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 > Meta-AnalysisFull Text
Eur Respir J. 2020 March 20; Volume 55 (Issue 3); 1901467.; DOI:10.1183/13993003.01467-2019
Abidi S, Achar J, Assao Neino MM, Bang D, Benedetti A, et al.
Eur Respir J. 2020 March 20; Volume 55 (Issue 3); 1901467.; DOI:10.1183/13993003.01467-2019
We sought to compare the effectiveness of two World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended regimens for the treatment of rifampin- or multidrug-resistant (RR/MDR) tuberculosis (TB): a standardised regimen of 9-12 months (the "shorter regimen") and individualised regimens of ≥20 months ("longer regimens").
We collected individual patient data from observational studies identified through systematic reviews and a public call for data. We included patients meeting WHO eligibility criteria for the shorter regimen: not previously treated with second-line drugs, and with fluoroquinolone- and second-line injectable agent-susceptible RR/MDR-TB. We used propensity score matched, mixed effects meta-regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios and adjusted risk differences (aRDs) for failure or relapse, death within 12 months of treatment initiation and loss to follow-up.
We included 2625 out of 3378 (77.7%) individuals from nine studies of shorter regimens and 2717 out of 13 104 (20.7%) individuals from 53 studies of longer regimens. Treatment success was higher with the shorter regimen than with longer regimens (pooled proportions 80.0% versus 75.3%), due to less loss to follow-up with the former (aRD -0.15, 95% CI -0.17- -0.12). The risk difference for failure or relapse was slightly higher with the shorter regimen overall (aRD 0.02, 95% CI 0-0.05) and greater in magnitude with baseline resistance to pyrazinamide (aRD 0.12, 95% CI 0.07-0.16), prothionamide/ethionamide (aRD 0.07, 95% CI -0.01-0.16) or ethambutol (aRD 0.09, 95% CI 0.04-0.13).
In patients meeting WHO criteria for its use, the standardised shorter regimen was associated with substantially less loss to follow-up during treatment compared with individualised longer regimens and with more failure or relapse in the presence of resistance to component medications. Our findings support the need to improve access to reliable drug susceptibility testing.
We collected individual patient data from observational studies identified through systematic reviews and a public call for data. We included patients meeting WHO eligibility criteria for the shorter regimen: not previously treated with second-line drugs, and with fluoroquinolone- and second-line injectable agent-susceptible RR/MDR-TB. We used propensity score matched, mixed effects meta-regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios and adjusted risk differences (aRDs) for failure or relapse, death within 12 months of treatment initiation and loss to follow-up.
We included 2625 out of 3378 (77.7%) individuals from nine studies of shorter regimens and 2717 out of 13 104 (20.7%) individuals from 53 studies of longer regimens. Treatment success was higher with the shorter regimen than with longer regimens (pooled proportions 80.0% versus 75.3%), due to less loss to follow-up with the former (aRD -0.15, 95% CI -0.17- -0.12). The risk difference for failure or relapse was slightly higher with the shorter regimen overall (aRD 0.02, 95% CI 0-0.05) and greater in magnitude with baseline resistance to pyrazinamide (aRD 0.12, 95% CI 0.07-0.16), prothionamide/ethionamide (aRD 0.07, 95% CI -0.01-0.16) or ethambutol (aRD 0.09, 95% CI 0.04-0.13).
In patients meeting WHO criteria for its use, the standardised shorter regimen was associated with substantially less loss to follow-up during treatment compared with individualised longer regimens and with more failure or relapse in the presence of resistance to component medications. Our findings support the need to improve access to reliable drug susceptibility testing.
Journal Article > Meta-AnalysisFull Text
Lancet. 2020 August 8; Volume 396 (Issue 10248); 402-411.; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31316-7
Bisson GP, Bastos ML, Campbell JR, Bang D, Brust JCM, et al.
Lancet. 2020 August 8; Volume 396 (Issue 10248); 402-411.; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31316-7
BACKGROUND
HIV-infection is associated with increased mortality during multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment, but the extent to which the use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and anti-tuberculosis medications modify this risk are unclear. Our objective was to evaluate how use of these treatments altered mortality risk in HIV-positive adults with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.
METHODS
We did an individual patient data meta-analysis of adults 18 years or older with confirmed or presumed multidrug-resistant tuberculosis initiating tuberculosis treatment between 1993 and 2016. Data included ART use and anti-tuberculosis medications grouped according to WHO effectiveness categories. The primary analysis compared HIV-positive with HIV-negative patients in terms of death during multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment, excluding those lost to follow up, and was stratified by ART use. Analyses used logistic regression after exact matching on country World Bank income classification and drug resistance and propensity-score matching on age, sex, geographic site, year of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment initiation, previous tuberculosis treatment, directly observed therapy, and acid-fast-bacilli smear-positivity to obtain adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs. Secondary analyses were conducted among those with HIV-infection.
FINDINGS
We included 11 920 multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients. 2997 (25%) were HIV-positive and on ART, 886 (7%) were HIV-positive and not on ART, and 1749 (15%) had extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. By use of HIV-negative patients as reference, the aOR of death was 2·4 (95% CI 2·0-2·9) for all patients with HIV-infection, 1·8 (1·5-2·2) for HIV-positive patients on ART, and 4·2 (3·0-5·9) for HIV-positive patients with no or unknown ART. Among patients with HIV, use of at least one WHO Group A drug and specific use of moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, bedaquiline, or linezolid were associated with significantly decreased odds of death.
INTERPRETATION
Use of ART and more effective anti-tuberculosis drugs is associated with lower odds of death among HIV-positive patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Access to these therapies should be urgently pursued.
HIV-infection is associated with increased mortality during multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment, but the extent to which the use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and anti-tuberculosis medications modify this risk are unclear. Our objective was to evaluate how use of these treatments altered mortality risk in HIV-positive adults with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.
METHODS
We did an individual patient data meta-analysis of adults 18 years or older with confirmed or presumed multidrug-resistant tuberculosis initiating tuberculosis treatment between 1993 and 2016. Data included ART use and anti-tuberculosis medications grouped according to WHO effectiveness categories. The primary analysis compared HIV-positive with HIV-negative patients in terms of death during multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment, excluding those lost to follow up, and was stratified by ART use. Analyses used logistic regression after exact matching on country World Bank income classification and drug resistance and propensity-score matching on age, sex, geographic site, year of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment initiation, previous tuberculosis treatment, directly observed therapy, and acid-fast-bacilli smear-positivity to obtain adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs. Secondary analyses were conducted among those with HIV-infection.
FINDINGS
We included 11 920 multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients. 2997 (25%) were HIV-positive and on ART, 886 (7%) were HIV-positive and not on ART, and 1749 (15%) had extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. By use of HIV-negative patients as reference, the aOR of death was 2·4 (95% CI 2·0-2·9) for all patients with HIV-infection, 1·8 (1·5-2·2) for HIV-positive patients on ART, and 4·2 (3·0-5·9) for HIV-positive patients with no or unknown ART. Among patients with HIV, use of at least one WHO Group A drug and specific use of moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, bedaquiline, or linezolid were associated with significantly decreased odds of death.
INTERPRETATION
Use of ART and more effective anti-tuberculosis drugs is associated with lower odds of death among HIV-positive patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Access to these therapies should be urgently pursued.
Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2023 July 21; Volume S1198-743X (Issue 23); 00339-7.; DOI:10.1016/j.cmi.2023.07.013
Motta I, Boeree M, Chesov D, Dheda K, Günther G, et al.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2023 July 21; Volume S1198-743X (Issue 23); 00339-7.; DOI:10.1016/j.cmi.2023.07.013
BACKGROUND
Tuberculosis is a global health challenge and one of the leading causes of death worldwide. In the last decade, the tuberculosis treatment landscape has dramatically changed. After long years of stagnation, new compounds entered the market (bedaquiline, delamanid and pretomanid) and phase III clinical trials have shown promising results towards shortening duration of treatment for both drug-susceptible (Study 31/A5349, TRUNCATE-TB, SHINE) and drug-resistant tuberculosis (STREAM, NiX-TB, ZeNix, TB-PRACTECAL). Dose optimization of rifamycins and repurposed drugs have also brought hopes of further development of safe and effective regimens. Consequently, international and World Health Organization clinical guidelines have been updated multiple times in the last years to keep pace with these advances.
OBJECTIVES
This narrative review aims to summarize the state-of-the-art on treatment of drug-susceptible and drug-resistant tuberculosis, as well as recent trials results and an overview of ongoing clinical trials.
SOURCES
A non-systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed and MEDLINE, focusing on the treatment of tuberculosis. Ongoing clinical trials were listed according to the authors' knowledge, and completed consulting clinicaltrials.gov and other publicly available websites (www.resisttb.org/clinical-trials-progress-report, www.newtbdrugs.org/pipeline/trials).
CONTENT
This review summarizes the recent, major changes in the landscape for drug-susceptible and drug-resistant treatment, with a specific focus on their potential impact on patient outcomes and programmatic TB management. Moreover, insights in host-directed therapies, and advances in pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenomics are discussed. A thorough outline of ongoing therapeutic clinical trials is presented, highlighting different approaches and goals in current TB clinical research.
IMPLICATIONS
Future research should be directed to individualize regimens and protect these recent breakthroughs by preventing and identifying the selection of drug resistance and providing widespread, affordable, patient-centered access to new treatment options for all people affected by tuberculosis.
Tuberculosis is a global health challenge and one of the leading causes of death worldwide. In the last decade, the tuberculosis treatment landscape has dramatically changed. After long years of stagnation, new compounds entered the market (bedaquiline, delamanid and pretomanid) and phase III clinical trials have shown promising results towards shortening duration of treatment for both drug-susceptible (Study 31/A5349, TRUNCATE-TB, SHINE) and drug-resistant tuberculosis (STREAM, NiX-TB, ZeNix, TB-PRACTECAL). Dose optimization of rifamycins and repurposed drugs have also brought hopes of further development of safe and effective regimens. Consequently, international and World Health Organization clinical guidelines have been updated multiple times in the last years to keep pace with these advances.
OBJECTIVES
This narrative review aims to summarize the state-of-the-art on treatment of drug-susceptible and drug-resistant tuberculosis, as well as recent trials results and an overview of ongoing clinical trials.
SOURCES
A non-systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed and MEDLINE, focusing on the treatment of tuberculosis. Ongoing clinical trials were listed according to the authors' knowledge, and completed consulting clinicaltrials.gov and other publicly available websites (www.resisttb.org/clinical-trials-progress-report, www.newtbdrugs.org/pipeline/trials).
CONTENT
This review summarizes the recent, major changes in the landscape for drug-susceptible and drug-resistant treatment, with a specific focus on their potential impact on patient outcomes and programmatic TB management. Moreover, insights in host-directed therapies, and advances in pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenomics are discussed. A thorough outline of ongoing therapeutic clinical trials is presented, highlighting different approaches and goals in current TB clinical research.
IMPLICATIONS
Future research should be directed to individualize regimens and protect these recent breakthroughs by preventing and identifying the selection of drug resistance and providing widespread, affordable, patient-centered access to new treatment options for all people affected by tuberculosis.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet Respir Med. 2017 March 15 (Issue 4)
Dheda K, Gumbo T, Maartens G, Dooley KE, McNerney R, et al.
Lancet Respir Med. 2017 March 15 (Issue 4)
Global tuberculosis incidence has declined marginally over the past decade, and tuberculosis remains out of control in several parts of the world including Africa and Asia. Although tuberculosis control has been effective in some regions of the world, these gains are threatened by the increasing burden of multidrug-resistant (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) tuberculosis. XDR tuberculosis has evolved in several tuberculosis-endemic countries to drug-incurable or programmatically incurable tuberculosis (totally drug-resistant tuberculosis). This poses several challenges similar to those encountered in the pre-chemotherapy era, including the inability to cure tuberculosis, high mortality, and the need for alternative methods to prevent disease transmission. This phenomenon mirrors the worldwide increase in antimicrobial resistance and the emergence of other MDR pathogens, such as malaria, HIV, and Gram-negative bacteria. MDR and XDR tuberculosis are associated with high morbidity and substantial mortality, are a threat to health-care workers, prohibitively expensive to treat, and are therefore a serious public health problem. In this Commission, we examine several aspects of drug-resistant tuberculosis. The traditional view that acquired resistance to antituberculous drugs is driven by poor compliance and programmatic failure is now being questioned, and several lines of evidence suggest that alternative mechanisms-including pharmacokinetic variability, induction of efflux pumps that transport the drug out of cells, and suboptimal drug penetration into tuberculosis lesions-are likely crucial to the pathogenesis of drug-resistant tuberculosis. These factors have implications for the design of new interventions, drug delivery and dosing mechanisms, and public health policy. We discuss epidemiology and transmission dynamics, including new insights into the fundamental biology of transmission, and we review the utility of newer diagnostic tools, including molecular tests and next-generation whole-genome sequencing, and their potential for clinical effectiveness. Relevant research priorities are highlighted, including optimal medical and surgical management, the role of newer and repurposed drugs (including bedaquiline, delamanid, and linezolid), pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations, preventive strategies (such as prophylaxis in MDR and XDR contacts), palliative and patient-orientated care aspects, and medicolegal and ethical issues.
Journal Article > Meta-AnalysisFull Text
E Clinical Medicine. 2023 February 1; Volume 56; 101815.; DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101815
Hamada Y, Gupta RS, Quartagno M, Izzard A, Acuna-Villaorduna C, et al.
E Clinical Medicine. 2023 February 1; Volume 56; 101815.; DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101815
BACKGROUND
Evidence on the comparative performance of purified protein derivative tuberculin skin tests (TST) and interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA) for predicting incident active tuberculosis (TB) remains conflicting. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to directly compare the predictive performance for incident TB disease between TST and IGRA to inform policy.
METHODS
We searched Medline and Embase from 1 January 2002 to 4 September 2020, and studies that were included in previous systematic reviews. We included prospective longitudinal studies in which participants received both TST and IGRA and estimated performance as hazard ratios (HR) for the development of all diagnoses of TB in participants with dichotomised positive test results compared to negative results, using different thresholds of positivity for TST. Secondary analyses included an evaluation of the impact of background TB incidence. We also estimated the sensitivity and specificity for predicting TB. We explored heterogeneity through pre-defined sub-group analyses (e.g. country-level TB incidence). Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. This review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020205667.
FINDINGS
We obtained data from 13 studies out of 40 that were considered eligible (N = 32,034 participants: 36% from countries with TB incidence rate ≥100 per 100,000 population). All reported data on TST and QuantiFERON Gold in-Tube (QFT-GIT). The point estimate for the TST was highest with higher cut-offs for positivity and particularly when stratified by bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccine (BCG) status (15 mm if BCG vaccinated and 5 mm if not [TST5/15 mm]) at 2.88 (95% CI 1.69–4.90). The pooled HR for QFT-GIT was higher than for TST at 4.15 (95% CI 1.97–8.75). The difference was large in countries with TB incidence rate <100 per 100,000 population (HR 10.38, 95% CI 4.17–25.87 for QFT-GIT VS. HR 5.36, 95% CI 3.82–7.51 for TST5/15 mm) but much of this difference was driven by a single study (HR 5.13, 95% CI 3.58–7.35 for TST5/15 mm VS. 7.18, 95% CI 4.48–11.51 for QFT-GIT, when excluding the study, in which all 19 TB cases had positive QFT-GIT results). The comparative performance was similar in the higher burden countries (HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23–2.10 for QFT-GIT VS. HR 1.72, 95% CI 0.98–3.01 for TST5/15 mm). The predictive performance of both tests was higher in countries with TB incidence rate <100 per 100,000 population. In the lower TB incidence countries, the specificity of TST (76% for TST5/15 mm) and QFT-GIT (74%) for predicting active TB approached the minimum World Health Organization target (≥75%), but the sensitivity was below the target of ≥75% (63% for TST5/15 mm and 65% for QFT-GIT). The absolute differences in positive and negative predictive values between TST15 mm and QFT-GIT were small (positive predictive values 2.74% VS. 2.46%; negative predictive values 99.42% VS. 99.52% in low-incidence countries). Egger's test did not show evidence of publication bias (0.74 for TST15 mm and p = 0.68 for QFT-GIT).
INTERPRETATION
IGRA appears to have higher predictive performance than the TST in low TB incidence countries, but the difference was driven by a single study. Any advantage in clinical performance may be small, given the numerically similar positive and negative predictive values. Both IGRA and TST had lower performance in countries with high TB incidence. Test choice should be contextual and made considering operational and likely clinical impact of test results.
Evidence on the comparative performance of purified protein derivative tuberculin skin tests (TST) and interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA) for predicting incident active tuberculosis (TB) remains conflicting. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to directly compare the predictive performance for incident TB disease between TST and IGRA to inform policy.
METHODS
We searched Medline and Embase from 1 January 2002 to 4 September 2020, and studies that were included in previous systematic reviews. We included prospective longitudinal studies in which participants received both TST and IGRA and estimated performance as hazard ratios (HR) for the development of all diagnoses of TB in participants with dichotomised positive test results compared to negative results, using different thresholds of positivity for TST. Secondary analyses included an evaluation of the impact of background TB incidence. We also estimated the sensitivity and specificity for predicting TB. We explored heterogeneity through pre-defined sub-group analyses (e.g. country-level TB incidence). Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. This review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020205667.
FINDINGS
We obtained data from 13 studies out of 40 that were considered eligible (N = 32,034 participants: 36% from countries with TB incidence rate ≥100 per 100,000 population). All reported data on TST and QuantiFERON Gold in-Tube (QFT-GIT). The point estimate for the TST was highest with higher cut-offs for positivity and particularly when stratified by bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccine (BCG) status (15 mm if BCG vaccinated and 5 mm if not [TST5/15 mm]) at 2.88 (95% CI 1.69–4.90). The pooled HR for QFT-GIT was higher than for TST at 4.15 (95% CI 1.97–8.75). The difference was large in countries with TB incidence rate <100 per 100,000 population (HR 10.38, 95% CI 4.17–25.87 for QFT-GIT VS. HR 5.36, 95% CI 3.82–7.51 for TST5/15 mm) but much of this difference was driven by a single study (HR 5.13, 95% CI 3.58–7.35 for TST5/15 mm VS. 7.18, 95% CI 4.48–11.51 for QFT-GIT, when excluding the study, in which all 19 TB cases had positive QFT-GIT results). The comparative performance was similar in the higher burden countries (HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23–2.10 for QFT-GIT VS. HR 1.72, 95% CI 0.98–3.01 for TST5/15 mm). The predictive performance of both tests was higher in countries with TB incidence rate <100 per 100,000 population. In the lower TB incidence countries, the specificity of TST (76% for TST5/15 mm) and QFT-GIT (74%) for predicting active TB approached the minimum World Health Organization target (≥75%), but the sensitivity was below the target of ≥75% (63% for TST5/15 mm and 65% for QFT-GIT). The absolute differences in positive and negative predictive values between TST15 mm and QFT-GIT were small (positive predictive values 2.74% VS. 2.46%; negative predictive values 99.42% VS. 99.52% in low-incidence countries). Egger's test did not show evidence of publication bias (0.74 for TST15 mm and p = 0.68 for QFT-GIT).
INTERPRETATION
IGRA appears to have higher predictive performance than the TST in low TB incidence countries, but the difference was driven by a single study. Any advantage in clinical performance may be small, given the numerically similar positive and negative predictive values. Both IGRA and TST had lower performance in countries with high TB incidence. Test choice should be contextual and made considering operational and likely clinical impact of test results.
Journal Article > Meta-AnalysisFull Text
Lancet. 2018 September 8; Volume 392 (Issue 10150); 821-834.; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31644-1
Ahmad N, Ahuja SD, Akkerman OW, Alffenaar JWC, Anderson LF, et al.
Lancet. 2018 September 8; Volume 392 (Issue 10150); 821-834.; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31644-1
BACKGROUND
Treatment outcomes for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis remain poor. We aimed to estimate the association of treatment success and death with the use of individual drugs, and the optimal number and duration of treatment with those drugs in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.
METHODS
In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify potentially eligible observational and experimental studies published between Jan 1, 2009, and April 30, 2016. We also searched reference lists from all systematic reviews of treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis published since 2009. To be eligible, studies had to report original results, with end of treatment outcomes (treatment completion [success], failure, or relapse) in cohorts of at least 25 adults (aged >18 years). We used anonymised individual patient data from eligible studies, provided by study investigators, regarding clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes. Using propensity score-matched generalised mixed effects logistic, or linear regression, we calculated adjusted odds ratios and adjusted risk differences for success or death during treatment, for specific drugs currently used to treat multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, as well as the number of drugs used and treatment duration.
FINDINGS
Of 12 030 patients from 25 countries in 50 studies, 7346 (61%) had treatment success, 1017 (8%) had failure or relapse, and 1729 (14%) died. Compared with failure or relapse, treatment success was positively associated with the use of linezolid (adjusted risk difference 0·15, 95% CI 0·11 to 0·18), levofloxacin (0·15, 0·13 to 0·18), carbapenems (0·14, 0·06 to 0·21), moxifloxacin (0·11, 0·08 to 0·14), bedaquiline (0·10, 0·05 to 0·14), and clofazimine (0·06, 0·01 to 0·10). There was a significant association between reduced mortality and use of linezolid (-0·20, -0·23 to -0·16), levofloxacin (-0·06, -0·09 to -0·04), moxifloxacin (-0·07, -0·10 to -0·04), or bedaquiline (-0·14, -0·19 to -0·10). Compared with regimens without any injectable drug, amikacin provided modest benefits, but kanamycin and capreomycin were associated with worse outcomes. The remaining drugs were associated with slight or no improvements in outcomes. Treatment outcomes were significantly worse for most drugs if they were used despite in-vitro resistance. The optimal number of effective drugs seemed to be five in the initial phase, and four in the continuation phase. In these adjusted analyses, heterogeneity, based on a simulated I2 method, was high for approximately half the estimates for specific drugs, although relatively low for number of drugs and durations analyses.
INTERPRETATION
Although inferences are limited by the observational nature of these data, treatment outcomes were significantly better with use of linezolid, later generation fluoroquinolones, bedaquiline, clofazimine, and carbapenems for treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. These findings emphasise the need for trials to ascertain the optimal combination and duration of these drugs for treatment of this condition.
Treatment outcomes for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis remain poor. We aimed to estimate the association of treatment success and death with the use of individual drugs, and the optimal number and duration of treatment with those drugs in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.
METHODS
In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify potentially eligible observational and experimental studies published between Jan 1, 2009, and April 30, 2016. We also searched reference lists from all systematic reviews of treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis published since 2009. To be eligible, studies had to report original results, with end of treatment outcomes (treatment completion [success], failure, or relapse) in cohorts of at least 25 adults (aged >18 years). We used anonymised individual patient data from eligible studies, provided by study investigators, regarding clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes. Using propensity score-matched generalised mixed effects logistic, or linear regression, we calculated adjusted odds ratios and adjusted risk differences for success or death during treatment, for specific drugs currently used to treat multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, as well as the number of drugs used and treatment duration.
FINDINGS
Of 12 030 patients from 25 countries in 50 studies, 7346 (61%) had treatment success, 1017 (8%) had failure or relapse, and 1729 (14%) died. Compared with failure or relapse, treatment success was positively associated with the use of linezolid (adjusted risk difference 0·15, 95% CI 0·11 to 0·18), levofloxacin (0·15, 0·13 to 0·18), carbapenems (0·14, 0·06 to 0·21), moxifloxacin (0·11, 0·08 to 0·14), bedaquiline (0·10, 0·05 to 0·14), and clofazimine (0·06, 0·01 to 0·10). There was a significant association between reduced mortality and use of linezolid (-0·20, -0·23 to -0·16), levofloxacin (-0·06, -0·09 to -0·04), moxifloxacin (-0·07, -0·10 to -0·04), or bedaquiline (-0·14, -0·19 to -0·10). Compared with regimens without any injectable drug, amikacin provided modest benefits, but kanamycin and capreomycin were associated with worse outcomes. The remaining drugs were associated with slight or no improvements in outcomes. Treatment outcomes were significantly worse for most drugs if they were used despite in-vitro resistance. The optimal number of effective drugs seemed to be five in the initial phase, and four in the continuation phase. In these adjusted analyses, heterogeneity, based on a simulated I2 method, was high for approximately half the estimates for specific drugs, although relatively low for number of drugs and durations analyses.
INTERPRETATION
Although inferences are limited by the observational nature of these data, treatment outcomes were significantly better with use of linezolid, later generation fluoroquinolones, bedaquiline, clofazimine, and carbapenems for treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. These findings emphasise the need for trials to ascertain the optimal combination and duration of these drugs for treatment of this condition.
Journal Article > Meta-AnalysisFull Text
PLOS Med. 2012 August 28; Volume 9 (Issue 8); DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001300
Ahuja SD, Ashkin D, Avendano M, Banerjee R, Bayona J, et al.
PLOS Med. 2012 August 28; Volume 9 (Issue 8); DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001300
Treatment of multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) is lengthy, toxic, expensive, and has generally poor outcomes. We undertook an individual patient data meta-analysis to assess the impact on outcomes of the type, number, and duration of drugs used to treat MDR-TB.
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 > Meta-AnalysisAbstract
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 March 17; Volume 8 (Issue 4); DOI:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30047-3
Lan Z, Ahmad N, Baghaei P, Barkane L, Benedetti A, et al.
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 March 17; Volume 8 (Issue 4); DOI:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30047-3