RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Rifapentine-based regimens have potent antimycobacterial activity that may allow for a shorter course in patients with drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3, randomized, controlled trial involving persons with newly diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis from 13 countries, we compared two 4-month rifapentine-based regimens with a standard 6-month regimen consisting of rifampin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol (control) using a noninferiority margin of 6.6 percentage points. In one 4-month regimen, rifampin was replaced with rifapentine; in the other, rifampin was replaced with rifapentine and ethambutol with moxifloxacin. The primary efficacy outcome was survival free of tuberculosis at 12 months. RESULTS: Among 2516 participants who had undergone randomization, 2343 had a culture positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis that was not resistant to isoniazid, rifampin, or fluoroquinolones (microbiologically eligible population; 768 in the control group, 791 in the rifapentine-moxifloxacin group, and 784 in the rifapentine group), of whom 194 were coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus and 1703 had cavitation on chest radiography. A total of 2234 participants could be assessed for the primary outcome (assessable population; 726 in the control group, 756 in the rifapentine-moxifloxacin group, and 752 in the rifapentine group). Rifapentine with moxifloxacin was noninferior to the control in the microbiologically eligible population (15.5% vs. 14.6% had an unfavorable outcome; difference, 1.0 percentage point; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.6 to 4.5) and in the assessable population (11.6% vs. 9.6%; difference, 2.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 5.1). Noninferiority was shown in the secondary and sensitivity analyses. Rifapentine without moxifloxacin was not shown to be noninferior to the control in either population (17.7% vs. 14.6% with an unfavorable outcome in the microbiologically eligible population; difference, 3.0 percentage points [95% CI, -0.6 to 6.6]; and 14.2% vs. 9.6% in the assessable population; difference, 4.4 percentage points [95% CI, 1.2 to 7.7]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred during the on-treatment period in 19.3% of participants in the control group, 18.8% in the rifapentine-moxifloxacin group, and 14.3% in the rifapentine group. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of a 4-month rifapentine-based regimen containing moxifloxacin was noninferior to the standard 6-month regimen in the treatment of tuberculosis. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others; Study 31/A5349 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02410772.).
Asunto(s)
Antibióticos Antituberculosos/administración & dosificación , Antituberculosos/uso terapéutico , Moxifloxacino/administración & dosificación , Mycobacterium tuberculosis/aislamiento & purificación , Rifampin/administración & dosificación , Tuberculosis Pulmonar/tratamiento farmacológico , Adolescente , Adulto , Antibióticos Antituberculosos/efectos adversos , Antituberculosos/efectos adversos , Niño , Intervalos de Confianza , Esquema de Medicación , Quimioterapia Combinada , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Moxifloxacino/efectos adversos , Rifampin/efectos adversos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Active case finding (ACF) is a strategy that aims to identify people with tuberculosis (TB) earlier in their disease. This outreach approach may lead to a reduction in catastrophic cost incurrence (costs exceeding 20% of annual household income), a main target of WHO's End TB Strategy. Our study assessed the socio-economic impact of ACF by comparing patient costs in actively and passively detected people with TB. Longitudinal patient cost surveys were prospectively fielded for people with drug-sensitive pulmonary TB, with 105 detected through ACF and 107 passively detected. Data were collected in four Vietnamese cities between October 2020 and March 2022. ACF reduced pre-treatment (USD 10 vs. 101, p < 0.001) and treatment costs (USD 888 vs. 1213, p < 0.001) in TB-affected individuals. Furthermore, it reduced the occurrence of job loss (15.2% vs. 35.5%, p = 0.001) and use of coping strategies (28.6% vs. 45.7%, p = 0.004). However, catastrophic cost incurrence was high at 52.8% and did not differ between cohorts. ACF did not significantly decrease indirect costs, the largest contributor to catastrophic costs. ACF reduces costs but cannot sufficiently reduce the risk of catastrophic costs. As income loss is the largest driver of costs during TB treatment, social protection schemes need to be expanded.