Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Trials. 2021 December 4; Volume 22; 881 .; DOI:10.1186/s13063-021-05850-0
Wharton-Smith A, Horter SCB, Douch E, Gray NSB, James N, et al.
Trials. 2021 December 4; Volume 22; 881 .; DOI:10.1186/s13063-021-05850-0
BACKGROUND
Addressing the global burden of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) requires identification of shorter, less toxic treatment regimens. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is currently conducting a phase II/III randomised controlled clinical trial, to find more effective, shorter and tolerable treatments for people with MDR-TB. Recruitment to the trial in Uzbekistan has been slower than expected; we aimed to study patient and health worker experiences of the trial, examining potential factors perceived to impede and facilitate trial recruitment, as well as general perceptions of clinical research in this context.
METHODS
We conducted a qualitative study using maximum variation, purposive sampling of participants. We carried out in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) guided by semi-structured topic guides. In December 2019 and January 2020, 26 interviews were conducted with patients, Ministry of Health (MoH) and MSF staff and trial health workers, to explore challenges and barriers to patient recruitment as well as perceptions of the trial and research in general. Preliminary findings from the interviews informed three subsequent focus group discussions held with patients, nurses and counsellors. Focus groups adopted a person-centred design, brainstorming potential solutions to problems and barriers. Interviews and FGDs were audio recorded, translated and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis, drawing on constant comparison, was used to analyse the data.
RESULTS
Health system contexts may compete with new approaches especially when legislative health regulations or policy around treatment is ingrained in staff beliefs, perceptions and practice, which can undermine clinical trial recruitment. Trust plays a significant role in how patients engage with the trial. Decision-making processes are dynamic and associated with relationship to diagnosis, assimilation of information, previous knowledge or experience and influence of peers and close relations.
CONCLUSIONS
This qualitative analysis highlights ways in which insights developed together with patients and healthcare workers might inform approaches towards improved recruitment into trials, with the overall objective of delivering evidence for better treatments.
Addressing the global burden of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) requires identification of shorter, less toxic treatment regimens. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is currently conducting a phase II/III randomised controlled clinical trial, to find more effective, shorter and tolerable treatments for people with MDR-TB. Recruitment to the trial in Uzbekistan has been slower than expected; we aimed to study patient and health worker experiences of the trial, examining potential factors perceived to impede and facilitate trial recruitment, as well as general perceptions of clinical research in this context.
METHODS
We conducted a qualitative study using maximum variation, purposive sampling of participants. We carried out in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) guided by semi-structured topic guides. In December 2019 and January 2020, 26 interviews were conducted with patients, Ministry of Health (MoH) and MSF staff and trial health workers, to explore challenges and barriers to patient recruitment as well as perceptions of the trial and research in general. Preliminary findings from the interviews informed three subsequent focus group discussions held with patients, nurses and counsellors. Focus groups adopted a person-centred design, brainstorming potential solutions to problems and barriers. Interviews and FGDs were audio recorded, translated and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis, drawing on constant comparison, was used to analyse the data.
RESULTS
Health system contexts may compete with new approaches especially when legislative health regulations or policy around treatment is ingrained in staff beliefs, perceptions and practice, which can undermine clinical trial recruitment. Trust plays a significant role in how patients engage with the trial. Decision-making processes are dynamic and associated with relationship to diagnosis, assimilation of information, previous knowledge or experience and influence of peers and close relations.
CONCLUSIONS
This qualitative analysis highlights ways in which insights developed together with patients and healthcare workers might inform approaches towards improved recruitment into trials, with the overall objective of delivering evidence for better treatments.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
IJTLD OPEN. 2024 September 1; Volume 1 (Issue 9); 391-397.; DOI:10.5588/ijtldopen.24.0351
Moe S, Azamat I, Allamuratova S, Oluya M, Khristusev A, et al.
IJTLD OPEN. 2024 September 1; Volume 1 (Issue 9); 391-397.; DOI:10.5588/ijtldopen.24.0351
BACKGROUND
Drug-resistant TB (DR-TB) remains a major public health threat. In 2022, Uzbekistan reported 2,117 cases of DR-TB, with 69% tested for fluoroquinolone resistance. Limited information is available on the prevalence of resistance to bedaquiline, linezolid, and fluoroquinolone, which are key components of the all-oral treatment regimen for rifampicin-resistant TB in Uzbekistan.
METHODS
A retrospective study was conducted using extensive programmatic data from 2019 to 2023 in Uzbekistan. We assessed second-line drug-resistant TB (SLDR-TB) rates using phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (pDST). Demographic and clinical characteristics associated with SLDR-TB were analysed using multivariable logistic regression models based on the Allen-Cady approach.
RESULTS
In total, 2,405 patients with TB who had undergone pDST were included (median age 40 years, 47% female). The overall SLDR-TB resistance rate was 24% (95% CI 22-26). Prevalence of resistance to bedaquiline, linezolid, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, and amikacin were respectively 3.1%, 0.8%, 15%, 13%, and 12%. Risk factors for SLDR-TB were resistance to rifampicin and/or isoniazid, exposure to clofazimine, retreatment status, contact with drug-susceptible TB case or DR-TB case, and diabetes.
CONCLUSIONS
The high prevalence of SLDR-TB is of major concern, emphasising the need for baseline pDST in RR-TB treatment. Identified risk factors can aid early detection of at-risk individuals and inform clinical practice.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
BMC Infect Dis. 2020 September 16; Volume 20 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1186/s12879-020-05407-7
Horter SCB, Stringer B, Gray NSB, Parpieva N, Safaev K, et al.
BMC Infect Dis. 2020 September 16; Volume 20 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1186/s12879-020-05407-7
Introduction: Person-centred care, an internationally recognised priority, describes the involvement of people in their care and treatment decisions, and the consideration of their needs and priorities within service delivery. Clarity is required regarding how it may be implemented in practice within different contexts. The standard multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment regimen is lengthy, toxic and insufficiently effective. 2019 World Health Organisation guidelines include a shorter (9-11-month) regimen and recommend that people with MDR-TB be involved in the choice of treatment option. We examine the perspectives and experiences of people with MDR-TB and health-care workers (HCW) regarding person-centred care in an MDR-TB programme in Karakalpakstan, Uzbekistan, run by Médecins Sans Frontières and the Ministry of Health.
Methods: A qualitative study comprising 48 interviews with 24 people with MDR-TB and 20 HCW was conducted in June-July 2019. Participants were recruited purposively to include a range of treatment-taking experiences and professional positions. Interview data were analysed thematically using coding to identify emerging patterns, concepts, and categories relating to person-centred care, with Nvivo12.
Results: People with MDR-TB were unfamiliar with shared decision-making and felt uncomfortable taking responsibility for their treatment choice. HCW were viewed as having greater knowledge and expertise, and patients trusted HCW to act in their best interests, deferring the choice of appropriate treatment course to them. HCW had concerns about involving people in treatment choices, preferring that doctors made decisions. People with MDR-TB wanted to be involved in discussions about their treatment, and have their preference sought, and were comfortable choosing whether treatment was ambulatory or hospital-based. Participants felt it important that people with MDR-TB had knowledge and understanding about their treatment and disease, to foster their sense of preparedness and ownership for treatment. Involving people in their care was said to motivate sustained treatment-taking, and it appeared important to have evidence of treatment need and effect.
Conclusions: There is a preference for doctors choosing the treatment regimen, linked to shared decision-making unfamiliarity and practitioner-patient knowledge imbalance. Involving people in their care, through discussions, information, and preference-seeking could foster ownership and self-responsibility, supporting sustained engagement with treatment.
Methods: A qualitative study comprising 48 interviews with 24 people with MDR-TB and 20 HCW was conducted in June-July 2019. Participants were recruited purposively to include a range of treatment-taking experiences and professional positions. Interview data were analysed thematically using coding to identify emerging patterns, concepts, and categories relating to person-centred care, with Nvivo12.
Results: People with MDR-TB were unfamiliar with shared decision-making and felt uncomfortable taking responsibility for their treatment choice. HCW were viewed as having greater knowledge and expertise, and patients trusted HCW to act in their best interests, deferring the choice of appropriate treatment course to them. HCW had concerns about involving people in treatment choices, preferring that doctors made decisions. People with MDR-TB wanted to be involved in discussions about their treatment, and have their preference sought, and were comfortable choosing whether treatment was ambulatory or hospital-based. Participants felt it important that people with MDR-TB had knowledge and understanding about their treatment and disease, to foster their sense of preparedness and ownership for treatment. Involving people in their care was said to motivate sustained treatment-taking, and it appeared important to have evidence of treatment need and effect.
Conclusions: There is a preference for doctors choosing the treatment regimen, linked to shared decision-making unfamiliarity and practitioner-patient knowledge imbalance. Involving people in their care, through discussions, information, and preference-seeking could foster ownership and self-responsibility, supporting sustained engagement with treatment.
Conference Material > Poster
Motta I, Cusinato M, Ludman A, Abdrasuliev T, Butabekov I, et al.
MSF Scientific Day International 2023. 2023 June 7; DOI:10.57740/vz2n-4971
Conference Material > Abstract
Horter SCB, Stringer B, Gray NSB, Parpieva N, Tigay Z, et al.
MSF Scientific Days International 2020: Research. 2020 May 20
INTRODUCTION
Person-centred care (PCC) is an internationally recognised priority, and a key underlying principle within MSF projects. PCC ensures that people are involved in their care and treatment decisions, and considers individuals' needs and priorities within service delivery. Clarity is required regarding how this may be implemented within different contexts. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment is lengthy, toxic and insufficiently effective, with recent developments changing the treatment landscape. WHO’s 2019 treatment guidelines include a shorter, 9-11 month-long treatment regimen, and recommends that people with MDR-TB should be involved in the decision around treatment option. We examine what PCC can look like in practice, through the perspectives and experiences of people with MDR-TB and health care workers (HCW) in Karakalpakstan, Uzbekistan.
METHODS
We carried out a qualitative study, comprising 48 interviews with people with MDR-TB (n=24; including repeat interviews with three participants) and healthcare workers (n=20), in Karakalpakstan in June-July 2019. In this setting, MSF and the Ministry of Health collaboratively have provided TB care since 1998. Participants were recruited purposively, to include a range of treatment-taking experiences and professional positions. Interview data were analysed thematically, using coding to identify emerging patterns, concepts and categories relating to person-centred care, with Nvivo12 (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia).
ETHICS
This study was approved by the ethics committees of Uzbekistan and the MSF Ethics Review Board.
RESULTS
People with MDR-TB were unfamiliar with shared decision-making, and felt uncomfortable taking responsibility for their treatment choice. HCW were viewed as having greater knowledge and expertise, and patients trusted HCW to act in their best interests, deferring to them to choose the appropriate treatment. HCW distrusted the effectiveness and appropriateness of the shorter treatment regimen, which may influence who is offered this option. Additionally, HCW had concerns about involving people in treatment choices, preferring that the doctor decide. However, people with MDR-TB wanted to be involved in discussions about their treatment, to have their preference sought, and were comfortable choosing the treatment location, whether ambulatory or hospital-based. Participants felt it important that people with MDR-TB have increased knowledge and understanding about their treatment and disease, to foster their sense of preparedness and ownership of treatment. Involving people in their care was said to motivate sustained treatment-taking, which some felt directly observed treatment (DOT) delivery could undermine.
CONCLUSIONS
There was a preference for doctors choosing the treatment regimen, linked to unfamiliarity with shared decision-making and an imbalance between the perceived knowledge base of practitioners and patients. Involving people in their care, through discussions, information, and preference seeking could foster better ownership and self-responsibility, supporting sustained engagement with treatment, which DOT may contradict. These findings are important with MSF operations working to achieve PCC in practice, highlighting the need for approaches that are context specific and adapted to individuals’ preferences. Programmes should consider more person-centred approaches to treatment delivery, such as community or family DOT.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None declared
Person-centred care (PCC) is an internationally recognised priority, and a key underlying principle within MSF projects. PCC ensures that people are involved in their care and treatment decisions, and considers individuals' needs and priorities within service delivery. Clarity is required regarding how this may be implemented within different contexts. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment is lengthy, toxic and insufficiently effective, with recent developments changing the treatment landscape. WHO’s 2019 treatment guidelines include a shorter, 9-11 month-long treatment regimen, and recommends that people with MDR-TB should be involved in the decision around treatment option. We examine what PCC can look like in practice, through the perspectives and experiences of people with MDR-TB and health care workers (HCW) in Karakalpakstan, Uzbekistan.
METHODS
We carried out a qualitative study, comprising 48 interviews with people with MDR-TB (n=24; including repeat interviews with three participants) and healthcare workers (n=20), in Karakalpakstan in June-July 2019. In this setting, MSF and the Ministry of Health collaboratively have provided TB care since 1998. Participants were recruited purposively, to include a range of treatment-taking experiences and professional positions. Interview data were analysed thematically, using coding to identify emerging patterns, concepts and categories relating to person-centred care, with Nvivo12 (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia).
ETHICS
This study was approved by the ethics committees of Uzbekistan and the MSF Ethics Review Board.
RESULTS
People with MDR-TB were unfamiliar with shared decision-making, and felt uncomfortable taking responsibility for their treatment choice. HCW were viewed as having greater knowledge and expertise, and patients trusted HCW to act in their best interests, deferring to them to choose the appropriate treatment. HCW distrusted the effectiveness and appropriateness of the shorter treatment regimen, which may influence who is offered this option. Additionally, HCW had concerns about involving people in treatment choices, preferring that the doctor decide. However, people with MDR-TB wanted to be involved in discussions about their treatment, to have their preference sought, and were comfortable choosing the treatment location, whether ambulatory or hospital-based. Participants felt it important that people with MDR-TB have increased knowledge and understanding about their treatment and disease, to foster their sense of preparedness and ownership of treatment. Involving people in their care was said to motivate sustained treatment-taking, which some felt directly observed treatment (DOT) delivery could undermine.
CONCLUSIONS
There was a preference for doctors choosing the treatment regimen, linked to unfamiliarity with shared decision-making and an imbalance between the perceived knowledge base of practitioners and patients. Involving people in their care, through discussions, information, and preference seeking could foster better ownership and self-responsibility, supporting sustained engagement with treatment, which DOT may contradict. These findings are important with MSF operations working to achieve PCC in practice, highlighting the need for approaches that are context specific and adapted to individuals’ preferences. Programmes should consider more person-centred approaches to treatment delivery, such as community or family DOT.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None declared
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
N Engl J Med. 2022 December 22; Volume 387 (Issue 25); 2331-2343.; DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa2117166
Nyang'wa BT, Berry C, Kazounis E, Motta I, Parpieva N, et al.
N Engl J Med. 2022 December 22; Volume 387 (Issue 25); 2331-2343.; DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa2117166
BACKGROUND
In patients with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis, all-oral treatment regimens that are more effective, shorter, and have a more acceptable side-effect profile than current regimens are needed.
METHODS
We conducted an open-label, phase 2–3, multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of three 24-week, all-oral regimens for the treatment of rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. Patients in Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan who were 15 years of age or older and had rifampin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis were enrolled. In stage 2 of the trial, a 24-week regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin (BPaLM) was compared with a 9-to-20-month standard-care regimen. The primary outcome was an unfavorable status (a composite of death, treatment failure, treatment discontinuation, loss to follow-up, or recurrence of tuberculosis) at 72 weeks after randomization. The noninferiority margin was 12 percentage points.
RESULTS
Recruitment was terminated early. Of 301 patients in stage 2 of the trial, 145, 128, and 90 patients were evaluable in the intention-to-treat, modified intention-to-treat, and per-protocol populations, respectively. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 11% of the patients in the BPaLM group and 48% of those in the standard-care group had a primary-outcome event (risk difference, -37 percentage points; 96.6% confidence interval [CI], -53 to -22). In the per-protocol analysis, 4% of the patients in the BPaLM group and 12% of those in the standard-care group had a primary-outcome event (risk difference, -9 percentage points; 96.6% CI, -22 to 4). In the as-treated population, the incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher or serious adverse events was lower in the BPaLM group than in the standard-care group (19% vs. 59%).
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with rifampin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis, a 24-week, all-oral regimen was noninferior to the accepted standard-care treatment, and it had a better safety profile. (Funded by Médecins sans Frontières; TB-PRACTECAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02589782. opens in new tab.)
In patients with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis, all-oral treatment regimens that are more effective, shorter, and have a more acceptable side-effect profile than current regimens are needed.
METHODS
We conducted an open-label, phase 2–3, multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of three 24-week, all-oral regimens for the treatment of rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. Patients in Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan who were 15 years of age or older and had rifampin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis were enrolled. In stage 2 of the trial, a 24-week regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin (BPaLM) was compared with a 9-to-20-month standard-care regimen. The primary outcome was an unfavorable status (a composite of death, treatment failure, treatment discontinuation, loss to follow-up, or recurrence of tuberculosis) at 72 weeks after randomization. The noninferiority margin was 12 percentage points.
RESULTS
Recruitment was terminated early. Of 301 patients in stage 2 of the trial, 145, 128, and 90 patients were evaluable in the intention-to-treat, modified intention-to-treat, and per-protocol populations, respectively. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 11% of the patients in the BPaLM group and 48% of those in the standard-care group had a primary-outcome event (risk difference, -37 percentage points; 96.6% confidence interval [CI], -53 to -22). In the per-protocol analysis, 4% of the patients in the BPaLM group and 12% of those in the standard-care group had a primary-outcome event (risk difference, -9 percentage points; 96.6% CI, -22 to 4). In the as-treated population, the incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher or serious adverse events was lower in the BPaLM group than in the standard-care group (19% vs. 59%).
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with rifampin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis, a 24-week, all-oral regimen was noninferior to the accepted standard-care treatment, and it had a better safety profile. (Funded by Médecins sans Frontières; TB-PRACTECAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02589782. opens in new tab.)
Journal Article > LetterFull Text
Clin Infect Dis. 2024 August 15; Volume 79 (Issue 2); 569-570.; DOI:10.1093/cid/ciad767
Crocker-Buque T, Lachenal N, Narasimooloo C, Abdrasuliev T, Parpieva N, et al.
Clin Infect Dis. 2024 August 15; Volume 79 (Issue 2); 569-570.; DOI:10.1093/cid/ciad767
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
PLOS One. 2013 November 6; Volume 8 (Issue 11); e78364.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0078364
Lalor MK, Greig J, Allamuratova S, Althomsons S, Tigay Z, et al.
PLOS One. 2013 November 6; Volume 8 (Issue 11); e78364.; DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0078364
BACKGROUND
The Médecins Sans Frontières project of Uzbekistan has provided multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment in the Karakalpakstan region since 2003. Rates of default from treatment have been high, despite psychosocial support, increasing particularly since programme scale-up in 2007. We aimed to determine factors associated with default in multi- and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis patients who started treatment between 2003 and 2008 and thus had finished approximately 2 years of treatment by the end of 2010.
METHODS
A retrospective cohort analysis of multi- and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis patients enrolled in treatment between 2003 and 2008 compared baseline demographic characteristics and possible risk factors for default. Default was defined as missing ≥60 consecutive days of treatment (all drugs). Data were routinely collected during treatment and entered in a database. Potential risk factors for default were assessed in univariate analysis using chi-square test and in multivariate analysis with logistic regression.
RESULTS
20% (142/710) of patients defaulted after a median of 6 months treatment (IQR 2.6-9.9). Factors associated with default included severity of resistance patterns (pre-extensively drug-resistant/extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis adjusted odds ratio 0.52, 95%CI: 0.31-0.86), previous default (2.38, 1.09-5.24) and age >45 years (1.77, 1.10-2.87). The default rate was 14% (42/294) for patients enrolled 2003-2006 and 24% (100/416) for 2007-2008 enrolments (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Default from treatment was high and increased with programme scale-up. It is essential to ensure scale-up of treatment is accompanied with scale-up of staff and patient support. A successful first course of tuberculosis treatment is important; patients who had previously defaulted were at increased risk of default and death. The protective effect of severe resistance profiles suggests that understanding disease severity or fear may motivate against default. Targeted health education and support for at-risk patients after 5 months of treatment when many begin to feel better may decrease default.
The Médecins Sans Frontières project of Uzbekistan has provided multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment in the Karakalpakstan region since 2003. Rates of default from treatment have been high, despite psychosocial support, increasing particularly since programme scale-up in 2007. We aimed to determine factors associated with default in multi- and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis patients who started treatment between 2003 and 2008 and thus had finished approximately 2 years of treatment by the end of 2010.
METHODS
A retrospective cohort analysis of multi- and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis patients enrolled in treatment between 2003 and 2008 compared baseline demographic characteristics and possible risk factors for default. Default was defined as missing ≥60 consecutive days of treatment (all drugs). Data were routinely collected during treatment and entered in a database. Potential risk factors for default were assessed in univariate analysis using chi-square test and in multivariate analysis with logistic regression.
RESULTS
20% (142/710) of patients defaulted after a median of 6 months treatment (IQR 2.6-9.9). Factors associated with default included severity of resistance patterns (pre-extensively drug-resistant/extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis adjusted odds ratio 0.52, 95%CI: 0.31-0.86), previous default (2.38, 1.09-5.24) and age >45 years (1.77, 1.10-2.87). The default rate was 14% (42/294) for patients enrolled 2003-2006 and 24% (100/416) for 2007-2008 enrolments (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Default from treatment was high and increased with programme scale-up. It is essential to ensure scale-up of treatment is accompanied with scale-up of staff and patient support. A successful first course of tuberculosis treatment is important; patients who had previously defaulted were at increased risk of default and death. The protective effect of severe resistance profiles suggests that understanding disease severity or fear may motivate against default. Targeted health education and support for at-risk patients after 5 months of treatment when many begin to feel better may decrease default.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet Respir Med. 2024 February 1; Volume 12 (Issue 2); 117-128.; DOI:10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00389-2
Nyang'wa BT, Berry C, Kazounis E, Motta I, Parpieva N, et al.
Lancet Respir Med. 2024 February 1; Volume 12 (Issue 2); 117-128.; DOI:10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00389-2
BACKGROUND
Around 500,000 people worldwide develop rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis each year. The proportion of successful treatment outcomes remains low and new treatments are needed. Following an interim analysis, we report the final safety and efficacy outcomes of the TB-PRACTECAL trial, evaluating the safety and efficacy of oral regimens for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis.
METHODS
This open-label, randomised, controlled, multi-arm, multicentre, non-inferiority trial was conducted at seven hospital and community sites in Uzbekistan, Belarus, and South Africa, and enrolled participants aged 15 years and older with pulmonary rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio using variable block randomisation and stratified by trial site, to receive 36-80 week standard care; 24-week oral bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid (BPaL); BPaL plus clofazimine (BPaLC); or BPaL plus moxifloxacin (BPaLM) in stage one of the trial, and in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard care or BPaLM in stage two of the trial, the results of which are described here. Laboratory staff and trial sponsors were masked to group assignment and outcomes were assessed by unmasked investigators. The primary outcome was the percentage of participants with a composite unfavourable outcome (treatment failure, death, treatment discontinuation, disease recurrence, or loss to follow-up) at 72 weeks after randomisation in the modified intention-to-treat population (all participants with rifampicin-resistant disease who received at least one dose of study medication) and the per-protocol population (a subset of the modified intention-to-treat population excluding participants who did not complete a protocol-adherent course of treatment (other than because of treatment failure or death) and those who discontinued treatment early because they violated at least one of the inclusion or exclusion criteria). Safety was measured in the safety population. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02589782, and is complete.
FINDINGS
Between Jan 16, 2017, and March 18, 2021, 680 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 552 were enrolled and randomly assigned (152 to the standard care group, 151 to the BPaLM group, 126 to the BPaLC group, and 123 to the BPaL group). The standard care and BPaLM groups proceeded to stage two and are reported here, post-hoc analyses of the BPaLC and BPaL groups are also reported. 151 participants in the BPaLM group and 151 in the standard care group were included in the safety population, with 138 in the BPaLM group and 137 in the standard care group in the modified intention-to-treat population. In the modified intention-to-treat population, unfavourable outcomes were reported in 16 (12%) of 137 participants for whom outcome was assessable in the BPaLM group and 56 (41%) of 137 participants in the standard care group (risk difference -29·2 percentage points [96·6% CI -39·8 to -18·6]; non-inferiority and superiority p<0·0001). 34 (23%) of 151 participants receiving BPaLM had adverse events of grade 3 or higher or serious adverse events, compared with 72 (48%) of 151 participants receiving standard care (risk difference -25·2 percentage points [96·6% CI -36·4 to -13·9]). Five deaths were reported in the standard care group by week 72, of which one (COVID-19 pneumonia) was unrelated to treatment and four (acute pancreatitis, suicide, sudden death, and sudden cardiac death) were judged to be treatment-related.
INTERPRETATION
The 24-week, all-oral BPaLM regimen is safe and efficacious for the treatment of pulmonary rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, and was added to the WHO guidance for treatment of this condition in 2022. These findings will be key to BPaLM becoming the preferred regimen for adolescents and adults with pulmonary rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis.
Around 500,000 people worldwide develop rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis each year. The proportion of successful treatment outcomes remains low and new treatments are needed. Following an interim analysis, we report the final safety and efficacy outcomes of the TB-PRACTECAL trial, evaluating the safety and efficacy of oral regimens for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis.
METHODS
This open-label, randomised, controlled, multi-arm, multicentre, non-inferiority trial was conducted at seven hospital and community sites in Uzbekistan, Belarus, and South Africa, and enrolled participants aged 15 years and older with pulmonary rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio using variable block randomisation and stratified by trial site, to receive 36-80 week standard care; 24-week oral bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid (BPaL); BPaL plus clofazimine (BPaLC); or BPaL plus moxifloxacin (BPaLM) in stage one of the trial, and in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard care or BPaLM in stage two of the trial, the results of which are described here. Laboratory staff and trial sponsors were masked to group assignment and outcomes were assessed by unmasked investigators. The primary outcome was the percentage of participants with a composite unfavourable outcome (treatment failure, death, treatment discontinuation, disease recurrence, or loss to follow-up) at 72 weeks after randomisation in the modified intention-to-treat population (all participants with rifampicin-resistant disease who received at least one dose of study medication) and the per-protocol population (a subset of the modified intention-to-treat population excluding participants who did not complete a protocol-adherent course of treatment (other than because of treatment failure or death) and those who discontinued treatment early because they violated at least one of the inclusion or exclusion criteria). Safety was measured in the safety population. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02589782, and is complete.
FINDINGS
Between Jan 16, 2017, and March 18, 2021, 680 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 552 were enrolled and randomly assigned (152 to the standard care group, 151 to the BPaLM group, 126 to the BPaLC group, and 123 to the BPaL group). The standard care and BPaLM groups proceeded to stage two and are reported here, post-hoc analyses of the BPaLC and BPaL groups are also reported. 151 participants in the BPaLM group and 151 in the standard care group were included in the safety population, with 138 in the BPaLM group and 137 in the standard care group in the modified intention-to-treat population. In the modified intention-to-treat population, unfavourable outcomes were reported in 16 (12%) of 137 participants for whom outcome was assessable in the BPaLM group and 56 (41%) of 137 participants in the standard care group (risk difference -29·2 percentage points [96·6% CI -39·8 to -18·6]; non-inferiority and superiority p<0·0001). 34 (23%) of 151 participants receiving BPaLM had adverse events of grade 3 or higher or serious adverse events, compared with 72 (48%) of 151 participants receiving standard care (risk difference -25·2 percentage points [96·6% CI -36·4 to -13·9]). Five deaths were reported in the standard care group by week 72, of which one (COVID-19 pneumonia) was unrelated to treatment and four (acute pancreatitis, suicide, sudden death, and sudden cardiac death) were judged to be treatment-related.
INTERPRETATION
The 24-week, all-oral BPaLM regimen is safe and efficacious for the treatment of pulmonary rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, and was added to the WHO guidance for treatment of this condition in 2022. These findings will be key to BPaLM becoming the preferred regimen for adolescents and adults with pulmonary rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis.