Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 1 February 2025; Volume 9 (Issue 2); 100-111.; DOI: 10.1016/S2352-4642(24)00330-4
Garcia-Prats AJ, Garcia-Cremades M, Cox V, Kredo T, Dunbar R, et al.
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 1 February 2025; Volume 9 (Issue 2); 100-111.; DOI: 10.1016/S2352-4642(24)00330-4
BACKGROUND
There are few data on the treatment of children and adolescents with multidrug-resistant (MDR) or rifampicin-resistant (RR) tuberculosis, especially with more recently available drugs and regimens. We aimed to describe the clinical and treatment characteristics and their associations with treatment outcomes in this susceptible population.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Databases were searched from Oct 1, 2014, to March 30, 2020. To be eligible, studies must have included more than five children or adolescents (0-19 years of age) treated for microbiologically confirmed or clinically diagnosed MDR or RR tuberculosis within a defined treatment cohort, and reported on regimen composition and treatment outcomes. Abstracts were screened independently by two authors to identify potentially eligible records. Full texts were reviewed by two authors independently to identify studies meeting the eligiblity criteria. For studies meeting eligiblity criteria, anonymised individual patient data was requested and individiual level data included for analysis. The main outcome assessed was treatment outcome defined as treatment success (cure or treatment completed) versus unfavourable outcome (treatment failure or death). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify associations between clinical and treatment factors and treatment outcomes. This study is registered with Prospero (CRD42020187230).
FINDINGS
1417 studies were identified through database searching. After removing duplicates and screening for eligibility, the search identified 23 369 individual participants from 42 studies, mostly from India and South Africa. Overall, 16 825 (72·0%) were successfully treated (treatment completed or cured), 2848 died (12·2%), 722 (3·1%) had treatment failure, and 2974 (12·7%) were lost to follow-up. In primary analyses, the median age was 16 (IQR 13-18) years. Of the 17 764 (87·1%) participants with reported HIV status, 2448 (13·8%) were living with HIV. 17 707 (89·6%) had microbiologically confirmed tuberculosis. After adjusting for significant factors associated with treatment outcome, the use of two (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·41 [95% CI 1·09-1·82]; p=0·008) or three (2·12 [1·61-2·79]; p<0·0001) WHO-classified group A drugs (bedaquiline, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, and linezolid) compared with the use of no group A drugs at all was positively associated with treatment success.
INTERPRETATION
Younger and clinically diagnosed children are underrepresented among those treated for MDR and RR tuberculosis and should be a focus for case-finding efforts. Overall treatment outcomes in our analysis were better than in adults but lower than the international targets of 90% or more individuals successfully treated. Treatment with more group A drugs was associated with better treatment outcomes in children and adolescents, highlighting the need for more rapid access to these drugs and improved regimens.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Lancet Microbe. 31 July 2023; Volume S2666-5247 (Issue 23); 00217-3.; DOI:10.1016/S2666-5247(23)00217-3
Branigan D, Denkinger CM, Furin J, Heitkamp P, Deborggraeve S, et al.
Lancet Microbe. 31 July 2023; Volume S2666-5247 (Issue 23); 00217-3.; DOI:10.1016/S2666-5247(23)00217-3
Journal Article > CommentarySubscription Only
Nat Med. 1 January 2023; Volume 29 (Issue 1); 16-17.; DOI:10.1038/s41591-022-02136-z
McKenna L, Frick M, Angami K, Dubula V, Furin J, et al.
Nat Med. 1 January 2023; Volume 29 (Issue 1); 16-17.; DOI:10.1038/s41591-022-02136-z
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet Infect Dis. 2 May 2022; 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. 2 May 2022; 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
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1 February 2015; Volume 19 (Issue 2); 172-178.; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.14.0421
Sinanovic E, Ramma L, Vassall A, Azevedo VD, Wilkinson LS, et al.
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1 February 2015; Volume 19 (Issue 2); 172-178.; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.14.0421
SETTING
The cost of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment is a major barrier to treatment scale-up in South Africa.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate and compare the cost of treatment for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (RR-TB) in South Africa in different models of care in different settings.
DESIGN
We estimated the costs of different models of care with varying levels of hospitalisation. These costs were used to calculate the total cost of treating all diagnosed cases of RR-TB in South Africa, and to estimate the budget impact of adopting a fully or partially decentralised model vs. a fully hospitalised model.
RESULTS
The fully hospitalised model was 42% more costly than the fully decentralised model (US$13 432 vs. US$7753 per patient). A much shorter hospital stay in the decentralised models of care (44–57 days), compared to 128 days of hospitalisation in the fully hospitalised model, was the key contributor to the reduced cost of treatment. The annual total cost of treating all diagnosed cases ranged from US$110 million in the fully decentralised model to US$190 million in the fully hospitalised model.
CONCLUSION
Following a more decentralised approach for treating RR-TB patients could potentially improve the affordability of RR-TB treatment in South Africa.
The cost of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment is a major barrier to treatment scale-up in South Africa.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate and compare the cost of treatment for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (RR-TB) in South Africa in different models of care in different settings.
DESIGN
We estimated the costs of different models of care with varying levels of hospitalisation. These costs were used to calculate the total cost of treating all diagnosed cases of RR-TB in South Africa, and to estimate the budget impact of adopting a fully or partially decentralised model vs. a fully hospitalised model.
RESULTS
The fully hospitalised model was 42% more costly than the fully decentralised model (US$13 432 vs. US$7753 per patient). A much shorter hospital stay in the decentralised models of care (44–57 days), compared to 128 days of hospitalisation in the fully hospitalised model, was the key contributor to the reduced cost of treatment. The annual total cost of treating all diagnosed cases ranged from US$110 million in the fully decentralised model to US$190 million in the fully hospitalised model.
CONCLUSION
Following a more decentralised approach for treating RR-TB patients could potentially improve the affordability of RR-TB treatment in South Africa.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Eur Respir J. 20 March 2020; 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. 20 March 2020; 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 > ResearchFull Text
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1 October 2020; 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. 1 October 2020; 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.
Journal Article > ResearchAbstract Only
Lancet Infect Dis. 12 November 2021; 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. 12 November 2021; 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
Lancet. 8 September 2018; 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. 8 September 2018; 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 > ResearchFull Text
Eur Respir J. 25 October 2018; Volume 52 (Issue 6); DOI:10.1183/13993003.01528-2018
Ndjeka N, Schnippel K, Master I, Meintjes GA, Maartens G, et al.
Eur Respir J. 25 October 2018; Volume 52 (Issue 6); DOI:10.1183/13993003.01528-2018
Background: South African patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis and resistance to fluoroquinolones and/or injectables (pre/XDR-TB) were granted access to bedaquiline through a Clinical Access Programme with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria.Methods: Pre/XDR-TB and XDR-TB patients were treated with 24 weeks bedaquiline within an optimised, individualised background regimen that could include levofloxacin, linezolid and clofazimine as needed.Results: 200 patients were enrolled: 87 (43.9%) with XDR-TB, 99 (49.3%) were female, median age 34 years (IQR 27, 42). 134 (67.0%) were living with HIV; median CD4+ 281 (IQR 130; 467) and all on antiretroviral therapy.16/200 patients (8.0%) did not complete 6 months of bedaquiline of which 8 were lost to follow up, 6 died, 1 stopped for side effects and 1 patient was diagnosed with drug-sensitive TB.146/200 (73.0%) patients had favourable outcomes: 139/200 were cured (69.5%) and 7 completed treatment (3.5%). 25 died (12.5%), were lost from treatment (10.0%), 9 had treatment failure (4.5%).22 adverse events were attributed to bedaquiline: including QTcF >500 ms (n=5), QTcF increase >50 ms from baseline (n=11), paroxysmal atrial flutter (n=1).Conclusion: Bedaquiline added to an optimised background regimen was associated with a high rate of successful treatment outcomes for this MDR-TB and XDR-TB cohort.