Explore the vast range of titles available.

Levofloxacin (LFX) and moxifloxacin (MXF) are the two most frequently recommended fluoroquinolones for treatment of patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). However, studies comparing the effectiveness of LFX and MXF among patients with MDR-TB are lacking. To compare the effectiveness of LFX and MXF in terms of culture conversion after 3 months of treatment for MDR-TB. In this prospective multicenter randomized open label trial, we randomly assigned 182 patients with MDR-TB (sensitive to LFX and MXF) to receive either LFX (750 mg/day; 90 patients) or MXF (400 mg/day; 92 patients) with a background drug regimen. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved sputum culture conversion at 3 months of treatment. Secondary outcomes were time to culture conversion and time to smear conversion, with data censored at 3 months, and the proportions of adverse drug reactions. At 3 months of treatment, 68 (88.3%) of the 77 patients in the LFX group and 67 (90.5%) of the 74 in the MXF group showed conversion to negative sputum cultures (odds ratio for LFX compared with MXF, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-2.20). Adverse drug reactions were reported in six patients (7.7%) in the LFX group and four (5.2%) in the MXF group (P = 0.75). The choice of LFX or MXF for treatment of patients with MDR-TB may not affect sputum culture conversion at 3 months of treatment. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01055145).

We previously showed that the choice of levofloxacin or moxifloxacin for the treatment of patients with fluoroquinolone-sensitive multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) did not affect sputum culture conversion at 3 months of treatment. To compare final treatment outcomes between patients with MDR-TB randomized to levofloxacin or moxifloxacin. A total of 151 participants with MDR-TB who were included for the final analysis in our previous trial were followed through the end of treatment. Treatment outcomes were compared between 77 patients in the levofloxacin group and 74 in the moxifloxacin group, based on the 2008 World Health Organization definitions as well as 2013 revised definitions of treatment outcomes. In addition, the time to culture conversion was compared between the two groups. Treatment outcomes were not different between the two groups, based on 2008 World Health Organization definitions as well as 2013 definitions. With 2008 definitions, cure was achieved in 54 patients (70.1%) in the levofloxacin group and 54 (73.0%) in the moxifloxacin group (P = 0.72). Treatment success rates, including cure and treatment completed, were not different between the two groups (87.0 vs. 81.1%, P = 0.38). With 2013 definitions, cure rates (83.1 vs. 78.4%, P = 0.54) and treatment success rates (84.4 vs. 79.7%, P = 0.53) were also similar between the levofloxacin and moxifloxacin groups. Time to culture conversion was also not different between the two groups (27.0 vs. 45.0 d, P = 0.11 on liquid media; 17.0 vs. 42.0 d, P = 0.14 on solid media). Patients in the levofloxacin group had more adverse events than those in the moxifloxacin group (79.2 vs. 63.5%, P = 0.03), especially musculoskeletal ones (37.7 vs. 14.9%, P = 0.001). The choice of levofloxacin or moxifloxacin made no difference to the final treatment outcome among patients with fluoroquinolone-sensitive MDR-TB. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicalrials.gov (NCT01055145).

Background Tuberculosis remains an important health concern in many countries. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of unfavorable outcomes at the end of treatment (EOT) and at the end of study (EOS; 40 months after EOT) in South Korea. Methods New or previously treated tuberculosis patients were recruited into a prospective observational cohort study at two hospitals in South Korea. To identify predictors of unfavorable outcomes at EOT and EOS, logistic regression analysis was performed. Results The proportion of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) was 8.2% in new cases and 57.9% in previously treated cases. Of new cases, 68.6% were cured, as were 40.7% of previously treated cases. At EOT, diabetes, ≥3 previous TB episodes, ≥1 significant regimen change, and MDR-TB were significantly associated with treatment failure or death. At EOS, age ≥35, body-mass index (BMI) <18.5, diabetes, and MDR-TB were significantly associated with treatment failure, death, or relapse. Among cases that were cured at EOT, age ≥50 and a BMI <18.5 were associated with subsequent death or relapse during follow-up to EOS. Treatment interruption was associated with service sector employees or laborers, bilateral lesions on chest X-ray, and previous treatment failure or treatment interruption history. Conclusions Risk factors for poor treatment outcomes at EOT and EOS include both patient factors (diabetes status, age, BMI) and disease factors (history of multiple previous treatment episodes, MDR-TB). In this longitudinal, observational cohort study, diabetes mellitus and MDR-TB were risk factors for poor treatment outcomes and relapse. Measures to help ensure that the first tuberculosis treatment episode is also the last one may improve treatment outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00341601

Treatment options for highly drug-resistant tuberculosis are limited. In this study in South Africa, a new agent, pretomanid, was combined with bedaquiline and linezolid for a 26-week course to treat extensively drug-resistant and complicated multidrug-resistant pulmonary TB. Although there were toxic effects, 90% of patients had favorable outcomes.

A randomized trial of bedaquiline–pretomanid–linezolid for highly drug-resistant tuberculosis assessed the use of linezolid at 600 or 1200 mg for 9 or 26 weeks; the 600-mg dose for 26 weeks had a favorable profile.

The emergence and spread of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), i.e. involving resistance to at least isoniazid and rifampicin, could threaten the control of TB globally. Controversy has emerged about the best way of confronting MDR-TB in settings with very limited resources. In 1999, the World Health Organization (WHO) created a working group on DOTS-Plus, an initiative exploring the programmatic feasibility and cost-effectiveness of treating MDR-TB in low-income and middle-income countries, in order to consider the management of MDR-TB under programme conditions. The challenges of implementation have proved more daunting than those of access to second-line drugs, the prices of which are dropping. Using data from the WHO/International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease surveillance project, we have grouped countries according to the proportion of TB patients completing treatment successfully and the level of MDR-TB among previously untreated patients. The resulting matrix provides a reasonable framework for deciding whether to use second-line drugs in a national programme. Countries in which the treatment success rate, i.e. the proportion of new patients who complete the scheduled treatment, irrespective of whether bacteriological cure is documented, is below 70% should give the highest priority to introducing or improving DOTS, the five-point TB control strategy recommended by WHO and the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. A poorly functioning programme can create MDR-TB much faster than it can be treated, even if unlimited resources are available. There is no single prescription for controlling MDR-TB but the various tools available should be applied wisely. Firstly, good DOTS and infection control; then appropriate use of second-line drug treatment. The interval between the two depends on the local context and resources. As funds are allocated to treat MDR-TB, human and financial resources should be increased to expand DOTS worldwide.

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. 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. 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%). 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.).

Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) outbreaks that evolve, from the outset, in a context strictly negative for HIV infection deserve special consideration since they reflect the true intrinsic epidemic potential of the causative strain. To our knowledge, the long-term evolution of such exceptional outbreaks and the treatment outcomes for the involved patients has never been reported hitherto. Here we provide a thorough description, over an 11-year period, of an MDR-TB outbreak that emerged and expanded in an HIV-negative context, Northern Tunisia. From October 2001 to June 2011, the MDR-TB outbreak involved 48 HIV-negative individuals that are mainly young (mean age 31.09 yrs; 89.6% male) and noninstitutionalized. Drug susceptibility testing coupled to mutational analysis revealed that initial transmission involved an isolate that was simultaneously resistant to isoniazid, rifampicin, ethambutol, and streptomycin. The causative Haarlem3-ST50 outbreak strain expanded mainly as an 11-banded IS6110 RFLP profile (77.1%), from which a 12-banded subclone evolved. After undergoing a 2-year treatment with second-line drugs, 22 (45.8%) patients were cured and 3 (6.2%) completed treatment, thus yielding an overall treatment success rate of 52.1%. Among the patients that experienced unfavorable treatment outcomes, 10 (20.8%) failed treatment, 3 (6.2%) were lost to follow-up, 5 (10.4%) died, and 5 (10.4%) could not be evaluated. Poor adherence to treatment was found to be the main independent predictor of unfavorable outcomes (HR: 9.15; 95% CI 1.72-48.73; P = 0.014). Intriguingly, the evolved 12-banded subclone proved significantly associated with unfavorable outcomes (HR: 4.90; 95% CI 1.04-23.04, P = 0.044). High rate of fatality and relapse was further demonstrated at the long-term, since 70% of those whose treatment failed have died, and 24% among those deemed successfully treated have relapsed. Taken together, the data obtained in this study indicate that MDR-TB clinical isolates could become fit enough to cause large and severe outbreaks in an HIV-negative context. Such MDR-TB outbreaks are characterized by low treatment success rates and could evolve towards increased severity, thus calling for early detection of cases and the necessity to raise the bar of surveillance throughout and beyond the treatment period.

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. 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. 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. 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. USAID and Janssen Research & Development.