets of variables involve DST results. Third, the effective treatment variables did not consider dosage or length of time the drug was given—all key components of effective treatment. Last, the prevalence of cavitary disease in this population was unusually high, and because cavitation is associated with acquired resistance, the results might not be directly applicable to patient populations with less chronic or destructive disease ( 21 ).
Knowing the drug resistance pattern in the community and risk factors for acquired resistance to second-line drugs can help TB programs initiate effective treatment regimens, prevent additional acquired resistance, and improve treatment outcomes for patients for whom MDR TB is suspected before DST results are available. The likelihood of treatment success can be further improved by adjusting treatment after receipt of DST results for second-line drugs. The need for rapid diagnosis of drug resistance and effective treatment is crucial.
We thank the patients, doctors, nurses, and microbiologists in Arkhangelsk Oblast, Russia, for their contributions to this work.
This study was supported by the US Agency for International Development Mission in Russia and the US CDC.
Ms. Smith is a health scientist with the International Research and Programs Branch of the Division of Tuberculosis Elimination, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Her research interests include drug-resistant TB diagnosis and treatment in low- and middle-income settings.
Suggested citation for this article : Smith SE, Ershova J, Vlasova N, Nikishova E, Tarasova I, Eliseev P, et al. Risk factors for acquisition of drug resistance during multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment, Arkhangelsk Oblast, Russia, 2005–2010. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Jun [ date cited ]. http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid2106.141907
Discover the world's research
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Office of Research, 4th Floor. James B. Williams School of Medicine Building. 100 Woodruff Circle. Atlanta, GA 30322. (404) 727-5671.
The Department of Medicine places a strong emphasis on its broad and innovative research programs. Department of Medicine researchers and clinicians work side-by-side to address fundamental problems in human disease. Their collaborative efforts enable them to take mechanistic discoveries to preclinical testing and first-in-man clinical trials.
As a leading research university, Emory's focus is the number of lives saved, partnerships forged, and discoveries driven—across the globe. ... A leader in medical research . Researching toward a Healthier Tomorrow . Breakthroughs aren't easy to come by. ... Emory University 201 Dowman Drive Atlanta, GA 30322 404.727.6123 Contact ...
The Georgia CTSA includes investigators at Emory University, Georgia Tech, Morehouse School of Medicine, and the University of Georgia. Goizueta Alzheimer's Disease Research Center Clinicians and researchers are focused on improving the lives of individuals affected by Alzheimer's and related diseases through innovative research, education, and ...
The Nexus. This 7' x 12' screen is located within the main atrium of HSRB-II. It is organized using Research Spotlights centered around Burning Questions facing the health sciences field. People gather and enjoy research in the atrium of the HSRB-II. The digital experience zones Nexus and Info Cores can be seen in the image.
Research Programs at Winship. The Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology is a major component of Winship Cancer Institute, a matrix cancer center that aims to accelerate the translation of science to better cancer prevention, screening, and care. At Winship, there are four full research programs, each comprised of faculty from our ...
Clinical Research. The safe and effective conduct of clinical research is one of the most fundamental goals for every faculty member within our department. Our investigators conduct a broad range of studies, including a large number of clinical trials that evaluate new drugs or agents, new devices, new regimens, and/or new strategies for the ...
In 2024, Emory University School of Medicine was ranked in Tier 1 for research-oriented medical schools, a group that includes the top schools in the nation. ... (NIH), as reported by the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR). In 2023, Emory received more than $485 million and is amongst the top 20 in the nation overall for ...
Medical Scientist Training Program (MD/PhD) Center for Holistic Student Success Center for Humanizing Innovations in Medical Education ... Clinical, basic, and translational researchers thrive here and bring excitement to a robust research enterprise. ... Emory University School of Medicine . 100 Woodruff Circle. Atlanta, GA 30322 USA. Contact ...
The Summer Scholars Research Program at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University is a six-week internship focused on exposing students to cancer research. 2024 cohort of Winship Summer Scholars. Ten to twelve students will work one-on-one with a Winship physician or lab-based researcher, conduct research in a working lab or clinic setting ...
As a leading research university, Emory's focus is the number of lives saved, partnerships forged, and discoveries driven—across the globe. ... Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University; Community Advancement. Center for Community Partnerships; ... US Department of Veterans Affairs: Atlanta VA Medical Center; Humanities.
The Department of Medicine is committed to ensuring a climate of inclusion and organizational equity by leveraging the diversity within our community. The department's commitment to diversity is guided by its values of integrity, respect, trust, compassion, innovation, collaboration, inclusion, quality, accountability, and excellence.
Research Emory Surgery has placed in the top 20 of all departments of surgery nationwide in annual NIH funding since FY2008, enhancing the potential for our discoveries to translate into transformative changes in patient care.
Emory University received more federal research dollars from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) than ever before and continued to climb in an independent ranking of peer institutions. The Fiscal Year 2020 rankings from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research compare schools and departments across the United States on the basis of NIH ...
Emory University continues to be one of the top-ranked institutions for research funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), according to the latest report from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research.. In 2021, Emory received $479.5 million and held steady in its ranking: 18th in the nation overall for institutional funding from the NIH.
Transforming Health. Emory is transforming health through education, discovery, prevention, and care. Our Woodruff Health Sciences Center (WHSC) is a leading academic health sciences center guided by evidence, committed to critical inquiry, and fueled by the creative spirit. At WHSC, we're dedicated to improving lives and providing hope at home ...
Emory by the Numbers. 1 in 4. Undergraduates participate in an honors program. 55%. OF UNDERGRADUATES RESEARCH WITH FACULTY ACROSS the arts, sciences, and humanities. #2. Biomedical engineering program in the nation. 1800+. Laney Graduate students pursue 50+ degree programs.
Student-driven, Original Research. The Emory Undergraduate Medical Review publishes student-authored research review articles at the intersection of cutting-edge medicine and the sciences. Our interdisciplinary articles span all clinical fields and cover a range of topics including novel drug research, healthcare policy, and medical ethics and ...
Ravi B. Parikh, MD, MPP, is a board-certified medical oncologist specializing in the treatment of genitourinary cancers. Dr. Parikh is an attending physician practicing at Winship Cancer Institute at Emory Midtown. Dr. Parikh is an associate professor in the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology at the Emory University School of Medicine.
U.S. President Joe Biden announced on Aug. 23 that Emory University will receive a $24.8 million cooperative agreement from the newly-established Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H). Emory is the first-ever recipient of ARPA-H funding, according to Assistant Professor in the Department of Medicine Matthew Woodruff.
Hackensack University Medical Center Summer Clinical Research Volunteer Program Halle Institute - FCHI Undergraduate Global Research Fellows Harvard Medical School Four Directions Summer Research Program ... Scholarly Inquiry and Research at Emory (SIRE) School for International Training (SIT) Programs Schuchard Prize ...
Whether another medical condition caused your heart failure At Emory Heart & Vascular, we offer the full range of nonsurgical and surgical heart failure treatments. We also research new treatments and offer clinical trials, working to improve the care available for every patient - now and in the future.
Abstract. Introduction: The rise of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR TB), defined as Mycobacterium tuberculosis ( M tb) with in vitro resistance to at least rifampin and isoniazid, poses an enormous threat to global TB control and prevention.
The nine schools that make up Emory University have big plans for the 2024-25 academic year, from welcoming new faculty to introducing new programs and initiatives. ... Of these, 28 received other graduate degrees prior to medical school; 57 claim Georgia as home and 24 were born outside the U.S. ... coordinated by the Georgia Research Alliance ...
The Nursing Leadership Certificate program from Emory Executive Education is designed and led by Emory's foremost thought leaders in business and nursing leadership. Dane Peterson, former president and chief operating officer; Bob Dent, vice president of patient services and chief nursing officer; Trina Geyer, director of nursing leadership ...
advanced degree from Emory University, I hereby grant to Emory University and its agents the non-exclusive license to archive, make accessible, and display my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known, including display on the world wide web. I understand that I may select some access restrictions as
The study protocol was approved by ethics committees at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Northern State Medical University in Arkhangelsk, and the State Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology (SRCAMB) in Obolensk, Russia. All patients provided written informed consent.
Ms. Smith is a health scientist with the International Research and Programs Branch of the Division of Tuberculosis Elimination, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.