Search

Objective: Many biologic agents cause some degree of immunosuppression, which can increase the risk of reactivation of tuberculosis infection (TBI). This risk is variable between individual biologics. We aimed to assess current (and recommended) clinical practice of TBI screening and treatment among patients initiating treatment with biologic agents. Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed via email to members of the Global Tuberculosis Network and associated professional organisations to seek insights into the screening for and treatment of TBI in patients treated with biologics. Results: A total of 163 respondents in 27 countries answered at least one question. For all biologics described in the questionnaire, respondents advised increasing screening relative to current practice. Observed and supported TBI screening rates in patients treated with TNF-α inhibitors were high, especially for older TNF-α inhibitors. Most participants supported TBI screening in patients treated with B- or T-cell inhibitors but not in those treated with interleukin inhibitors. Guideline awareness was higher for TNF-α inhibitors than for other biologic classes (79% vs. 34%). Conclusions: Although respondents stated that TBI screening rates are lower than what they consider ideal, there was a tendency to recommend TBI screening in patients treated with biologics not known to be associated with an increased risk of TBI. As a result, there is a potential risk of over-screening and over-treatment of TBI, potentially causing harm, in patients treated with biologics other than TNF-α inhibitors. There is a need to research the risk of TBI associated with biologics and for guidelines to address the spectrum of TBI risk across all types of biologics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Patients with refractory Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) lung disease have limited treatment options. In the CONVERT study, amikacin liposome inhalation suspension (ALIS) added to guideline-based therapy (GBT) increased culture conversion rates versus GBT alone by Month 6. Limited data are available regarding >6-month treatment in a refractory population.Objectives: Evaluate 12-month safety, tolerability, and efficacy of ALIS+GBT.Methods: Adults with refractory MAC lung disease not achieving culture conversion by CONVERT Month 6 could enroll in this open-label extension (INS-312) to receive 590 mg once-daily ALIS+GBT for 12 months. Two cohorts enrolled: the "ALIS-naive" cohort included patients randomized to GBT alone in CONVERT, and the "prior-ALIS" cohort included those randomized to ALIS+GBT in CONVERT. Safety and tolerability of ALIS over 12 months (primary endpoint) and culture conversion by Months 6 and 12 were assessed.Results: In the ALIS-naive cohort, 83.3% of patients (n = 75/90) experienced respiratory treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and 35.6% (n = 32) had serious TEAEs; 26.7% (n = 24) achieved culture conversion by Month 6 and 33.3% (n = 30) by Month 12. In the prior-ALIS cohort, 46.6% of patients (n = 34/73) experienced respiratory TEAEs, and 27.4% (n = 20) had serious TEAEs; 9.6% (n = 7) achieved culture conversion by Month 6 (≤14 mo ALIS exposure) and 13.7% (n = 10) by Month 12 (≤20 mo ALIS exposure). Nephrotoxicity-related TEAEs and measured hearing decline were infrequent in both cohorts.Conclusions: In up to 20 months of ALIS use, respiratory TEAEs were common, nephrotoxicity and hearing decline were infrequent, and culture conversion continued beyond 6 months of therapy.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02628600). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adverse events are frequent in nontuberculous mycobacteria pulmonary disease treatment, but evidence to support their management is scarce. An expert panel survey on management of adverse events shows consistent opinions on management of hepatoxicity, ocular toxicity, ototoxicity, tinnitus, and gastrointestinal upset. These opinions can provide assistance in individual patient management decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Improved therapeutic options are needed for patients with treatment-refractory nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease caused by Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC). Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of daily amikacin liposome inhalation suspension (ALIS) added to standard guideline-based therapy (GBT) in patients with refractory MAC lung disease. Methods: Adults with amikacin-susceptible MAC lung disease and MAC-positive sputum cultures despite at least 6 months of stable GBT were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive ALIS with GBT (ALIS + GBT) or GBT alone. Once-daily ALIS was supplied in single-use vials delivering 590 mg amikacin to the nebulizer. The primary endpoint was culture conversion, defined as three consecutive monthly MAC-negative sputum cultures by Month 6. Measurements and Main Results: Enrolled patients (ALIS + GBT, n = 224; GBT-alone, n = 112) were a mean 64.7 years old and 69.3% female. Most had underlying bronchiectasis (62.5%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (14.3%), or both (11.9%). Culture conversion was achieved by 65 of 224 patients (29.0%) with ALIS + GBT and 10 of 112 (8.9%) with GBT alone (odds ratio, 4.22; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-8.57; P < 0.001). Patients in the ALIS + GBT arm versus GBT alone were more likely to achieve conversion (hazard ratio, 3.90; 95% confidence interval, 2.00-7.60). Respiratory adverse events (primarily dysphonia, cough, and dyspnea) were reported in 87.4% of patients receiving ALIS + GBT and 50.0% receiving GBT alone; serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 20.2% and 17.9% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: Addition of ALIS to GBT for treatment-refractory MAC lung disease achieved significantly greater culture conversion by Month 6 than GBT alone, with comparable rates of serious adverse events. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02344004). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even if in the past years new effective, safe, and orally administrable drugs are available to create shorter regimens, drug-resistant (DR) tuberculosis (TB) treatment remains a critical issue and a major challenge faced by clinicians worldwide. We present the first case of transborder pulmonary pre-extensively drug-resistant (pre-XDR)-TB treated in Italy with the bedaquiline-pretomanid-linezolid regimen. Diagnosis and treatment were started in Ukraine, and, after a month of treatment, due to the Russo-Ukrainian war, the patient moved to Italy, where the diagnosis was confirmed both by genotypic and phenotypic drug susceptibility tests, and treatment continued. In this short report, we highlight challenges and future opportunities to improve the clinical management of patient with DR-TB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Many biologic agents cause some degree of immunosuppression, which can increase the risk of reactivation of tuberculosis infection (TBI). This risk is variable between individual biologics. We aimed to assess current (and recommended) clinical practice of TBI screening and treatment among patients initiating treatment with biologic agents., Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed via email to members of the Global Tuberculosis Network and associated professional organisations to seek insights into the screening for and treatment of TBI in patients treated with biologics., Results: A total of 163 respondents in 27 countries answered at least one question. For all biologics described in the questionnaire, respondents advised increasing screening relative to current practice. Observed and supported TBI screening rates in patients treated with TNF-a inhibitors were high, especially for older TNF-a inhibitors. Most participants supported TBI screening in patients treated with B- or T-cell inhibitors but not in those treated with interleukin inhibitors. Guideline awareness was higher for TNF-a inhibitors than for other biologic classes (79% vs. 34%)., Conclusions: Although respondents stated that TBI screening rates are lower than what they consider ideal, there was a tendency to recommend TBI screening in patients treated with biologics not known to be associated with an increased risk of TBI. As a result, there is a potential risk of over-screening and over-treatment of TBI, potentially causing harm, in patients treated with biologics other than TNF-a inhibitors. There is a need to research the risk of TBI associated with biologics and for guidelines to address the spectrum of TBI risk across all types of biologics.