Search

Background: STREAM stage 2 showed that two bedaquiline-containing regimens (a 9-month all-oral regimen and a 6-month regimen with 8 weeks of aminoglycoside) had superior efficacy to a 9-month injectable-containing regimen for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis up to 76 weeks after randomisation. Our objective in this follow-up analysis was to assess the durability of efficacy and safety, including mortality, at 132 weeks., Methods: We report the long-term outcomes from STREAM stage 2, a randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority (10% margin) trial in participants (aged ≥15 years) with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis without fluoroquinolone or aminoglycoside resistance at 13 clinical sites in seven countries (Ethiopia, Georgia, India, Moldova, Mongolia, South Africa, and Uganda). Participants were randomly assigned 1:2:2:2 (via permuted blocks and stratified by site and HIV status plus CD4 cell count) to the 2011 WHO long regimen (terminated early), a 9-month control regimen, a 9-month oral regimen with bedaquiline (primary comparison), or a 6-month regimen with bedaquiline and 8 weeks of an injectable antituberculous drug. Participants and clinicians were aware of treatment-group assignments, but laboratory staff were masked. The primary outcome, reported previously, was favourable status (negative cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis without a preceding unfavourable outcome; any death, bacteriological failure or recurrence, and major treatment change were considered unfavourable) at week 76. Here we report efficacy outcomes at week 132, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. Safety assessments continued to 132 weeks and were in all participants who received at least one dose of the study regimen. All comparisons used concurrently randomised participants. This trial is registered on ISRCTN (ISRCTN18148631) and is now completed., Findings: Between March 28, 2016, and Jan 28, 2020, 588 participants were randomly assigned to the long (n=32), control (n=202), oral (n=211), or 6-month (n=143) treatment regimens; 352 (60%) were male and 236 (40%) were female. Of the 556 participants on the three shorter regimens, 517 were included in the mITT population (187 in control group, 196 in oral group, and 134 in 6-month group) and 465 in the per-protocol analyses. Six additional participants had an unfavourable outcome that occurred between week 76 and the end of efficacy follow-up (one in control group, four in oral group, one in 6-month group). In the mITT population, the proportion of patients with an unfavourable outcome at the end of follow-up was 19·6% (95% CI 14·3 to 24·9) in the oral group and 29·3% (23·3 to 36·5) in the control group (-9·7 percentage points difference [95% CI -18·7 to -1·8]; p superiority =0·024). An estimated 9·8% (95% CI 4·6 to 14·9) of participants on the 6-month regimen had an unfavourable outcome, which was significantly lower than for those concurrently on the control regimen (32·5% [23·7 to 40·2]; p superiority <0·0001) or the oral regimen (23·8% [16·9 to 31·1]; p superiority =0·013). Few serious or severe adverse events were reported after week 76, with no indication of a difference between the regimens. At week 132, treatment-emergent hearing loss was recorded in significantly fewer participants on the oral regimen (7/205; 3%) than the control regimen (16/198; 8%; p=0.041); there was no significant difference in severe hearing loss between the oral regimen (6/139; 4%) and the 6-month regimen (5/143; 4%; p=0·72). Death rates were low: 1·01 (95% CI 0·48 to 2·12) per 100 person-years in participants allocated to bedaquiline (ie, oral and 6-month regimen, n=287) compared with 1·52 (0·63 to 3·66) in participants on the control regimen (n=140; p=0·49)., Interpretation: Both of the bedaquiline-containing regimens maintained superiority to the control regimen, without evidence of increased mortality, providing two additional evidence-based treatment options for patients; previous mortality concerns for bedaquiline were not substantiated., Funding: US Agency for International Development and Janssen Research & Development., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MR sat on the South African Bedaquiline, Pretomanid and Linezolid Clinical Access Program data monitoring committee and the BEAT Tuberculosis Trial data monitoring committee. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The study aimed to describe the prevalence of and risk factors for post-COVID-19 condition (PCC)., Methods: This was a prospective, longitudinal observational cohort study. Hospitalized and nonhospitalized adults were randomly selected to undergo telephone assessment at 1, 3, and 6 months. Participants were assessed using a standardized questionnaire for the evaluation of symptoms and health-related quality of life. We used negative binomial regression models to determine factors associated with the presence of ≥1 symptoms at 6 months., Results: A total of 46.7% of hospitalized and 18.5% of nonhospitalized participants experienced ≥1 symptoms at 6 months (P ≤0.001). Among hospitalized people living with HIV, 40.4% had persistent symptoms compared with 47.1% among participants without HIV (P = 0.108). The risk factors for PCC included older age, female sex, non-Black race, presence of a comorbidity, greater number of acute COVID-19 symptoms, hospitalization/COVID-19 severity, and wave period (lower risk of persistent symptoms for the Omicron compared with the Beta wave). There were no associations between self-reported vaccination status with persistent symptoms., Conclusion: The study revealed a high prevalence of persistent symptoms among South African participants at 6 months but decreased risk for PCC among participants infected during the Omicron BA.1 wave. These findings have serious implications for countries with resource-constrained health care systems., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The STREAM stage 1 trial showed that a 9-month regimen for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis was non-inferior to the 20-month 2011 WHO-recommended regimen. In STREAM stage 2, we aimed to compare two bedaquiline-containing regimens with the 9-month STREAM stage 1 regimen., Methods: We did a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in 13 hospital clinics in seven countries, in individuals aged 15 years or older with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis without fluoroquinolone or aminoglycoside resistance. Participants were randomly assigned 1:2:2:2 to the 2011 WHO regimen (terminated early), a 9-month control regimen, a 9-month oral regimen with bedaquiline (primary comparison), or a 6-month regimen with bedaquiline and 8 weeks of second-line injectable. Randomisations were stratified by site, HIV status, and CD4 count. Participants and clinicians were aware of treatment-group assignments, but laboratory staff were masked. The primary outcome was favourable status (negative cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis without a preceding unfavourable outcome) at 76 weeks; any death, bacteriological failure or recurrence, and major treatment change were considered unfavourable outcomes. All comparisons used groups of participants randomly assigned concurrently. For non-inferiority to be shown, the upper boundary of the 95% CI should be less than 10% in both modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol analyses, with prespecified tests for superiority done if non-inferiority was shown. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN18148631., Findings: Between March 28, 2016, and Jan 28, 2020, 1436 participants were screened and 588 were randomly assigned. Of 517 participants in the mITT population, 133 (71%) of 187 on the control regimen and 162 (83%) of 196 on the oral regimen had a favourable outcome: a difference of 11·0% (95% CI 2·9-19·0), adjusted for HIV status and randomisation protocol (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). By 76 weeks, 108 (53%) of 202 participants on the control regimen and 106 (50%) of 211 allocated to the oral regimen had an adverse event of grade 3 or 4; five (2%) participants on the control regimen and seven (3%) on the oral regimen had died. Hearing loss (Brock grade 3 or 4) was more frequent in participants on the control regimen than in those on the oral regimen (18 [9%] vs four [2%], p=0·0015). Of 134 participants in the mITT population who were allocated to the 6-month regimen, 122 (91%) had a favourable outcome compared with 87 (69%) of 127 participants randomly assigned concurrently to the control regimen (adjusted difference 22·2%, 95% CI 13·1-31·2); six (4%) of 143 participants on the 6-month regimen had grade 3 or 4 hearing loss., Interpretation: Both bedaquiline-containing regimens, a 9-month oral regimen and a 6-month regimen with 8 weeks of second-line injectable, had superior efficacy compared with a 9-month injectable-containing regimen, with fewer cases of hearing loss., Funding: USAID and Janssen Research & Development., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SBS received a grant from the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Development Office for tuberculosis research through his institution. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: New anti-tuberculosis regimens that are shorter, simpler, and less toxic than those that are currently available are needed as part of the global effort to address the tuberculosis epidemic. We aimed to investigate the bactericidal activity and safety profile of combinations of bedaquiline, pretomanid, moxifloxacin, and pyrazinamide in the first 8 weeks of treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis., Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, partially randomised, phase 2b trial, we prospectively recruited patients with drug-susceptible or rifampicin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis from seven sites in South Africa, two in Tanzania, and one in Uganda. Patients aged 18 years or older with sputum smear grade 1+ or higher were eligible for enrolment, and a molecular assay (GeneXpert or MTBDRplus) was used to confirm the diagnosis of tuberculosis and to distinguish between drug-susceptible and rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. Patients who were HIV positive with a baseline CD4 cell count of less than 100 cells per uL were excluded. Patients with drug-susceptible tuberculosis were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using numbered treatment packs with sequential allocation by the pharmacist to receive 56 days of treatment with standard tuberculosis therapy (oral isoniazid, rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol; HRZE), or pretomanid (oral 200 mg daily) and pyrazinamide (oral 1500 mg daily) with either oral bedaquiline 400 mg daily on days 1-14 then 200 mg three times per week (B load PaZ) or oral bedaquiline 200 mg daily (B 200 PaZ). Patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis received 56 days of the B 200 PaZ regimen plus moxifloxacin 400 mg daily (BPaMZ). All treatment groups were open label, and randomisation was not stratified. Patients, trial investigators and staff, pharmacists or dispensers, laboratory staff (with the exception of the mycobacteriology laboratory staff), sponsor staff, and applicable contract research organisations were not masked. The primary efficacy outcome was daily percentage change in time to sputum culture positivity (TTP) in liquid medium over days 0-56 in the drug-susceptible tuberculosis population, based on non-linear mixed-effects regression modelling of log 10 (TTP) over time. The efficacy analysis population contained patients who received at least one dose of medication and who had efficacy data available and had no major protocol violations. The safety population contained patients who received at least one dose of medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02193776, and all patients have completed follow-up., Findings: Between Oct 24, 2014, and Dec 15, 2015, we enrolled 180 patients with drug-susceptible tuberculosis (59 were randomly assigned to B load PaZ, 60 to B 200 PaZ, and 61 to HRZE) and 60 patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. 57 patients in the B load PaZ group, 56 in the B 200 PaZ group, and 59 in the HRZE group were included in the primary analysis. B 200 PaZ produced the highest daily percentage change in TTP (5·17% [95% Bayesian credibility interval 4·61-5·77]), followed by B load PaZ (4·87% [4·31-5·47]) and HRZE group (4·04% [3·67-4·42]). The bactericidal activity in B 200 PaZ and B load PaZ groups versus that in the HRZE group was significantly different. Higher proportions of patients in the B load PaZ (six [10%] of 59) and B 200 PaZ (five [8%] of 60) groups discontinued the study drug than in the HRZE group (two [3%] of 61) because of adverse events. Liver enzyme elevations were the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events and resulted in the withdrawal of ten patients (five [8%] in the B load PaZ group, three [5%] in the B 200 PaZ group, and two [3%] in the HRZE group). Serious treatment-related adverse events affected two (3%) patients in the B load PaZ group and one (2%) patient in the HRZE group. Seven (4%) patients with drug-susceptible tuberculosis died and four (7%) patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis died. None of the deaths were considered to be related to treatment., Interpretation: B 200 PaZ is a promising regimen to treat patients with drug-susceptible tuberculosis. The bactericidal activity of both these regimens suggests that they have the potential to shorten treatment, and the simplified dosing schedule of B 200 PaZ could improve treatment adherence in the field. However, these findings must be investigated further in a phase 3 trial assessing treatment outcomes., Funding: TB Alliance, UK Department for International Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, US Agency for International Development, Directorate General for International Cooperation of the Netherlands, Irish Aid, Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Federal Ministry for Education and Research of Germany., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analysed patient data from the South African rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis case register (EDRweb), and identified additional mortality using the national vital statistics register. We excluded patients who started treatment before July 1, 2014, or after March 31, 2016; patients younger than 15 years or older than 75 years; patients without documented rifampicin resistance, and patients with pre-extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (multidrug-resistant tuberculosis with further resistance to a second-line injectable or fluoroquinolone). We compared all-cause mortality between patients who received bedaquiline in treatment regimens and those who did not. Patients who did not receive bedaquiline had kanamycin or capreomycin and moxifloxacin as core medicines in their regimen. We estimated hazard ratios for mortality separately for multidrug-resistant or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis and adjusted using propensity score quintile strata for the potential confounders of sex, age, HIV and antiretroviral therapy status, history of prior tuberculosis, valid identification number, and year and province of treatment., Findings: 24 014 tuberculosis cases were registered in the EDRweb between July 1, 2014, and March 31, 2016. Of these, 19 617 patients initiated treatment and met our analysis eligibility criteria. A bedaquiline-containing regimen was given to 743 (4·0%) of 18 542 patients with multidrug-resistant or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis and 273 (25·4%) of 1075 patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. Among 1016 patients who received bedaquiline, 128 deaths (12·6%) were reported, and there were 4612 deaths (24·8%) among 18 601 patients on the standard regimens. Bedaquiline was associated with a reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality for patients with multidrug-resistant or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·35, 95% CI 0·28-0·46) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (0·26, 0·18-0·38) compared with standard regimens., Interpretation: Our retrospective cohort analysis of routinely reported data in the context of high HIV and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis prevalence showed that bedaquiline-based treatment regimens were associated with a large reduction in mortality in patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis, compared with the standard regimen., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Despite affecting men, women, and children for millennia, tuberculosis (TB) is the most neglected disease. In contrast, the global response to HIV has reached a defining moment. By uniting efforts, promptly integrating major scientific findings for both treatment and prevention, and scaling up services, the once inconceivable end to the HIV epidemic may no longer be an illusion. "The world has made defeating AIDS a top priority. This is a blessing. But TB remains ignored" - Nelson Mandela. While there is no doubt that revolutionary diagnostics and new and repurposed drugs have provided some hope in the fight against TB, it is evident that scientific advances on their own are inadequate to achieve the World Health Organization's ambitious goal to end TB by 2035. In this article, the consequences of a myopic and conventional biomedical approach to TB, which has ultimately permeated to the level of individual patient care, are highlighted., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Expanded access to combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) in resource-poor settings is dependent on task shifting from doctors to other health-care providers. We compared outcomes of nurse versus doctor management of ART care for HIV-infected patients., Methods: This randomised non-inferiority trial was undertaken at two South African primary-care clinics. HIV-positive individuals with a CD4 cell count of less than 350 cells per microL or WHO stage 3 or 4 disease were randomly assigned to nurse-monitored or doctor-monitored ART care. Patients were randomly assigned by stratified permuted block randomisation, and neither the patients nor those analysing the data were masked to assignment. The primary objective was a composite endpoint of treatment-limiting events, incorporating mortality, viral failure, treatment-limiting toxic effects, and adherence to visit schedule. Analysis was by intention to treat. Non-inferiority of the nurse versus doctor group for cumulative treatment failure was prespecified as an upper 95% CI for the hazard ratio that was less than 1.40. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00255840., Findings: 408 patients were assigned to doctor-monitored ART care and 404 to nurse-monitored ART care; all participants were analysed. 371 (46%) patients reached an endpoint of treatment failure: 192 (48%) in the nurse group and 179 (44%) in the doctor group. The hazard ratio for composite failure was 1.09 (95% CI 0.89-1.33), which was within the limits for non-inferiority. After a median follow-up of 120 weeks (IQR 60-144), deaths (ten vs 11), virological failures (44 vs 39), toxicity failures (68 vs 66), and programme losses (70 vs 63) were similar in nurse and doctor groups, respectively., Interpretation: Nurse-monitored ART is non-inferior to doctor-monitored therapy. Findings from this study lend support to task shifting to appropriately trained nurses for monitoring of ART., Funding: National Institutes of Health; United States Agency for International Development; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)