Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
JAMA. 2008 August 6; Volume 300 (Issue 5); 530-539.; DOI:10.1001/jama.300.5.530
Boulle A, van Cutsem G, Cohen K, Hilderbrand K, Mathee S, et al.
JAMA. 2008 August 6; Volume 300 (Issue 5); 530-539.; DOI:10.1001/jama.300.5.530
CONTEXT
Rifampicin-based antitubercular therapy reduces the plasma concentrations of nevirapine and efavirenz. The virological consequences of these interactions are not well described.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of concomitant efavirenz- or nevirapine-based combination antiretroviral therapy and rifampicin-based antitubercular therapy.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Cohort analysis of prospectively collected routine clinical data in a community-based South African antiretroviral treatment program. Antiretroviral treatment-naive adults enrolled between May 2001 and June 2006 were included in the analysis, and were followed up until the end of 2006.
INTERVENTIONS
Patients starting antiretroviral therapy with or without concurrent antitubercular therapy received either efavirenz or nevirapine at standard doses. Patients developing tuberculosis while taking antiretroviral therapy that included nevirapine were either changed to efavirenz or continued taking nevirapine.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Viral load of 400 copies/mL or more after 6, 12, and 18 months of antiretroviral therapy; time to the first viral load of 400 copies/mL or more; time to confirmed virological failure (2 consecutive values > or = 5000 copies/mL); time to death; and time to treatment-limiting toxicity were assessed.
RESULTS
The analysis included 2035 individuals who started antiretroviral therapy with efavirenz (1074 with concurrent tuberculosis) and 1935 with nevirapine (209 with concurrent tuberculosis). There were no differences in time to death or substitution of either antiretroviral drug for toxicity with and without concurrent tuberculosis. Patients starting nevirapine with concurrent tuberculosis were at a higher risk of elevated viral load most notably at 6 months (16.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.6%-23.5%) than those without tuberculosis (8.3%; 95% CI, 6.7%-10.0%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4; and in the combined estimate, adjusted OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.6). In the time-to-event analysis of confirmed virological failure (2 consecutive values of > or = 5000 copies/mL), patients starting nevirapine with concurrent tuberculosis developed virological failure sooner (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.7). There were no differences between patients starting efavirenz with and without concurrent tuberculosis (adjusted OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-1.5 [combined estimate] and adjusted HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-2.0, respectively). There was no difference in time to virological rebound in patients free of tuberculosis and those developing tuberculosis during follow-up while taking nevirapine (adjusted HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.5-2.0) or efavirenz (adjusted HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.4-1.7).
CONCLUSION
In this cohort study, virological outcomes were inferior when nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy was commenced while taking antitubercular treatment (vs without concurrent tuberculosis) but comparable when starting efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy (vs without concurrent tuberculosis) or when tuberculosis developed while taking established nevirapine- or efavirenz-based therapies.
Rifampicin-based antitubercular therapy reduces the plasma concentrations of nevirapine and efavirenz. The virological consequences of these interactions are not well described.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of concomitant efavirenz- or nevirapine-based combination antiretroviral therapy and rifampicin-based antitubercular therapy.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Cohort analysis of prospectively collected routine clinical data in a community-based South African antiretroviral treatment program. Antiretroviral treatment-naive adults enrolled between May 2001 and June 2006 were included in the analysis, and were followed up until the end of 2006.
INTERVENTIONS
Patients starting antiretroviral therapy with or without concurrent antitubercular therapy received either efavirenz or nevirapine at standard doses. Patients developing tuberculosis while taking antiretroviral therapy that included nevirapine were either changed to efavirenz or continued taking nevirapine.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Viral load of 400 copies/mL or more after 6, 12, and 18 months of antiretroviral therapy; time to the first viral load of 400 copies/mL or more; time to confirmed virological failure (2 consecutive values > or = 5000 copies/mL); time to death; and time to treatment-limiting toxicity were assessed.
RESULTS
The analysis included 2035 individuals who started antiretroviral therapy with efavirenz (1074 with concurrent tuberculosis) and 1935 with nevirapine (209 with concurrent tuberculosis). There were no differences in time to death or substitution of either antiretroviral drug for toxicity with and without concurrent tuberculosis. Patients starting nevirapine with concurrent tuberculosis were at a higher risk of elevated viral load most notably at 6 months (16.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.6%-23.5%) than those without tuberculosis (8.3%; 95% CI, 6.7%-10.0%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.4; and in the combined estimate, adjusted OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.6). In the time-to-event analysis of confirmed virological failure (2 consecutive values of > or = 5000 copies/mL), patients starting nevirapine with concurrent tuberculosis developed virological failure sooner (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.7). There were no differences between patients starting efavirenz with and without concurrent tuberculosis (adjusted OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-1.5 [combined estimate] and adjusted HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-2.0, respectively). There was no difference in time to virological rebound in patients free of tuberculosis and those developing tuberculosis during follow-up while taking nevirapine (adjusted HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.5-2.0) or efavirenz (adjusted HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.4-1.7).
CONCLUSION
In this cohort study, virological outcomes were inferior when nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy was commenced while taking antitubercular treatment (vs without concurrent tuberculosis) but comparable when starting efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy (vs without concurrent tuberculosis) or when tuberculosis developed while taking established nevirapine- or efavirenz-based therapies.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet. 2014 May 14 (Issue 9944); DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60162-8
Rangaka MX, Wilkinson RJ, Boulle AM, Glynn JR, Fielding K, et al.
Lancet. 2014 May 14 (Issue 9944); DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60162-8
Antiretroviral therapy reduces the risk of tuberculosis, but tuberculosis is more common in people with HIV than in people without HIV. We aimed to assess the effect of isoniazid preventive therapy on the risk of tuberculosis in people infected with HIV-1 concurrently receiving antiretroviral therapy.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007 December 7; Volume 175 (Issue 5); DOI:10.1164/rccm.200610-1439OC
Rangaka MX, Wilkinson KA, Seldon R, van Cutsem G, Meintjes GA, et al.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007 December 7; Volume 175 (Issue 5); DOI:10.1164/rccm.200610-1439OC
RATIONALE: Two forms of the IFN-gamma release assay (IFNGRA) to detect tuberculosis infection are available, but neither has been evaluated in comparable HIV-infected and uninfected persons in a high tuberculosis incidence environment. OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of the T-SPOT.TB (Oxford Immunotec, Abingdon, UK), QuantiFERON-TB Gold (Cellestis, Melbourne, Australia), and Mantoux tests to identify latent tuberculosis in HIV-infected and uninfected persons. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 160 healthy adults without active tuberculosis attending a voluntary counseling and testing center for HIV infection in Khayelitsha, a deprived urban South African community with an HIV antenatal seroprevalence of 33% and a tuberculosis incidence of 1,612 per 100,000. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred and sixty (74 HIV(+) and 86 HIV(-)) persons were enrolled. A lower proportion of Mantoux results was positive in HIV-infected subjects compared with HIV-uninfected subjects (p < 0.01). By contrast, the proportion of positive IFNGRAs was not significantly different in HIV-infected persons for the T-SPOT.TB test (52 vs. 59%; p = 0.41) or the QuantiFERON-TB Gold test (43 and 46%; p = 0.89). Fair agreement between the Mantoux test (5- and 10-mm cutoffs) and the IFNGRA was seen in HIV-infected people (kappa = 0.52-0.6). By contrast, poor agreement between the Mantoux and QuantiFERON-TB Gold tests was observed in the HIV-uninfected group (kappa = 0.07-0.30, depending on the Mantoux cutoff). The pattern was similar for T-SPOT.TB (kappa = 0.18-0.24). Interpretation: IFNGRA sensitivity appears relatively unimpaired by moderately advanced HIV infection. However, agreement between the tests and with the Mantoux test varied from poor to fair. This highlights the need for prospective studies to determine which test may predict the subsequent risk of tuberculosis.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
J Int AIDS Soc. 2017 April 10 (Issue 1)
de Waal R, Cohen K, Fox MP, Stinson K, Maartens G, et al.
J Int AIDS Soc. 2017 April 10 (Issue 1)
Tenofovir has been associated with decline in kidney function, but in patients with low baseline kidney function, improvements over time have been reported. Additionally, the magnitude and trajectory of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) changes may differ according to how eGFR is calculated. We described changes in eGFR over time, and the incidence of, and risk factors for, kidney toxicity, in a South African cohort.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 May 2; Online ahead of print; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00811-2
Ndjeka N, Campbell JR, Meintjes GA, Maartens G, Schaaf HS, et al.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 May 2; Online ahead of print; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00811-2
BACKGROUND
There is a need for short and safe all-oral treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. We compared outcomes up to 24 months after treatment initiation for patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in South Africa treated with a short, all-oral bedaquiline-containing regimen (bedaquiline group), or a short, injectable-containing regimen (injectable group).
METHODS
Patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, aged 18 years or older, eligible for a short regimen starting treatment between Jan 1 and Dec 31, 2017, with a bedaquiline-containing or WHO recommended injectable containing treatment regimen of 9–12 months, registered in the drug-resistant tuberculosis database (EDRWeb), and with known age, sex, HIV status, and national identification number were eligible for study inclusion; patients receiving linezolid, carbapenems, terizidone or cycloserine, delamanid, or para-aminosalicylic acid were excluded. Bedaquiline was given at a dose of 400 mg once daily for two weeks followed by 200 mg three times a week for 22 weeks. To compare regimens, patients were exactly matched on HIV and ART status, previous tuberculosis treatment history, and baseline acid-fast bacilli smear and culture result, while propensity score matched on age, sex, province of treatment, and isoniazid-susceptibility status. We did binomial linear regression to estimate adjusted risk differences (aRD) and 95% CIs for 24-month outcomes, which included: treatment success (ie, cure or treatment completion without evidence of recurrence) versus all other outcomes, survival versus death, disease free survival versus survival with treatment failure or recurrence, and loss to follow-up versus all other outcomes.
FINDINGS
Overall, 1387 (14%) of 10152 patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis treated during 2017 met inclusion criteria; 688 in the bedaquiline group and 699 in the injectable group. Four patients (1%) had treatment failure or recurrence, 44 (6%) were lost to follow-up, and 162 (24%) died in the bedaquiline group, compared with 17 (2%), 87 (12%), and 199 (28%), respectively, in the injectable group. In adjusted analyses, treatment success was 14% (95% CI 8–20) higher in the bedaquiline group than in the injectable group (70% vs 57%); loss to follow-up was 4% (1–8) lower in the bedaquiline group (6% vs 12%); and disease-free survival was 2% (0–5) higher in the bedaquiline group (99% vs 97%). The bedaquiline group had 8% (4–11) lower risk of mortality during treatment (17·0% vs 22·4%), but there was no difference in mortality post-treatment.
INTERPRETATION
Patients in the bedaquiline group experienced significantly higher rates of treatment success at 24 months. This finding supports the use of short bedaquiline-containing regimens in eligible patients.
FUNDING
WHO Global TB Programme.
There is a need for short and safe all-oral treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. We compared outcomes up to 24 months after treatment initiation for patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in South Africa treated with a short, all-oral bedaquiline-containing regimen (bedaquiline group), or a short, injectable-containing regimen (injectable group).
METHODS
Patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, aged 18 years or older, eligible for a short regimen starting treatment between Jan 1 and Dec 31, 2017, with a bedaquiline-containing or WHO recommended injectable containing treatment regimen of 9–12 months, registered in the drug-resistant tuberculosis database (EDRWeb), and with known age, sex, HIV status, and national identification number were eligible for study inclusion; patients receiving linezolid, carbapenems, terizidone or cycloserine, delamanid, or para-aminosalicylic acid were excluded. Bedaquiline was given at a dose of 400 mg once daily for two weeks followed by 200 mg three times a week for 22 weeks. To compare regimens, patients were exactly matched on HIV and ART status, previous tuberculosis treatment history, and baseline acid-fast bacilli smear and culture result, while propensity score matched on age, sex, province of treatment, and isoniazid-susceptibility status. We did binomial linear regression to estimate adjusted risk differences (aRD) and 95% CIs for 24-month outcomes, which included: treatment success (ie, cure or treatment completion without evidence of recurrence) versus all other outcomes, survival versus death, disease free survival versus survival with treatment failure or recurrence, and loss to follow-up versus all other outcomes.
FINDINGS
Overall, 1387 (14%) of 10152 patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis treated during 2017 met inclusion criteria; 688 in the bedaquiline group and 699 in the injectable group. Four patients (1%) had treatment failure or recurrence, 44 (6%) were lost to follow-up, and 162 (24%) died in the bedaquiline group, compared with 17 (2%), 87 (12%), and 199 (28%), respectively, in the injectable group. In adjusted analyses, treatment success was 14% (95% CI 8–20) higher in the bedaquiline group than in the injectable group (70% vs 57%); loss to follow-up was 4% (1–8) lower in the bedaquiline group (6% vs 12%); and disease-free survival was 2% (0–5) higher in the bedaquiline group (99% vs 97%). The bedaquiline group had 8% (4–11) lower risk of mortality during treatment (17·0% vs 22·4%), but there was no difference in mortality post-treatment.
INTERPRETATION
Patients in the bedaquiline group experienced significantly higher rates of treatment success at 24 months. This finding supports the use of short bedaquiline-containing regimens in eligible patients.
FUNDING
WHO Global TB Programme.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
AIDS. 2010 February 20; Volume 24 (Issue 4); DOI:10.1097/QAD.0b013e328333bfb7
Boulle AM, van Cutsem G, Hilderbrand K, Cragg C, Abrahams M, et al.
AIDS. 2010 February 20; Volume 24 (Issue 4); DOI:10.1097/QAD.0b013e328333bfb7
OBJECTIVES: We report on outcomes after 7 years of a community-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) programme in Khayelitsha, South Africa, with death registry linkages to correct for mortality under-ascertainment. DESIGN: This is an observational cohort study. METHODS: Since inception, patient-level clinical data have been prospectively captured on-site into an electronic patient information system. Patients with available civil identification numbers who were lost to follow-up were matched with the national death registry to ascertain their vital status. Corrected mortality estimates weighted these patients to represent all patients lost to follow-up. CD4 cell count outcomes were reported conditioned on continuous virological suppression. RESULTS: Seven thousand, three hundred and twenty-three treatment-naive adults (68% women) started ART between 2001 and 2007, with annual enrolment increasing from 80 in 2001 to 2087 in 2006. Of 9.8% of patients lost to follow-up for at least 6 months, 32.8% had died. Corrected mortality was 20.9% at 5 years (95% confidence interval 17.9-24.3). Mortality fell over time as patients accessed care earlier (median CD4 cell count at enrolment increased from 43 cells/microl in 2001 to 131 cells/microl in 2006). Patients who remained virologically suppressed continued to gain CD4 cells at 5 years (median 22 cells/microl per 6 months). By 5 years, 14.0% of patients had failed virologically and 12.2% had been switched to second-line therapy. CONCLUSION: At a time of considerable debate about future global funding of ART programmes in resource-poor settings, this study has demonstrated substantial and durable clinical benefits for those able to access ART throughout this period, in spite of increasing loss to follow-up.
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 > ResearchAbstract Only
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 November 12; Volume S1473-3099 (Issue 21); 00470-00479.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00470-9
Ismail N, Omar SV, Moultrie H, Bhyat Z, Conradie F, et al.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 November 12; Volume S1473-3099 (Issue 21); 00470-00479.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00470-9
BACKGROUND
Bedaquiline improves outcomes of patients with rifampicin-resistant and multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis; however, emerging resistance threatens this success. We did a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis evaluating the epidemiology, genetic basis, and treatment outcomes associated with bedaquiline resistance, using data from South Africa (2015-19).
METHODS
Patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis starting bedaquiline-based treatment had surveillance samples submitted at baseline, month 2, and month 6, along with demographic information. Culture-positive baseline and post-baseline isolates had phenotypic resistance determined. Eligible patients were aged 12 years or older with a positive culture sample at baseline or, if the sample was invalid or negative, a sample within 30 days of the baseline sample submitted for bedaquiline drug susceptibility testing. For the longitudinal study, the first surveillance sample had to be phenotypically susceptible to bedaquiline for inclusion. Whole-genome sequencing was done on bedaquiline-resistant isolates and a subset of bedaquiline-susceptible isolates. The National Institute for Communicable Diseases tuberculosis reference laboratory, and national tuberculosis surveillance databases were matched to the Electronic Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis Register. We assessed baseline resistance prevalence, mutations, transmission, cumulative resistance incidence, and odds ratios (ORs) associating risk factors for resistance with patient outcomes.
FINDINGS
Between Jan 1, 2015, and July 31, 2019, 8041 patients had surveillance samples submitted, of whom 2023 were included in the cross-sectional analysis and 695 in the longitudinal analysis. Baseline bedaquiline resistance prevalence was 3·8% (76 of 2023 patients; 95% CI 2·9-4·6), and it was associated with previous exposure to bedaquiline or clofazimine (OR 7·1, 95% CI 2·3-21·9) and with rifampicin-resistant or MDR tuberculosis with additional resistance to either fluoroquinolones or injectable drugs (pre-extensively-drug resistant [XDR] tuberculosis: 4·2, 1·7-10·5) or to both (XDR tuberculosis: 4·8, 2·0-11·7). Rv0678 mutations were the sole genetic basis of phenotypic resistance. Baseline resistance could be attributed to previous bedaquiline or clofazimine exposure in four (5·3%) of 76 patients and to primary transmission in six (7·9%). Odds of successful treatment outcomes were lower in patients with baseline bedaquiline resistance (0·5, 0·3-1). Resistance during treatment developed in 16 (2·3%) of 695 patients, at a median of 90 days (IQR 62-195), with 12 of these 16 having pre-XDR or XDR.
INTERPRETATION
Bedaquiline resistance was associated with poorer treatment outcomes. Rapid assessment of bedaquiline resistance, especially when patients were previously exposed to bedaquiline or clofazimine, should be prioritised at baseline or if patients remain culture-positive after 2 months of treatment. Preventing resistance by use of novel combination therapies, current treatment optimisation, and patient support is essential.
Bedaquiline improves outcomes of patients with rifampicin-resistant and multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis; however, emerging resistance threatens this success. We did a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis evaluating the epidemiology, genetic basis, and treatment outcomes associated with bedaquiline resistance, using data from South Africa (2015-19).
METHODS
Patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis starting bedaquiline-based treatment had surveillance samples submitted at baseline, month 2, and month 6, along with demographic information. Culture-positive baseline and post-baseline isolates had phenotypic resistance determined. Eligible patients were aged 12 years or older with a positive culture sample at baseline or, if the sample was invalid or negative, a sample within 30 days of the baseline sample submitted for bedaquiline drug susceptibility testing. For the longitudinal study, the first surveillance sample had to be phenotypically susceptible to bedaquiline for inclusion. Whole-genome sequencing was done on bedaquiline-resistant isolates and a subset of bedaquiline-susceptible isolates. The National Institute for Communicable Diseases tuberculosis reference laboratory, and national tuberculosis surveillance databases were matched to the Electronic Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis Register. We assessed baseline resistance prevalence, mutations, transmission, cumulative resistance incidence, and odds ratios (ORs) associating risk factors for resistance with patient outcomes.
FINDINGS
Between Jan 1, 2015, and July 31, 2019, 8041 patients had surveillance samples submitted, of whom 2023 were included in the cross-sectional analysis and 695 in the longitudinal analysis. Baseline bedaquiline resistance prevalence was 3·8% (76 of 2023 patients; 95% CI 2·9-4·6), and it was associated with previous exposure to bedaquiline or clofazimine (OR 7·1, 95% CI 2·3-21·9) and with rifampicin-resistant or MDR tuberculosis with additional resistance to either fluoroquinolones or injectable drugs (pre-extensively-drug resistant [XDR] tuberculosis: 4·2, 1·7-10·5) or to both (XDR tuberculosis: 4·8, 2·0-11·7). Rv0678 mutations were the sole genetic basis of phenotypic resistance. Baseline resistance could be attributed to previous bedaquiline or clofazimine exposure in four (5·3%) of 76 patients and to primary transmission in six (7·9%). Odds of successful treatment outcomes were lower in patients with baseline bedaquiline resistance (0·5, 0·3-1). Resistance during treatment developed in 16 (2·3%) of 695 patients, at a median of 90 days (IQR 62-195), with 12 of these 16 having pre-XDR or XDR.
INTERPRETATION
Bedaquiline resistance was associated with poorer treatment outcomes. Rapid assessment of bedaquiline resistance, especially when patients were previously exposed to bedaquiline or clofazimine, should be prioritised at baseline or if patients remain culture-positive after 2 months of treatment. Preventing resistance by use of novel combination therapies, current treatment optimisation, and patient support is essential.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
AIDS. 2004 April 9; Volume 18 (Issue 6); 887-895.; DOI:10.1097/00002030-200404090-00006
Coetzee D, Hildebrand K, Boulle AM, Maartens G, Louis F, et al.
AIDS. 2004 April 9; Volume 18 (Issue 6); 887-895.; DOI:10.1097/00002030-200404090-00006
BACKGROUND
A community-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) programme was established in 2001 in a South African township to explore the operational issues involved in providing ART in the public sector in resource-limited settings and demonstrate the feasibility of such a service.
METHODS
Data was analysed on a cohort of patients with symptomatic HIV disease and a CD4 lymphocyte count < 200 x 10 cells/l. The programme used standardized protocols (using generic medicines whenever possible), a team-approach to clinical care and a patient-centred approach to promote adherence.
RESULTS
Two-hundred and eighty-seven adults naive to prior ART were followed for a median duration of 13.9 months. The median CD4 lymphocyte count was 43 x 10 cells/l at initiation of treatment, and the mean log10 HIV RNA was 5.18 copies/ml. The HIV RNA level was undetectable (< 400 copies/ml) in 88.1, 89.2, 84.2, 75.0 and 69.7% of patients at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months respectively. The cumulative probability of remaining alive was 86.3% at 24 months on treatment for all patients, 91.4% for those with a baseline CD4 lymphocyte count > or =50 x 10 cells/l, and 81.8% for those with a baseline CD4 lymphocyte count < 50 x 10 cells/l. The cumulative probability of changing a single antiretroviral drug by 24 months was 15.1% due to adverse events or contraindications, and 8.4% due to adverse events alone.
CONCLUSIONS
ART can be provided in resource-limited settings with good patient retention and clinical outcomes. With responsible implementation, ART is a key component of a comprehensive response to the epidemic in those communities most affected by HIV.
A community-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) programme was established in 2001 in a South African township to explore the operational issues involved in providing ART in the public sector in resource-limited settings and demonstrate the feasibility of such a service.
METHODS
Data was analysed on a cohort of patients with symptomatic HIV disease and a CD4 lymphocyte count < 200 x 10 cells/l. The programme used standardized protocols (using generic medicines whenever possible), a team-approach to clinical care and a patient-centred approach to promote adherence.
RESULTS
Two-hundred and eighty-seven adults naive to prior ART were followed for a median duration of 13.9 months. The median CD4 lymphocyte count was 43 x 10 cells/l at initiation of treatment, and the mean log10 HIV RNA was 5.18 copies/ml. The HIV RNA level was undetectable (< 400 copies/ml) in 88.1, 89.2, 84.2, 75.0 and 69.7% of patients at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months respectively. The cumulative probability of remaining alive was 86.3% at 24 months on treatment for all patients, 91.4% for those with a baseline CD4 lymphocyte count > or =50 x 10 cells/l, and 81.8% for those with a baseline CD4 lymphocyte count < 50 x 10 cells/l. The cumulative probability of changing a single antiretroviral drug by 24 months was 15.1% due to adverse events or contraindications, and 8.4% due to adverse events alone.
CONCLUSIONS
ART can be provided in resource-limited settings with good patient retention and clinical outcomes. With responsible implementation, ART is a key component of a comprehensive response to the epidemic in those communities most affected by HIV.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2020 October 1; Volume 24; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.20.0174
Ndjeka N, Hughes J, Reuter A, Conradie F, Enwerem M, et al.
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2020 October 1; Volume 24; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.20.0174
Worldwide uptake of new drugs in the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (RR-TB) has been extremely low. In June 2018, ahead of the release of the updated WHO guidelines for the management of RR-TB, South Africa announced that bedaquiline (BDQ) would be provided to virtually all RR-TB patients on shorter or longer regimens. South Africa has been the global leader in accessing BDQ for patients with RR-TB, who now represent 60% of the global BDQ cohort. The use of BDQ within a shorter modified regimen has generated the programmatic data underpinning the most recent change in WHO guidelines endorsing a shorter, injectable-free regimen. Progressive policies on access to new drugs have resulted in improved favourable outcomes and a reduction in mortality among RR-TB patients in South Africa. This supported global policy change. The strategies underpinning these bold actions include close collaboration between the South African National TB Programme and partners, introduction of new TB diagnostic tools in closely monitored conditions and the use of locally generated programmatic evidence to inform country policy changes. In this paper, we summarise a decade´s work that led to the bold decision to use a modified, short, injectable-free regimen with BDQ and linezolid under carefully monitored programmatic conditions.