Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet Respir Med. 1 February 2024; 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. 1 February 2024; 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.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1 December 2023; 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. 1 December 2023; 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 > ResearchFull Text
Microbiol Spectr. 9 January 2023; Volume 11 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1128/spectrum.03698-22
Rekart ML, Mun L, Aung A, Gomez D, Mulanda WK, et al.
Microbiol Spectr. 9 January 2023; Volume 11 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1128/spectrum.03698-22
We report the findings of a prospective laboratory diagnostic accuracy study to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay for Mycobacterium tuberculosis detection in fresh stool specimens from children under 15?years of age with confirmed tuberculosis (TB) disease from Dushanbe, Tajikistan. Six hundred eighty-eight (688) participants were enrolled from April 2019 to October 2021. We identified 16 participants (2.3%) with confirmed TB disease, defined as =1 TB sign/symptom plus microbiologic confirmation. With the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay for stool, we found a sensitivity of 68.8% (95% CI, 46.0 to 91.5) and a specificity of 98.7% (95% CI, 97.8 to 99.5) in confirmed TB disease. Our results are comparable to other published studies; however, our cohort was larger and our confirmed TB disease rate lower than most. We also demonstrated that this assay was feasible to implement in a centralized hospital laboratory in a low-middle-income Central Asian country. However, we encountered obstacles such as lack of staffing, material ruptures, outdated government protocols, and decreased case presentation due to COVID-19. We found eight patients whose only positive test was an Xpert Ultra stool assay. None needed treatment during the study; however, three were treated later, suggesting such cases require close observation. Our report is the first from Central Asia and one of a few from a low-middle-income country. We believe our study demonstrates the generalizability of the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay on fresh stool specimens from children and provides further evidence supporting WHO’s approval of this diagnostic strategy.
IMPORTANCE
The importance of this report is that it provides further support for WHO’s recent recommendation that fresh stool is an acceptable sample for GeneXpert TB testing in children, especially small children who often cannot produce an adequate sputum sample. Diagnosing TB in this age group is difficult, and many cases are missed, leading to unacceptable rates of TB illness and death. In our large cohort of children from Dushanbe, Tajikistan, the GeneXpert stool test was positive in 69% of proven cases of TB, and there were very few false-positive tests. We also showed that this diagnostic strategy was feasible to implement in a low-middle-income country with an inefficient health care delivery system. We hope that many more programs will adopt this form of diagnosing TB in children.
IMPORTANCE
The importance of this report is that it provides further support for WHO’s recent recommendation that fresh stool is an acceptable sample for GeneXpert TB testing in children, especially small children who often cannot produce an adequate sputum sample. Diagnosing TB in this age group is difficult, and many cases are missed, leading to unacceptable rates of TB illness and death. In our large cohort of children from Dushanbe, Tajikistan, the GeneXpert stool test was positive in 69% of proven cases of TB, and there were very few false-positive tests. We also showed that this diagnostic strategy was feasible to implement in a low-middle-income country with an inefficient health care delivery system. We hope that many more programs will adopt this form of diagnosing TB in children.
MSF Ethics Review Board > Templates & procedures
Gerstl S, Grandesso F, Siddiqui R, Greig J, du Cros PAK, et al.
25 October 2022
MSF Ethics Review Board > Templates & procedures
Grandesso F, Gerstl S, Siddiqui R, Greig J, du Cros PAK, et al.
25 October 2022
Mortality Survey Protocol - standardised, MSF ERB approved, intersectional
This collection of files includes an overview of the whole process of conducting a mortality survey and templates for concept papers, the protocol, questionnaires and consent and other related forms. Surveys that use this standardised intersectional protocol do not require MSF Ethics Review Board (ERB) review if the Medical Director of the relevant section takes responsibility for addressing the ethics issues. The exemption criteria of the MSF ERB for standardised intersectional survey protocols must be followed.
This collection of files includes an overview of the whole process of conducting a mortality survey and templates for concept papers, the protocol, questionnaires and consent and other related forms. Surveys that use this standardised intersectional protocol do not require MSF Ethics Review Board (ERB) review if the Medical Director of the relevant section takes responsibility for addressing the ethics issues. The exemption criteria of the MSF ERB for standardised intersectional survey protocols must be followed.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Trials. 13 June 2022; Volume 23 (Issue 1); 484.; DOI:10.1186/s13063-022-06331-8
Berry C, du Cros PAK, Fielding K, Gajewski S, Kazounis E, et al.
Trials. 13 June 2022; Volume 23 (Issue 1); 484.; DOI:10.1186/s13063-022-06331-8
BACKGROUND
Globally rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis disease affects around 460,000 people each year. Currently recommended regimens are 9-24 months duration, have poor efficacy and carry significant toxicity. A shorter, less toxic and more efficacious regimen would improve outcomes for people with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis.
METHODS
TB-PRACTECAL is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase II/III non-inferiority trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of 24-week regimens containing bedaquiline and pretomanid to treat rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. Conducted in Uzbekistan, South Africa and Belarus, patients aged 15 and above with rifampicin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis and requiring a new course of therapy were eligible for inclusion irrespective of HIV status. In the first stage, equivalent to a phase IIB trial, patients were randomly assigned one of four regimens, stratified by site. Investigational regimens include oral bedaquiline, pretomanid and linezolid. Additionally, two of the regimens also included moxifloxacin (arm 1) and clofazimine (arm 2) respectively. Treatment was administered under direct observation for 24 weeks in investigational arms and 36 to 96 weeks in the standard of care arm. The second stage of the study was equivalent to a phase III trial, investigating the safety and efficacy of the most promising regimen/s. The primary outcome was the percentage of unfavourable outcomes at 72 weeks post-randomisation. This was a composite of early treatment discontinuation, treatment failure, recurrence, lost-to-follow-up and death. The study is being conducted in accordance with ICH-GCP and full ethical approval was obtained from Médecins sans Frontières ethical review board, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ethical review board as well as ERBs and regulatory authorities at each site.
DISCUSSION
TB-PRACTECAL is an ambitious trial using adaptive design to accelerate regimen assessment and bring novel treatments that are effective and safe to patients quicker. The trial took a patient-centred approach, adapting to best practice guidelines throughout recruitment. The implementation faced significant challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial was terminated early for efficacy on the advice of the DSMB and will report on data collected up to the end of recruitment and, additionally, the planned final analysis at 72 weeks after the end of recruitment.
Globally rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis disease affects around 460,000 people each year. Currently recommended regimens are 9-24 months duration, have poor efficacy and carry significant toxicity. A shorter, less toxic and more efficacious regimen would improve outcomes for people with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis.
METHODS
TB-PRACTECAL is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase II/III non-inferiority trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of 24-week regimens containing bedaquiline and pretomanid to treat rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. Conducted in Uzbekistan, South Africa and Belarus, patients aged 15 and above with rifampicin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis and requiring a new course of therapy were eligible for inclusion irrespective of HIV status. In the first stage, equivalent to a phase IIB trial, patients were randomly assigned one of four regimens, stratified by site. Investigational regimens include oral bedaquiline, pretomanid and linezolid. Additionally, two of the regimens also included moxifloxacin (arm 1) and clofazimine (arm 2) respectively. Treatment was administered under direct observation for 24 weeks in investigational arms and 36 to 96 weeks in the standard of care arm. The second stage of the study was equivalent to a phase III trial, investigating the safety and efficacy of the most promising regimen/s. The primary outcome was the percentage of unfavourable outcomes at 72 weeks post-randomisation. This was a composite of early treatment discontinuation, treatment failure, recurrence, lost-to-follow-up and death. The study is being conducted in accordance with ICH-GCP and full ethical approval was obtained from Médecins sans Frontières ethical review board, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ethical review board as well as ERBs and regulatory authorities at each site.
DISCUSSION
TB-PRACTECAL is an ambitious trial using adaptive design to accelerate regimen assessment and bring novel treatments that are effective and safe to patients quicker. The trial took a patient-centred approach, adapting to best practice guidelines throughout recruitment. The implementation faced significant challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial was terminated early for efficacy on the advice of the DSMB and will report on data collected up to the end of recruitment and, additionally, the planned final analysis at 72 weeks after the end of recruitment.
Conference Material > Slide Presentation
Sadique S, Lin YD, Walker SA, Rao B, du Cros PAK, et al.
MSF Scientific Days International 2022. 10 May 2022; DOI:10.57740/54qw-5453
Conference Material > Abstract
Sadique S, Lin YD, Walker SA, Rao B, du Cros PAK, et al.
MSF Scientific Days International 2022. 9 May 2022; DOI:10.57740/s2se-8951
INTRODUCTION
The crowded conditions within camps for refugees and internally displaced people create risk environments for unmitigated transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Within one such setting, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, MSF distributed face masks in July-August 2020 for use by people living in eight camps to reduce transmission risks. However, uptake of face masks within camp populations and the factors influencing use are not well understood.
METHODS
We conducted a multi-level triangulation mixed-methods study in March 2021 in Cox’s Bazar. Field observations were undertaken in public spaces in four camps, noting individuals’ facemask use (appropriate versus not), use of other types of face covering (e.g., headscarf), and gender. We also analysed photographs posted on Twitter during March 2021 that were geotagged in the Cox’s Bazar area, posted with a specific keyword, or posted by connected accounts and tweets. Photographs were also categorised by facemask/headscarf use and gender. Finally, we conducted 32 in-depth interviews to understand perceptions and barriers around mask use. Qualitative data were analysed thematically using NVivo.
ETHICS
This study was approved by the Office of the Civil Surgeon, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh and by the MSF Ethics Review Board.
RESULTS
We made 3,152 public observations. Only 190/3,152 (6%) were using a mask appropriately. Men were more likely to be seen using any visible standard facemask appropriately than women (odds ratio, OR, 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.1-2.2, p-value 0.037). Most women were observed wearing headscarves that precluded observing if masks were worn underneath. The content of 20 tweets were analysed. One photograph showed one person wearing a mask correctly; in 17 photographs individuals wore no face covering and in 2 wore scarves. Qualitative data suggested participants were aware of the importance of mask use but highlighted several reasons for not wearing them, including the fear of being insulted for wearing a mask due to the association between mask use and having Covid-19; a view that they were unnecessary because there was little Covid-19 in the camps; experiences of physical difficulties or discomfort whilst wearing masks; and a belief that wearing facemasks was unnecessary because “life or death is up to Allah”. Participants highlighted the current shortage of masks in the camps as well as adverse consequences of insufficient masks, and requested further distribution.
CONCLUSION
These findings suggest low adherence to recommendations around mask use in this camp setting. Multiple strategies need to be considered, including better distribution strategies and improved messaging and engagement with religious and community leaders to increase facemask use in settings such as Cox’s Bazar.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None declared.
The crowded conditions within camps for refugees and internally displaced people create risk environments for unmitigated transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Within one such setting, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, MSF distributed face masks in July-August 2020 for use by people living in eight camps to reduce transmission risks. However, uptake of face masks within camp populations and the factors influencing use are not well understood.
METHODS
We conducted a multi-level triangulation mixed-methods study in March 2021 in Cox’s Bazar. Field observations were undertaken in public spaces in four camps, noting individuals’ facemask use (appropriate versus not), use of other types of face covering (e.g., headscarf), and gender. We also analysed photographs posted on Twitter during March 2021 that were geotagged in the Cox’s Bazar area, posted with a specific keyword, or posted by connected accounts and tweets. Photographs were also categorised by facemask/headscarf use and gender. Finally, we conducted 32 in-depth interviews to understand perceptions and barriers around mask use. Qualitative data were analysed thematically using NVivo.
ETHICS
This study was approved by the Office of the Civil Surgeon, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh and by the MSF Ethics Review Board.
RESULTS
We made 3,152 public observations. Only 190/3,152 (6%) were using a mask appropriately. Men were more likely to be seen using any visible standard facemask appropriately than women (odds ratio, OR, 1.5, 95% confidence interval 1.1-2.2, p-value 0.037). Most women were observed wearing headscarves that precluded observing if masks were worn underneath. The content of 20 tweets were analysed. One photograph showed one person wearing a mask correctly; in 17 photographs individuals wore no face covering and in 2 wore scarves. Qualitative data suggested participants were aware of the importance of mask use but highlighted several reasons for not wearing them, including the fear of being insulted for wearing a mask due to the association between mask use and having Covid-19; a view that they were unnecessary because there was little Covid-19 in the camps; experiences of physical difficulties or discomfort whilst wearing masks; and a belief that wearing facemasks was unnecessary because “life or death is up to Allah”. Participants highlighted the current shortage of masks in the camps as well as adverse consequences of insufficient masks, and requested further distribution.
CONCLUSION
These findings suggest low adherence to recommendations around mask use in this camp setting. Multiple strategies need to be considered, including better distribution strategies and improved messaging and engagement with religious and community leaders to increase facemask use in settings such as Cox’s Bazar.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None declared.
Conference Material > Poster
Hinh J, Chan G, du Cros PAK, Walker SA, Graham SM, et al.
MSF Scientific Days International 2022. 9 May 2022; DOI:10.57740/3r4d-b715
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
BMC Infect Dis. 12 June 2017; 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. 12 June 2017; 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.