Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 June 12; Volume 17 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1186/s12879-017-2499-1
Swaminathan A, du Cros PAK, Seddon JA, Mirgayosieva S, Asladdin R, et al.
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 June 12; Volume 17 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1186/s12879-017-2499-1
Extensively drug-resistant (XDR) tuberculosis (TB) and multidrug resistant (MDR)-TB with additional resistance to injectable agents or fluoroquinolones are challenging to treat due to lack of available, effective drugs. Linezolid is one of the few drugs that has shown promise in treating these conditions. Long-term linezolid use is associated with toxicities such as peripheral and optic neuropathies. Diabetes mellitus (DM), especially when uncontrolled, can also result in peripheral neuropathy. The global burden of DM is increasing, and DM has been associated with a three-fold increased risk of developing TB disease. TB and DM can be a challenging combination to treat. DM can inhibit the host immune response to tuberculosis infection; and TB and some anti-TB drugs can worsen glycaemic control. A child experiencing neuropathy that is a possible complication of both DM and linezolid used to treat TB has not been reported previously. We report peripheral neuropathy in a 15-year-old boy with type 1 DM, diagnosed with MDR-TB and additional resistance to injectable TB medications.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
J Adolesc Health. 2023 March 1; Volume 72 (Issue 3); 323-331.; DOI:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2022.10.036
Chiang SS, Waterous PM, Atieno VF, Bernays S, Bondarenko Y, et al.
J Adolesc Health. 2023 March 1; Volume 72 (Issue 3); 323-331.; DOI:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2022.10.036
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2017 November 1; Volume 21 (Issue 11); DOI:10.5588/ijtld.17.0468
Reuter A, Tisile P, von Delft D, Cox HS, Cox V, et al.
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2017 November 1; Volume 21 (Issue 11); DOI:10.5588/ijtld.17.0468
For decades, second-line injectable agents (IAs) have been the cornerstone of treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). Although evidence on the efficacy of IAs is limited, there is an expanding body of evidence on the serious adverse events caused by these drugs. Here, we present the results of a structured literature review of the safety and efficacy of IAs. We review the continued widespread use of these agents in the context of therapeutic alternatives-most notably the newer TB drugs, bedaquiline and delamanid-and from the context of human rights, ethics and patient-centered care. We conclude that there is limited evidence of the efficacy of IAs, clear evidence of the risks of these drugs, and that persons living with MDR-TB should be informed about these risks and provided with access to alternative therapeutic options.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Lancet Infect Dis. 2019 March 22; Volume 19 (Issue 4); DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30106-9
Loveday M, Reuter A, Furin J, Seddon JA, Cox HS
Lancet Infect Dis. 2019 March 22; Volume 19 (Issue 4); DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30106-9
Final results of the STREAM trial were presented at the 2018, 49th Union World Conference on Lung Health, held in The Hague, The Netherlands. STREAM is a randomised controlled trial comparing the 18–24 month WHO-recommended multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment regimen with a 9–12 month regimen similar to that first described in Bangladesh. 1 Under programmatic conditions, the longer regimen results in treatment success for approximately 50% of patients, 2 whereas the shorter 9–12 month regimen improved treatment success to 80% or higher in selected countries. 3 , 4 Because these countries had relatively low HIV prevalence and relatively high percentages of treatment success with the longer regimens, questions around generalisability were raised. 4 STREAM was a multi-million dollar undertaking that took almost 10 years from the time of study design until the release of final results. Given the time and costs involved it is essential to reflect on lessons learned, and what the trial results tell us to inform how we accumulate future evidence to guide MDR-TB treatment.
Journal Article > CommentaryFull Text
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020 December 1; Volume 4 (Issue 12); 855-857.; DOI:10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30273-X
Nash M, Perrin C, Seddon JA, Furin J, Hauser J, et al.
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020 December 1; Volume 4 (Issue 12); 855-857.; DOI:10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30273-X
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 > 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 > LetterFull Text
Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 September 9; Volume 21 (Issue 11); DOI:10.3201/eid2111.151119
Achar J, Berry C, Herboczek K, Parpieva N, Tillashaykhov M, et al.
Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 September 9; Volume 21 (Issue 11); DOI:10.3201/eid2111.151119
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet Infect Dis. 2023 March 1; Volume 23 (Issue 3); 341-351.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00668-5
Marcy O, Wobudeya E, Font H, Vessière A, Chabala C, et al.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2023 March 1; Volume 23 (Issue 3); 341-351.; DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00668-5
BACKGROUND
Tuberculosis diagnosis might be delayed or missed in children with severe pneumonia because this diagnosis is usually only considered in cases of prolonged symptoms or antibiotic failure. Systematic tuberculosis detection at hospital admission could increase case detection and reduce mortality.
METHODS
We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial in 16 hospitals from six countries (Cambodia, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Mozambique, Uganda, and Zambia) with high incidence of tuberculosis. Children younger than 5 years with WHO-defined severe pneumonia received either the standard of care (control group) or standard of care plus Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra; Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) on nasopharyngeal aspirate and stool samples (intervention group). Clusters (hospitals) were progressively switched from control to intervention at 5-week intervals, using a computer-generated random sequence, stratified on incidence rate of tuberculosis at country level, and masked to teams until 5 weeks before switch. We assessed the effect of the intervention on primary (12-week all-cause mortality) and secondary (including tuberculosis diagnosis) outcomes, using generalised linear mixed models. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. We described outcomes in children with severe acute malnutrition in a post hoc analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03831906) and the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR202101615120643).
FINDINGS
From March 21, 2019, to March 30, 2021, we enrolled 1401 children in the control group and 1169 children in the intervention group. In the intervention group, 1140 (97·5%) children had nasopharyngeal aspirates and 942 (80·6%) had their stool collected; 24 (2·1%) had positive Xpert Ultra. At 12 weeks, 110 (7·9%) children in the control group and 91 (7·8%) children in the intervention group had died (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·986, 95% CI 0·597-1·630, p=0·957), and 74 (5·3%) children in the control group and 88 (7·5%) children in the intervention group had tuberculosis diagnosed (adjusted OR 1·238, 95% CI 0·696-2·202, p=0·467). In children with severe acute malnutrition, 57 (23·8%) of 240 children in the control group and 53 (17·8%) of 297 children in the intervention group died, and 36 (15·0%) of 240 children in the control group and 56 (18·9%) of 297 children in the intervention group were diagnosed with tuberculosis. The main adverse events associated with nasopharyngeal aspirates were samples with blood in 312 (27·3%) of 1147 children with nasopharyngeal aspirates attempted, dyspnoea or SpO2 less than 95% in 134 (11·4%) of children, and transient respiratory distress or SpO2 less than 90% in 59 (5·2%) children. There was no serious adverse event related to nasopharyngeal aspirates reported during the trial.
INTERPRETATION
Systematic molecular tuberculosis detection at hospital admission did not reduce mortality in children with severe pneumonia. High treatment and microbiological confirmation rates support more systematic use of Xpert Ultra in this group, notably in children with severe acute malnutrition.
Tuberculosis diagnosis might be delayed or missed in children with severe pneumonia because this diagnosis is usually only considered in cases of prolonged symptoms or antibiotic failure. Systematic tuberculosis detection at hospital admission could increase case detection and reduce mortality.
METHODS
We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial in 16 hospitals from six countries (Cambodia, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Mozambique, Uganda, and Zambia) with high incidence of tuberculosis. Children younger than 5 years with WHO-defined severe pneumonia received either the standard of care (control group) or standard of care plus Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra; Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) on nasopharyngeal aspirate and stool samples (intervention group). Clusters (hospitals) were progressively switched from control to intervention at 5-week intervals, using a computer-generated random sequence, stratified on incidence rate of tuberculosis at country level, and masked to teams until 5 weeks before switch. We assessed the effect of the intervention on primary (12-week all-cause mortality) and secondary (including tuberculosis diagnosis) outcomes, using generalised linear mixed models. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. We described outcomes in children with severe acute malnutrition in a post hoc analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03831906) and the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR202101615120643).
FINDINGS
From March 21, 2019, to March 30, 2021, we enrolled 1401 children in the control group and 1169 children in the intervention group. In the intervention group, 1140 (97·5%) children had nasopharyngeal aspirates and 942 (80·6%) had their stool collected; 24 (2·1%) had positive Xpert Ultra. At 12 weeks, 110 (7·9%) children in the control group and 91 (7·8%) children in the intervention group had died (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·986, 95% CI 0·597-1·630, p=0·957), and 74 (5·3%) children in the control group and 88 (7·5%) children in the intervention group had tuberculosis diagnosed (adjusted OR 1·238, 95% CI 0·696-2·202, p=0·467). In children with severe acute malnutrition, 57 (23·8%) of 240 children in the control group and 53 (17·8%) of 297 children in the intervention group died, and 36 (15·0%) of 240 children in the control group and 56 (18·9%) of 297 children in the intervention group were diagnosed with tuberculosis. The main adverse events associated with nasopharyngeal aspirates were samples with blood in 312 (27·3%) of 1147 children with nasopharyngeal aspirates attempted, dyspnoea or SpO2 less than 95% in 134 (11·4%) of children, and transient respiratory distress or SpO2 less than 90% in 59 (5·2%) children. There was no serious adverse event related to nasopharyngeal aspirates reported during the trial.
INTERPRETATION
Systematic molecular tuberculosis detection at hospital admission did not reduce mortality in children with severe pneumonia. High treatment and microbiological confirmation rates support more systematic use of Xpert Ultra in this group, notably in children with severe acute malnutrition.
Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 November 17; Volume 195 (Issue 101); 1300-1310.; DOI:10.1164/rccm.201606-1227CI
Harausz EP, Garcia-Prats AJ, Seddon JA, Schaaf HS, Hesseling AC, et al.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 November 17; Volume 195 (Issue 101); 1300-1310.; DOI:10.1164/rccm.201606-1227CI
It is estimated that 33,000 children develop multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) each year. In spite of these numbers, children and adolescents have limited access to the new and repurposed MDR-TB drugs. There is also little clinical guidance for the use of these drugs and for the shorter MDR-TB regimen in the pediatric population. This is despite the fact that these drugs and regimens are associated with improved interim outcomes and acceptable safety profiles in adults. This review fills a gap in the pediatric MDR-TB literature by providing practice-based recommendations for the use of the new (delamanid and bedaquiline) and repurposed (linezolid and clofazimine) MDR-TB drugs and the new shorter MDR-TB regimen in children and adolescents.