Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
PLOS One. 2016 May 25; Volume 11 (Issue 5); e0155968.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0155968
Mitnick CD, Rodriguez CA, Hatton ML, Brigden G, Cobelens F, et al.
PLOS One. 2016 May 25; Volume 11 (Issue 5); e0155968.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0155968
INTRODUCTION
There are numerous challenges in delivering appropriate treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) and the evidence base to guide those practices remains limited. We present the third updated Research Agenda for the programmatic management of drug-resistant TB (PMDT), assembled through a literature review and survey.
METHODS
Publications citing the 2008 research agenda and normative documents were reviewed for evidence gaps. Gaps were formulated into questions and grouped as in the 2008 research agenda: Laboratory Support, Treatment Strategy, Programmatically Relevant Research, Epidemiology, and Management of Contacts. A survey was distributed through snowball sampling to identify research priorities. Respondent priority rankings were scored and summarized by mean. Sensitivity analyses explored weighting and handling of missing rankings.
RESULTS
Thirty normative documents and publications were reviewed for stated research needs; these were collapsed into 56 research questions across 5 categories. Of more than 500 survey recipients, 133 ranked priorities within at least one category. Priorities within categories included new diagnostics and their effect on improving treatment outcomes, improved diagnosis of paucibacillary and extra pulmonary TB, and development of shorter, effective regimens. Interruption of nosocomial transmission and treatment for latent TB infection in contacts of known MDR−TB patients were also top priorities in their respective categories. Results were internally consistent and robust.
DISCUSSION
Priorities retained from the 2008 research agenda include shorter MDR-TB regimens and averting transmission. Limitations of recent advances were implied in the continued quest for: shorter regimens containing new drugs, rapid diagnostics that improve treatment outcomes, and improved methods of estimating burden without representative data.
CONCLUSION
There is continuity around the priorities for research in PMDT. Coordinated efforts to address questions regarding shorter treatment regimens, knowledge of disease burden without representative data, and treatment for LTBI in contacts of known DR-TB patients are essential to stem the epidemic of TB, including DR-TB.
There are numerous challenges in delivering appropriate treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) and the evidence base to guide those practices remains limited. We present the third updated Research Agenda for the programmatic management of drug-resistant TB (PMDT), assembled through a literature review and survey.
METHODS
Publications citing the 2008 research agenda and normative documents were reviewed for evidence gaps. Gaps were formulated into questions and grouped as in the 2008 research agenda: Laboratory Support, Treatment Strategy, Programmatically Relevant Research, Epidemiology, and Management of Contacts. A survey was distributed through snowball sampling to identify research priorities. Respondent priority rankings were scored and summarized by mean. Sensitivity analyses explored weighting and handling of missing rankings.
RESULTS
Thirty normative documents and publications were reviewed for stated research needs; these were collapsed into 56 research questions across 5 categories. Of more than 500 survey recipients, 133 ranked priorities within at least one category. Priorities within categories included new diagnostics and their effect on improving treatment outcomes, improved diagnosis of paucibacillary and extra pulmonary TB, and development of shorter, effective regimens. Interruption of nosocomial transmission and treatment for latent TB infection in contacts of known MDR−TB patients were also top priorities in their respective categories. Results were internally consistent and robust.
DISCUSSION
Priorities retained from the 2008 research agenda include shorter MDR-TB regimens and averting transmission. Limitations of recent advances were implied in the continued quest for: shorter regimens containing new drugs, rapid diagnostics that improve treatment outcomes, and improved methods of estimating burden without representative data.
CONCLUSION
There is continuity around the priorities for research in PMDT. Coordinated efforts to address questions regarding shorter treatment regimens, knowledge of disease burden without representative data, and treatment for LTBI in contacts of known DR-TB patients are essential to stem the epidemic of TB, including DR-TB.
Journal Article > CommentaryAbstract
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2012 August 1; Volume 31 (Issue 8); DOI:10.1097/INF.0b013e31825ac0bc
Brigden G
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2012 August 1; Volume 31 (Issue 8); DOI:10.1097/INF.0b013e31825ac0bc
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2023 December 1; Volume 27 (Issue 12); 885-898.; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.23.0341
du Cros PAK, Greig J, Cross GB, Cousins C, Berry C, et al.
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2023 December 1; Volume 27 (Issue 12); 885-898.; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.23.0341
English
Français
BACKGROUND
The value, speed of completion and robustness of the evidence generated by TB treatment trials could be improved by implementing standards for best practice.
METHODS
A global panel of experts participated in a Delphi process, using a 7-point Likert scale to score and revise draft standards until consensus was reached.
RESULTS
Eleven standards were defined: Standard 1, high quality data on TB regimens are essential to inform clinical and programmatic management; Standard 2, the research questions addressed by TB trials should be relevant to affected communities, who should be included in all trial stages; Standard 3, trials should make every effort to be as inclusive as possible; Standard 4, the most efficient trial designs should be considered to improve the evidence base as quickly and cost effectively as possible, without compromising quality; Standard 5, trial governance should be in line with accepted good clinical practice; Standard 6, trials should investigate and report strategies that promote optimal engagement in care; Standard 7, where possible, TB trials should include pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic components; Standard 8, outcomes should include frequency of disease recurrence and post-treatment sequelae; Standard 9, TB trials should aim to harmonise key outcomes and data structures across studies; Standard 10, TB trials should include biobanking; Standard 11, treatment trials should invest in capacity strengthening of local trial and TB programme staff.
CONCLUSION
These standards should improve the efficiency and effectiveness of evidence generation, as well as the translation of research into policy and practice.
The value, speed of completion and robustness of the evidence generated by TB treatment trials could be improved by implementing standards for best practice.
METHODS
A global panel of experts participated in a Delphi process, using a 7-point Likert scale to score and revise draft standards until consensus was reached.
RESULTS
Eleven standards were defined: Standard 1, high quality data on TB regimens are essential to inform clinical and programmatic management; Standard 2, the research questions addressed by TB trials should be relevant to affected communities, who should be included in all trial stages; Standard 3, trials should make every effort to be as inclusive as possible; Standard 4, the most efficient trial designs should be considered to improve the evidence base as quickly and cost effectively as possible, without compromising quality; Standard 5, trial governance should be in line with accepted good clinical practice; Standard 6, trials should investigate and report strategies that promote optimal engagement in care; Standard 7, where possible, TB trials should include pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic components; Standard 8, outcomes should include frequency of disease recurrence and post-treatment sequelae; Standard 9, TB trials should aim to harmonise key outcomes and data structures across studies; Standard 10, TB trials should include biobanking; Standard 11, treatment trials should invest in capacity strengthening of local trial and TB programme staff.
CONCLUSION
These standards should improve the efficiency and effectiveness of evidence generation, as well as the translation of research into policy and practice.
Journal Article > ReviewAbstract
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2015 March 5
Brigden G, Furin J, van Gulik C, Marais BJ
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2015 March 5
Children were often the forgotten victims of the global tuberculosis (TB) epidemic, neglected by traditional TB services as well as maternal and child health initiatives. Luckily this is changing with a greater focus on children and the issues regarding their optimal management. A common misconception is that children with TB are always difficult to diagnose and treat. New diagnostic tools are urgently needed, but most children with TB in high-burden settings can be diagnosed with available approaches and treatment outcomes are generally excellent. Increased TB awareness, appropriate training of health care workers and inclusion in integrated management of childhood illness strategies will improve the access and quality of care that children receive. This review highlights what needs to be done to ensure that no child unnecessarily dies from TB and provides a brief overview of new advances in the field.
Journal Article > EditorialFull Text
Bull World Health Organ. 2017 May 1; Volume 95 (Issue 5); DOI:10.2471/BLT.17.194837
Brigden G, Castro JL, Ditiu L, Gray G, Hanna D, et al.
Bull World Health Organ. 2017 May 1; Volume 95 (Issue 5); DOI:10.2471/BLT.17.194837
Journal Article > CommentaryAbstract
Eur Respir J. 2016 January 1
Brigden G, du Cros PAK, Wong S
Eur Respir J. 2016 January 1
Journal Article > LetterFull Text
Lancet. 2013 February 23; Volume 381 (Issue 9867); 625.; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60341-4
Nyang'wa BT, Brigden G, du Cros PAK, Shanks L
Lancet. 2013 February 23; Volume 381 (Issue 9867); 625.; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60341-4
Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
Lancet Infect Dis. 2015 June 1; Volume 15 (Issue 6); 711-720.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00007-9
Nachman S, Ahmed AO, Amanullah F, Becerra M, Botgros R, et al.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2015 June 1; Volume 15 (Issue 6); 711-720.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00007-9
Children younger than 18 years account for a substantial proportion of patients with tuberculosis worldwide. Available treatments for paediatric drug-susceptible and drug-resistant tuberculosis, albeit generally effective, are hampered by high pill burden, long duration of treatment, coexistent toxic effects, and an overall scarcity of suitable child-friendly formulations. Several new drugs and regimens with promising activity against both drug-susceptible and drug-resistant strains have entered clinical development and are either in various phases of clinical investigation or have received marketing authorisation for adults; however, none have data on their use in children. This consensus statement, generated from an international panel of opinion leaders on childhood tuberculosis and incorporating reviews of published literature from January, 2004, to May, 2014, addressed four key questions: what drugs or regimens should be prioritised for clinical trials in children? Which populations of children are high priorities for study? When can phase 1 or 2 studies be initiated in children? What are the relevant elements of clinical trial design? The consensus panel found that children can be included in studies at the early phases of drug development and should be an integral part of the clinical development plan, rather than studied after regulatory approval in adults is obtained.
Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
Infect Drug Resist. 2015 October 30; DOI:10.2147/IDR.S68351
Brigden G, Hewison CCH, Varaine FFV
Infect Drug Resist. 2015 October 30; DOI:10.2147/IDR.S68351
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Bull World Health Organ. 2014 January 1; Volume 92 (Issue 1); 68-74.; DOI:10.2471/BLT.13.122028
Brigden G, Nyang'wa BT, du Cros PAK, Varaine FFV, Hughes J, et al.
Bull World Health Organ. 2014 January 1; Volume 92 (Issue 1); 68-74.; DOI:10.2471/BLT.13.122028
Fewer than 20% of patients with multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis are receiving treatment and there is an urgent need to scale up treatment programmes. One of the biggest barriers to scale-up is the treatment regimen, which is lengthy, complex, ineffective, poorly tolerated and expensive. For the first time in over 50 years, new drugs have been developed specifically to treat tuberculosis, with bedaquiline and potentially delamanid expected to be available soon for treatment of MDR cases. However, if the new drugs are merely added to the current treatment regimen, the new regimen will be at least as lengthy, cumbersome and toxic as the existing one. There is an urgent need for strategy and evidence on how to maximize the potential of the new drugs to improve outcomes and shorten treatment. We devised eight key principles for designing future treatment regimens to ensure that, once they are proven safe in clinical trials, they will be clinically effective and programmatically practicable. Regimens should contain at least one new class of drug; be broadly applicable for use against MDR and extensively drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex strains; contain three to five effective drugs, each from a different drug class; be delivered orally; have a simple dosing schedule; have a good side-effect profile that allows limited monitoring; last a maximum of 6 months; and have minimal interaction with antiretrovirals. Following these principles will maximize the potential of new compounds and help to overcome the clinical and programmatic disadvantages and scale-up constraints that plague the current regimen.