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 > 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
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.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2020 November 1; Volume 24 (Issue 11); 1134-1144.; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.20.0330
Cox V, McKenna L, Acquah R, Reuter A, Wasserman S, et al.
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2020 November 1; Volume 24 (Issue 11); 1134-1144.; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.20.0330
Rapid diagnostics, newer drugs, repurposed medications, and shorter regimens have radically altered the landscape for treating rifampicin-resistant TB (RR-TB) and multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB). There are multiple ongoing clinical trials aiming to build a robust evidence base to guide RR/MDR-TB treatment, and both observational studies and programmatic data have contributed to advancing the treatment field. In December 2019, the WHO issued their second ‘Rapid Communication´ related to RR-TB management. This reiterated their prior recommendation that a majority of people with RR/MDR-TB receive all-oral treatment regimens, and now allow for specific shorter duration regimens to be used programmatically as well. Many TB programs need clinical advice as they seek to roll out such regimens in their specific setting. In this Perspective, we highlight our early experiences and lessons learned from working with National TB Programs, adult and pediatric clinicians and civil society, in optimizing treatment of RR/MDR-TB, using shorter, highly-effective, oral regimens for the majority of people with RR/MDR-TB.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Eur Respir J. 2018 October 25; 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. 2018 October 25; 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.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet Respir Med. 2018 September 1; Volume 6 (Issue 9); 699-706.; DOI:10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30235-2
Schnippel K, Ndjeka N, Maartens G, Meintjes GA, Master I, et al.
Lancet Respir Med. 2018 September 1; Volume 6 (Issue 9); 699-706.; DOI:10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30235-2
Addition of bedaquiline to treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis was associated with an increased risk of death in a phase 2b clinical trial, resulting in caution from WHO. Following a compassionate access programme and local regulatory approval, the South African National Tuberculosis Programme began widespread use of bedaquiline in March, 2015, especially among patients with extensively drug resistant tuberculosis for whom no other effective treatment options were available. We aimed to compare mortality in patients on standard regimens with that of patients on regimens including bedaquiline.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 July 19; Volume 19 (Issue 8); 979-985.; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.14.0944
Ndjeka N, Conradie F, Schnippel K, Hughes J, Bantubani N, et al.
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 July 19; Volume 19 (Issue 8); 979-985.; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.14.0944
BACKGROUND
South Africa has a large burden of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB); only 15% of XDR-TB patients have successful outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To describe the safety and effectiveness of bedaquiline (BDQ) in the South African BDQ Clinical Access Programme.
DESIGN
An interim cohort analysis.
RESULTS
Of the first 91 patients enrolled between March 2013 and July 2014 (with follow-up until August 2014), 54 (59%) were human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected. The median CD4 count was 239 cells/μl, and all patients were on antiretroviral therapy (ART) at initiation of BDQ; 33 had XDR-TB, 41 were pre-XDR-TB with fluoroquinolone resistance and 17 were pre-XDR-TB with resistance to an injectable. Of the 91 patients, 58 (64%) had completed 24 weeks of BDQ, 28 were still on BDQ, 3 were lost to follow-up, 1 had died and 1 had BDQ withdrawn following atrial fibrillation. Of the 63 patients with 6 months follow-up, 48 (76%) had either culture-converted or remained culture-negative after initiation of BDQ. QTcF was monitored monthly and exceeded 500 ms in three participants; this resolved in all three.
CONCLUSION
Interim safety and culture conversion outcomes for patients accessing BDQ in South Africa, including HIV-infected patients on ART and patients with pre-XDR- and XDR-TB, suggest that BDQ may be both efficacious and safe.
South Africa has a large burden of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB); only 15% of XDR-TB patients have successful outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To describe the safety and effectiveness of bedaquiline (BDQ) in the South African BDQ Clinical Access Programme.
DESIGN
An interim cohort analysis.
RESULTS
Of the first 91 patients enrolled between March 2013 and July 2014 (with follow-up until August 2014), 54 (59%) were human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected. The median CD4 count was 239 cells/μl, and all patients were on antiretroviral therapy (ART) at initiation of BDQ; 33 had XDR-TB, 41 were pre-XDR-TB with fluoroquinolone resistance and 17 were pre-XDR-TB with resistance to an injectable. Of the 91 patients, 58 (64%) had completed 24 weeks of BDQ, 28 were still on BDQ, 3 were lost to follow-up, 1 had died and 1 had BDQ withdrawn following atrial fibrillation. Of the 63 patients with 6 months follow-up, 48 (76%) had either culture-converted or remained culture-negative after initiation of BDQ. QTcF was monitored monthly and exceeded 500 ms in three participants; this resolved in all three.
CONCLUSION
Interim safety and culture conversion outcomes for patients accessing BDQ in South Africa, including HIV-infected patients on ART and patients with pre-XDR- and XDR-TB, suggest that BDQ may be both efficacious and safe.
Journal Article > LetterFull Text
Eur Respir J. 2020 July 23; Volume 56 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1183/13993003.01369-2020
Ndjeka N, Conradie F, Meintjes GA, Reuter A, Hughes J, et al.
Eur Respir J. 2020 July 23; Volume 56 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1183/13993003.01369-2020