Treatment of Multidrug-resistant or Rifampicin-resistant Tuberculosis With an All-oral 9-month Regimen Containing Linezolid or Ethionamide in South Africa: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the South African tuberculosis program replaced ethionamide with linezolid as part of an all-oral 9-month regimen. We evaluated treatment outcomes for patients assigned to regimens including linezolid in 2019 and ethionamide in 2017. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients treated for multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis throughout South Africa between 1 January and 31 December 2017 and 1 January to 31 December 2019. The cohort treated with a 9-month regimen containing ethionamide for four months, was compared with a cohort treated with a 9-month regimen containing linezolid for 2 months. The regimens were otherwise identical. Inverse probability weighting of propensity scores was used to adjust for potential confounding. A log-binomial regression model was used to estimate adjusted relative risk (aRR) comparing 24-month outcomes between cohorts including treatment success, death, loss to follow up, and treatment failure. Adverse event data were available for the linezolid cohort. FINDINGS: In total, 817 patients were included in the cohort receiving ethionamide and 4244 in the cohort receiving linezolid. No evidence for a difference was observed between linezolid and ethionamide regimens for treatment success (aRR = 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] .91-1.01), death (aRR = 1.01, 95% CI .87-1.17) or treatment failure (aRR = 0.87, 95% CI .44-1.75). Loss to follow-up was more common in the linezolid group, although estimates were imprecise (aRR = 1.22, 95% CI .99-1.50). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in treatment success and survival were observed with substitution of linezolid for ethionamide as a part of an all-oral 9-month regimen. Linezolid is an acceptable alternative to ethionamide in this shorter regimen for treatment of multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis.

Target regimen profiles for tuberculosis treatment.

Simpler, shorter, safer and more effective treatments for tuberculosis that are easily accessible to all people with tuberculosis are desperately needed. In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed target regimen profiles for the treatment of tuberculosis to make drug developers aware of both the important features of treatment regimens, and patient and programmatic needs at the country level. In view of recent ground-breaking advances in tuberculosis treatment, WHO has revised and updated these regimen profiles. We used a similar process as for the 2016 profiles, including a baseline treatment landscape analysis, an initial stakeholder survey, modelling studies estimating the impact and cost-effectiveness of novel tuberculosis treatment regimens, and an extensive stakeholder consultation. We developed target regimen profiles for the treatment of rifampicin-susceptible and rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, as well as a pan-tuberculosis regimen that would be appropriate for patients with any type of tuberculosis. We describe the revised target regimen profile characteristics, with specific minimal and optimal targets to be met, rationale and justification, and aspects relevant to all target regimen profiles (drug susceptibility testing, adherence and forgiveness, treatment strategies, post-tuberculosis lung disease, and cost and access considerations). We discuss the trade-offs of proposed characteristics for decision-making at developmental or operational levels. We expect that, following these target regimen profile revisions, tuberculosis treatment developers will produce regimens that are quality-assured, affordable and widely available, and that meet the needs of affected populations.

Des traitements de la tuberculose plus simples, plus courts, plus sûrs et plus efficaces, facilement accessibles à toutes les personnes atteintes de tuberculose, font cruellement défaut. En 2016, l'Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS) a élaboré des profils de schéma thérapeutique cible pour le traitement de la tuberculose, afin de sensibiliser les concepteurs de médicaments aux caractéristiques importantes des schémas thérapeutiques et aux besoins des patients et des programmes au niveau national. Compte tenu des avancées récentes dans le traitement de la tuberculose, l'OMS a révisé et mis à jour ces profils de schéma thérapeutique. Nous avons appliqué un processus similaire à celui des profils de 2016, y compris une analyse de base des différentes possibilités thérapeutiques, une enquête initiale auprès des parties prenantes, des études de modélisation estimant l'impact et le rapport coût-efficacité des nouveaux schémas thérapeutiques pour la tuberculose, ainsi qu'une vaste consultation des parties prenantes. Nous avons élaboré des profils de schéma thérapeutique cible pour le traitement de la tuberculose sensible à la rifampicine ou résistant à la rifampicine, ainsi qu'un schéma multiforme qui conviendrait aux patients atteints de n'importe quel type de tuberculose. Nous décrivons les caractéristiques du profil révisé de schéma thérapeutique cible, avec les objectifs minimaux et optimaux spécifiques à atteindre, le raisonnement et les aspects pertinents pour tous les profils de schéma thérapeutique cible (tests de sensibilité aux médicaments, observance thérapeutique et manque d'observance («forgiveness¼), stratégies de traitement, maladie pulmonaire post-tuberculeuse et considérations de coût et d'accès). Nous discutons des compromis des caractéristiques proposées pour la prise de décisions au niveau du développement ou au niveau opérationnel. Nous espérons qu'à la suite de ces révisions du profil de schéma thérapeutique cible, les concepteurs de traitements antituberculeux produiront des schémas dont la qualité est assurée, qui sont abordables et largement disponibles et qui répondent aux besoins des populations touchées.

Se necesitan con urgencia tratamientos más sencillos, breves, seguros y eficaces contra la tuberculosis que sean fácilmente accesibles para todas las personas con tuberculosis. En 2016, la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) elaboró perfiles objetivo de esquemas terapéuticos para el tratamiento de la tuberculosis con el fin de que los fabricantes de medicamentos conocieran tanto las características importantes de estos esquemas como las necesidades programáticas y de los pacientes en cada país. Teniendo en cuenta los recientes avances pioneros en el tratamiento de la tuberculosis, la OMS ha revisado y actualizado estos perfiles de esquemas terapéuticos. Se ha seguido un proceso similar al de los perfiles de 2016, que incluye un análisis de referencia del panorama terapéutico, una encuesta inicial a las partes interesadas, estudios de modelización para estimar el impacto y la rentabilidad de los nuevos esquemas terapéuticos para el tratamiento de la tuberculosis, y una amplia consulta a las partes interesadas. Se desarrollaron perfiles objetivo de esquemas terapéuticos para el tratamiento de la tuberculosis sensibles a la rifampicina y resistente a la rifampicina, así como un esquema farmacológico capaz de tratar todas las formas de tuberculosis que sería apropiado para pacientes con cualquier tipo de tuberculosis. Se describieron las características revisadas de los perfiles objetivo de los esquemas terapéuticos, con los objetivos mínimos y óptimos específicos que deben alcanzarse, los fundamentos y la justificación, y los aspectos relevantes para todos los perfiles objetivo de los esquemas terapéuticos (pruebas de sensibilidad a los fármacos, adherencia y olvido, estrategias de tratamiento, enfermedad pulmonar postuberculosa, y consideraciones de coste y acceso). Se discutieron las ventajas y desventajas de las características propuestas para la toma de decisiones a nivel de desarrollo u operativo. Se espera que, tras estas revisiones de los perfiles objetivo de los esquemas terapéuticos, las personas encargadas del desarrollo de tratamientos para la tuberculosis elaboren esquemas terapéuticos de calidad garantizada, asequibles y ampliamente disponibles, y que respondan a las necesidades de las poblaciones afectadas.

An All-Oral 6-Month Regimen for Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial (the NExT Study).

Rationale: Improving treatment outcomes while reducing drug toxicity and shortening the treatment duration to ∼6 months remains an aspirational goal for the treatment of multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB). Objectives: To conduct a multicenter randomized controlled trial in adults with MDR/RR-TB (i.e., without resistance to fluoroquinolones or aminoglycosides). Methods: Participants were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to a ∼6-month all-oral regimen that included levofloxacin, bedaquiline, and linezolid, or the standard-of-care (SOC) ⩾9-month World Health Organization (WHO)-approved injectable-based regimen. The primary endpoint was a favorable WHO-defined treatment outcome (which mandates that prespecified drug substitution is counted as an unfavorable outcome) 24 months after treatment initiation. The trial was stopped prematurely when bedaquiline-based therapy became the standard of care in South Africa. Measurements and Main Results: In total, 93 of 111 randomized participants (44 in the comparator arm and 49 in the interventional arm) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis; 51 (55%) were HIV coinfected (median CD4 count, 158 cells/ml). Participants in the intervention arm were 2.2 times more likely to experience a favorable 24-month outcome than participants in the SOC arm (51% [25 of 49] vs. 22.7% [10 of 44]; risk ratio, 2.2 [1.2-4.1]; P = 0.006). Toxicity-related drug substitution occurred more frequently in the SOC arm (65.9% [29 of 44] vs. 34.7% [17 of 49]; P = 0.001)], 82.8% (24 of 29) owing to kanamycin (mainly hearing loss; replaced by bedaquiline) in the SOC arm, and 64.7% (11 of 17) owing to linezolid (mainly anemia) in the interventional arm. Adverse event-related treatment discontinuation in the safety population was more common in the SOC arm (56.4% [31 of 55] vs. 32.1% [17 of 56]; P = 0.007). However, grade 3 adverse events were more common in the interventional arm (55.4% [31 of 56] vs. 32.7 [18 of 55]; P = 0.022). Culture conversion was significantly better in the intervention arm (hazard ratio, 2.6 [1.4-4.9]; P = 0.003) after censoring those with bedaquiline replacement in the SOC arm (and this pattern remained consistent after censoring for drug replacement in both arms; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Compared with traditional injectable-containing regimens, an all-oral 6-month levofloxacin, bedaquiline, and linezolid-containing MDR/RR-TB regimen was associated with a significantly improved 24-month WHO-defined treatment outcome (predominantly owing to toxicity-related drug substitution). However, drug toxicity occurred frequently in both arms. These findings inform strategies to develop future regimens for MDR/RR-TB.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02454205).

Bedaquiline safety, efficacy, utilization and emergence of resistance following treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients in South Africa: a retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective cohort study assessed benefits and risks of bedaquiline treatment in multidrug-resistant-tuberculosis (MDR-TB) combination therapy by evaluating safety, effectiveness, drug utilization and emergence of resistance to bedaquiline. METHODS: Data were extracted from a register of South African drug-resistant-tuberculosis (DR-TB) patients (Electronic DR-TB Register [EDRWeb]) for newly diagnosed patients with MDR-TB (including pre-extensively drug-resistant [XDR]-TB and XDR-TB and excluding rifampicin-mono-resistant [RR]-TB, as these patients are by definition not multidrug-resistant), receiving either a bedaquiline-containing or non-bedaquiline-containing regimen, at 14 sites in South Africa. Total duration of treatment and follow-up was up to 30 months, including 6 months' bedaquiline treatment. WHO treatment outcomes within 6 months after end-of-treatment were assessed in both patient groups. Longer term mortality (up to 30 months from treatment start) was evaluated through matching to the South African National Vital Statistics Register. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to predict association between receiving a bedaquiline-containing regimen and treatment outcome. RESULTS: Data were extracted from EDRWeb for 5981 MDR-TB patients (N = 3747 bedaquiline-treated; N = 2234 non-bedaquiline-treated) who initiated treatment between 2015 and 2017, of whom 40.7% versus 80.6% had MDR-TB. More bedaquiline-treated than non-bedaquiline-treated patients had pre-XDR-TB (27.7% versus 9.5%) and XDR-TB (31.5% versus 9.9%) per pre-2021 WHO definitions. Most patients with treatment duration data (94.3%) received bedaquiline for 6 months. Treatment success (per pre-2021 WHO definitions) was achieved in 66.9% of bedaquiline-treated and 49.4% of non-bedaquiline-treated patients. Death was reported in fewer bedaquiline-treated (15.4%) than non-bedaquiline-treated (25.6%) patients. Bedaquiline-treated patients had increased likelihood of treatment success and decreased risk of mortality versus non-bedaquiline-treated patients. In patients with evaluable drug susceptibility testing data, 3.5% of bedaquiline-susceptible isolates at baseline acquired phenotypic resistance. Few patients reported bedaquiline-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (1.8%), TEAE-related bedaquiline discontinuations (1.4%) and QTcF values > 500 ms (2.5%) during treatment. CONCLUSION: Data from this large cohort of South African patients with MDR-TB showed treatment with bedaquiline-containing regimens was associated with survival and effectiveness benefit compared with non-bedaquiline-containing regimens. No new safety signals were detected. These data are consistent with the positive risk-benefit profile of bedaquiline and warrant continued implementation in combination therapy for MDR-TB treatment.

Preparing the healthcare workforce in South Africa for short-course rifampicin-resistant TB treatment: inter-professional training and task-sharing considerations.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for rifampicin-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis (RR-TB) is complex, however, shorter treatment, with newer antimicrobials are improving treatment outcomes. The South African National Department of Health (NDoH) recently accelerated the rollout of 9-month, all-oral, RR-TB short-course regimens. We sought to evaluate an inter-professional training program using pre-test and post-test performance of Professional Nurses (PNs), Advanced Practice Professional Nurses (APPNs) and Medical Officers (MOs) to inform: (a) training needs across cadres; (b) knowledge performance, by cadres; and (c) training differences in knowledge by nurse type. METHODS: A 4-day didactic and case-based clinical decision support course for RR-TB regimens in South Africa (SA) was developed, reviewed and nationally accredited. Between February 2017 and July 2018, 12 training events were held. Clinicians who may initiate RR-TB treatment, specifically MOs and PN/APPNs with matched pre-post tests and demographic surveys were analyzed. Descriptive statistics are provided. Pre-post test evaluations included 25 evidence-based clinically related questions about RR-TB diagnosis, treatment, and care. RESULTS: Participants (N = 842) participated in testing, and matched evaluations were received for 800 (95.0%) training participants. Demographic data were available for 793 (99.13%) participants, of whom 762 (96.1%) were MOs, or nurses, either PN or APPNs. Average correct response pre-test and post-test scores were 61.7% (range 7-24 correct responses) and 85.9% (range 12-25), respectively. Overall, 95.8% (730/762) of participants demonstrated improved knowledge. PNs improved on average 25% (6.22 points), whereas MOs improved 10% (2.89 points) with better mean test scores on both pre- and post-test (p < 0.000). APPNs performed the same as the MOs on post-test scores (p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: The inter-professional training program in short-course RR-TB treatment improved knowledge for participants. MOs had significantly greater pre-test scores. Of the nurses, APPNs outperformed other PNs, and performed equally to MOs on post-test scores, suggesting this advanced cadre of nurses might be the most appropriate to initiate and monitor treatment in close collaboration with MOs. All cadres of nurse reported the need for additional clinical training and mentoring prior to managing such patients.

Improving Quality of Patient Data for Treatment of Multidrug- or Rifampin-Resistant Tuberculosis.

International policy for treatment of multidrug- and rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR TB) relies largely on individual patient data (IPD) from observational studies of patients treated under routine conditions. We prepared guidance on which data to collect and what measures could improve consistency and utility for future evidence-based recommendations. We highlight critical stages in data collection at which improvements to uniformity, accuracy, and completeness could add value to IPD quality. Through a repetitive development process, we suggest essential patient- and treatment-related characteristics that should be collected by prospective contributors of observational IPD in MDR/RR TB.

Standardised shorter regimens versus individualised longer regimens for rifampin- or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

We sought to compare the effectiveness of two World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended regimens for the treatment of rifampin- or multidrug-resistant (RR/MDR) tuberculosis (TB): a standardised regimen of 9-12 months (the "shorter regimen") and individualised regimens of ≥20 months ("longer regimens").We collected individual patient data from observational studies identified through systematic reviews and a public call for data. We included patients meeting WHO eligibility criteria for the shorter regimen: not previously treated with second-line drugs, and with fluoroquinolone- and second-line injectable agent-susceptible RR/MDR-TB. We used propensity score matched, mixed effects meta-regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios and adjusted risk differences (aRDs) for failure or relapse, death within 12 months of treatment initiation and loss to follow-up.We included 2625 out of 3378 (77.7%) individuals from nine studies of shorter regimens and 2717 out of 13 104 (20.7%) individuals from 53 studies of longer regimens. Treatment success was higher with the shorter regimen than with longer regimens (pooled proportions 80.0% versus 75.3%), due to less loss to follow-up with the former (aRD -0.15, 95% CI -0.17- -0.12). The risk difference for failure or relapse was slightly higher with the shorter regimen overall (aRD 0.02, 95% CI 0-0.05) and greater in magnitude with baseline resistance to pyrazinamide (aRD 0.12, 95% CI 0.07-0.16), prothionamide/ethionamide (aRD 0.07, 95% CI -0.01-0.16) or ethambutol (aRD 0.09, 95% CI 0.04-0.13).In patients meeting WHO criteria for its use, the standardised shorter regimen was associated with substantially less loss to follow-up during treatment compared with individualised longer regimens and with more failure or relapse in the presence of resistance to component medications. Our findings support the need to improve access to reliable drug susceptibility testing.

High treatment success rate for multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis using a bedaquiline-containing treatment regimen.

South African patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (TB) and resistance to fluoroquinolones and/or injectable drugs (extensively drug-resistant (XDR) and preXDR-TB) were granted access to bedaquiline through a clinical access programme with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria.PreXDR-TB and XDR-TB patients were treated with 24 weeks of bedaquiline within an optimised, individualised background regimen that could include levofloxacin, linezolid and clofazimine as needed. 200 patients were enrolled: 87 (43.9%) had XDR-TB, 99 (49.3%) were female and the median age was 34 years (interquartile range (IQR) 27-42). 134 (67.0%) were living with HIV; the median CD4+ count was 281 cells·µL-1 (IQR 130-467) and all were on antiretroviral therapy.16 out of 200 patients (8.0%) did not complete 6 months of bedaquiline: eight were lost to follow-up, six died, one stopped owing to side effects and one was diagnosed with drug-sensitive TB. 146 out of 200 patients (73.0%) had favourable outcomes: 139 (69.5%) were cured and seven (3.5%) completed treatment. 25 patients (12.5%) died, 20 (10.0%) were lost from treatment and nine (4.5%) had treatment failure. 22 adverse events were attributed to bedaquiline, including a QT interval corrected using the Fridericia formula (QTcF) >500 ms (n=5), QTcF increase >50 ms from baseline (n=11) and paroxysmal atrial flutter (n=1).Bedaquiline added to an optimised background regimen was associated with a high rate of successful treatment outcomes for this preXDR-TB and XDR-TB cohort.

Delays and loss to follow-up before treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis following implementation of Xpert MTB/RIF in South Africa: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: South Africa has a large burden of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (RR-TB), with 18,734 patients diagnosed in 2014. The number of diagnosed patients has increased substantially with the introduction of the Xpert MTB/RIF test, used for tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis for all patients with presumptive TB. Routine aggregate data suggest a large treatment gap (pre-treatment loss to follow-up) between the numbers of patients with laboratory-confirmed RR-TB and those reported to have started second-line treatment. We aimed to assess the impact of Xpert MTB/RIF implementation on the delay to treatment initiation and loss to follow-up before second-line treatment for RR-TB across South Africa. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A nationwide retrospective cohort study was conducted to assess second-line treatment initiation and treatment delay among laboratory-diagnosed RR-TB patients. Cohorts, including approximately 300 sequentially diagnosed RR-TB patients per South African province, were drawn from the years 2011 and 2013, i.e., before and after Xpert implementation. Patients with prior laboratory RR-TB diagnoses within 6 mo and currently treated patients were excluded. Treatment initiation was determined through data linkage with national and local treatment registers, medical record review, interviews with health care staff, and direct contact with patients or household members. Additional laboratory data were used to track cases. National estimates of the percentage of patients who initiated treatment and time to treatment were weighted to account for the sampling design. There were 2,508 and 2,528 eligible patients in the 2011 and 2013 cohorts, respectively; 92% were newly diagnosed with RR-TB (no prior RR-TB diagnoses). Nationally, among the 2,340 and 2,311 new RR-TB patients in the 2011 and 2013 cohorts, 55% (95% CI 53%-57%) and 63% (95% CI 61%-65%), respectively, started treatment within 6 mo of laboratory receipt of their diagnostic specimen (p < 0.001). However, in 2013, there was no difference in the percentage of patients who initiated treatment at 6 mo between the 1,368 new RR-TB patients diagnosed by Xpert (62%, 95% CI 59%-65%) and the 943 diagnosed by other methods (64%, 95% CI 61%-67%) (p = 0.39). The median time to treatment decreased from 44 d (interquartile range [IQR] 20-69) in 2011 to 22 d (IQR 2-43) in 2013 (p < 0.001). In 2013, across the nine provinces, there were substantial variations in both treatment initiation (range 51%-73% by 6 mo) and median time to treatment (range 15-36 d, n = 1,450), and only 53% of the 1,448 new RR-TB patients who received treatment were recorded in the national RR-TB register. This retrospective study is limited by the lack of information to assess reasons for non-initiation of treatment, particularly pre-treatment mortality data. Other limitations include the use of names and dates of birth to locate patient-level data, potentially resulting in missed treatment initiation among some patients. CONCLUSIONS: In 2013, there was a large treatment gap for RR-TB in South Africa that varied significantly across provinces. Xpert implementation, while reducing treatment delay, had not contributed substantially to reducing the treatment gap in 2013. However, given improved case detection with Xpert, a larger proportion of RR-TB patients overall have received treatment, with reduced delays. Nonetheless, strategies to further improve linkage to treatment for all diagnosed RR-TB patients are urgently required.

Relationship between HIV viral suppression and multidrug resistant tuberculosis treatment outcomes.

The impact of HIV viral suppression on multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment outcomes among people with HIV (PWH) has not been clearly established. Using secondary data from a cluster-randomized clinical trial among people with MDR-TB in South Africa, we examined the effects of HIV viral suppression at MDR-TB treatment initiation and throughout treatment on MDR-TB outcomes among PWH using multinomial regression. This analysis included 1479 PWH. Viral suppression (457, 30.9%), detectable viral load (524, 35.4%), or unknown viral load (498, 33.7%) at MDR-TB treatment initiation were almost evenly distributed. Having a detectable HIV viral load at MDR-TB treatment initiation significantly increased risk of death compared to those virally suppressed (relative risk ratio [RRR] 2.12, 95% CI 1.11-4.07). Among 673 (45.5%) PWH with a known viral load at MDR-TB outcome, 194 (28.8%) maintained suppression, 267 (39.7%) became suppressed, 94 (14.0%) became detectable, and 118 (17.5%) were never suppressed. Those who became detectable (RRR 11.50, 95% CI 1.98-66.65) or were never suppressed (RRR 9.28, 95% CI 1.53-56.61) were at significantly increased risk of death (RRR 6.37, 95% CI 1.58-25.70), treatment failure (RRR 4.54, 95% CI 1.35-15.24), and loss to follow-up (RRR 7.00, 95% CI 2.83-17.31; RRR 2.97, 95% CI 1.02-8.61) compared to those who maintained viral suppression. Lack of viral suppression at MDR-TB treatment initiation and failure to achieve or maintain viral suppression during MDR-TB treatment drives differences in MDR-TB outcomes. Early intervention to support access and adherence to antiretroviral therapy among PWH should be prioritized to improve MDR-TB treatment outcomes.

The epidemiology, transmission, diagnosis, and management of drug-resistant tuberculosis-lessons from the South African experience.

Drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) threatens to derail tuberculosis control efforts, particularly in Africa where the disease remains out of control. The dogma that DR-TB epidemics are fueled by unchecked rates of acquired resistance in inadequately treated or non-adherent individuals is no longer valid in most high DR-TB burden settings, where community transmission is now widespread. A large burden of DR-TB in Africa remains undiagnosed due to inadequate access to diagnostic tools that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and screen for resistance. Furthermore, acquisition of drug resistance to new and repurposed drugs, for which diagnostic solutions are not yet available, presents a major challenge for the implementation of novel, all-oral, shortened (6-9 months) treatment. Structural challenges including poverty, stigma, and social distress disrupt engagement in care, promote poor treatment outcomes, and reduce the quality of life for people with DR-TB. We reflect on the lessons learnt from the South African experience in implementing state-of-the-art advances in diagnostic solutions, deploying recent innovations in pharmacotherapeutic approaches for rapid cure, understanding local transmission dynamics and implementing interventions to curtail DR-TB transmission, and in mitigating the catastrophic socioeconomic costs of DR-TB. We also highlight globally relevant and locally responsive research priorities for achieving DR-TB control in South Africa.

Patient and provider costs of the new BPaL regimen for drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment in South Africa: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Drug-resistant (DR) tuberculosis (TB) is typically characterized by resistance to a single or combination of first- and/or second-line anti-TB agents and commonly includes rifampicin-resistant (RR)-TB, multidrug-resistant (MDR)-TB, pre-extensively drug-resistant (pre-XDR)-TB and XDR-TB. Historically, all variations of DR-TB required treatment with second-line drugs which are less effective and more toxic than first-line options, have a longer treatment duration and are more expensive to both patients and providers. The World Health Organization (WHO) now recommends a new second-line 3-drug 6-month all-oral regimen consisting of bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid referred to as BPaL. We estimate patient and provider costs of DR-TB treatment with BPaL compared to the current standard of care in South Africa. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In coordination with South Africa's BPaL clinical access programme (CAP) we conducted an economic evaluation of A) patient costs through a cross-sectional patient cost survey and B) provider costs through a bottom-up costing analysis consisting of a retrospective medical record review (patient resource-use) and top-down financial record review (fixed/shared costs such as overhead). Across both costing perspectives, we compare costs of 1) BPaL, to current standard of care options including the 2) 9-11-month standard short oral regimen (SSOR) and 3) 18-21-month standard long oral regimen (SLOR). Eligible patients included those ≥14 years old with confirmed sputum pulmonary RR/MDR-TB, pre-XDR or XDR-TB. All costs are reported in 2022 United States Dollar (US$). A total of 72 patients were enrolled and completed the patient cost survey (41.7% on BPaL, 16.7% on the SSOR and 41.7% on the SLOR). Mean on-treatment patient costs were lowest among those on BPaL ($56.6) and increased four-fold among those on the SSOR ($228.1) and SLOR ($224.7). Direct medical patient costs were negligible across all treatment regimens, while direct non-medical patient and guardian costs for travel, food and nutritional supplementation accounted for the largest proportion of total costs ($54.6, $227.8 and $224.3 for BPaL, the SSOR and SLOR respectively). In assessing provider costs, a total of 112 medical records were reviewed (37.5%, 41.1% and 21.4% on BPaL, the SSOR and SLOR respectively). Total provider costs for producing a favorable treatment outcome (cured/completed treatment) were similar among those on BPaL ($4,948.7 per patient) and the SSOR ($4,905.6 per patient) with costs increasing substantially among those on the SLOR ($8,919.9 per patient). Based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), at even the lowest willingness to pay (WTP) threshold, treatment with the new BPaL regimen was more cost-effective than current standard of care treatment options (ICER: $311.4 < WTP: $3,341). CONCLUSIONS: When using the newly recommended BPaL regimen, cost to patients decreased by 75% compared to current standard of care treatment options in South Africa. Due in part to higher resource-use within the BPaL CAP offsetting the shorter treatment duration, cost of treatment provision through BPaL and the 9-11-month SSOR were similar. However, when considering cost and treatment outcomes, BPaL was more cost-effective than other standard of care regimens currently available for DR-TB in South Africa.

Global adoption of 6-month drug-resistant TB regimens: Projected uptake by 2026.

BACKGROUND: The WHO has issued a call to action urging countries to accelerate the rollout of new WHO-recommended shorter all-oral treatment regimens for drug-resistant TB (DR-TB), which remains a public-health crisis. The all-oral, 6-month BPaL/M regimen comprises 3-4 drugs: pretomanid used in combination with bedaquiline and linezolid, with or without moxifloxacin. This regimen has been recommended by the WHO for use in DR-TB patients instead of ≥9-month (up to 24-month) regimens. This study aims to project this regimen's use, along with its components bedaquiline, pretomanid and linezolid, and other treatments for DR-TB globally through 2026. It is intended to guide global health stakeholders in planning and budgeting for DR-TB interventions. Projected usage could help estimate cost of the individual components of DR-TB regimens over time. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with national TB programme participants in key countries to gather intelligence on established plans and targets for use of various DR-TB treatment regimens from 2023 to 2026. These data informed development of projections for the global use of regimens and drugs. RESULTS: Consistent global growth in the use of shorter regimens in DR-TB treatment was shown: BPaLM reaching 126,792 patients, BPaL reaching 43,716 patients, and the 9-11-month all-oral bedaquiline-based regimen reaching 13,119 patients by 2026. By 2026, the longer all-oral regimen is projected to be used by 19,262 patients, and individualised treatment regimens by 15,344 patients. CONCLUSION: The study shows BPaL/M will be used in majority of DR-TB patients by 2024, reaching 78% by 2026. However, national efforts to scale-up, case-finding, monitoring, drug-susceptibility testing, and implementation of new treatments will be essential for ensuring they are accessible to all eligible patients in the coming years and goals for ending TB are met. There is an urgent need to engage communities in capacity building and demand generation.

Successful Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Treatment Without HIV Viral Suppression: A Missed Opportunity.

BACKGROUND: Coinfection with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) and HIV is common, but few published studies examine how undergoing MDR-TB treatment affects HIV disease indicators. METHODS: Using data from a nested, retrospective cohort of people with HIV (PWH) and successful MDR-TB treatment outcomes, we built multivariable regression models to explore correlates of HIV viral suppression at MDR-TB treatment completion. RESULTS: Among 531 PWH successfully treated for MDR-TB, mean age was 37.4 years (SD 10.2, interquartile range 30-43), 270 (50.8%) were male, 395 (74.4%) were virally suppressed at MDR-TB outcome, and 259 (48.8%) took bedaquiline. Older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01 to 1.06) increased odds of viral suppression, while having a prior TB episode (aOR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.64), having a detectable viral load at MDR-TB treatment initiation (aOR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.30), living in a township (aOR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.87), and being changed from efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) to a protease inhibitor due to bedaquiline usage (aOR 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.82) or not having an ART change while on bedaquiline (aOR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.75) lowered odds of viral suppression. Changing from efavirenz to nevirapine due to bedaquiline usage did not significantly affect odds of viral suppression (aOR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.16 to 1.04). CONCLUSIONS: Increased pill burden and adverse treatment effects did not significantly affect HIV viral suppression while switching ART to a protease inhibitor to accommodate bedaquiline or not changing ART while taking bedaquiline did, suggesting that PWH and MDR-TB may benefit from additional support if they must switch ART.

A cohort study of post-COVID-19 condition across the Beta, Delta, and Omicron waves in South Africa: 6-month follow-up of hospitalized and nonhospitalized participants.

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.

Organisation of care for people receiving drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment in South Africa: a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment for multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB) is increasingly transitioning from hospital-centred to community-based care. A national policy for decentralised programmatic MDR/RR-TB care was adopted in South Africa in 2011. We explored variations in the implementation of care models in response to this change in policy, and the implications of these variations for people affected by MDR/RR-TB. DESIGN: A mixed methods study was done of patient movements between healthcare facilities, reconstructed from laboratory records. Facility visits and staff interviews were used to determine reasons for movements. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: People identified with MDR/RR-TB from 13 high-burden districts within South Africa. OUTCOME MEASURES: Geospatial movement patterns were used to identify organisational models. Reasons for patient movement and implications of different organisational models for people affected by MDR/RR-TB and the health system were determined. RESULTS: Among 191 participants, six dominant geospatial movement patterns were identified, which varied in average hospital stay (0-281 days), average patient distance travelled (12-198 km) and number of health facilities involved in care (1-5 facilities). More centralised models were associated with longer delays to treatment initiation and lengthy hospitalisation. Decentralised models facilitated family-centred care and were associated with reduced time to treatment and hospitalisation duration. Responsiveness to the needs of people affected by MDR/RR-TB and health system constraints was achieved through implementation of flexible models, or the implementation of multiple models in a district. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how models for organising care have evolved may assist policy implementers to tailor implementation to promote particular patterns of care organisation or encourage flexibility, based on patient needs and local health system resources. Our approach can contribute towards the development of a health systems typology for understanding how policy-driven models of service delivery are implemented in the context of variable resources.

Tuberculosis testing patterns in South Africa to identify groups that would benefit from increased investigation.

The National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS) collects all public health laboratory test results in South Africa, providing a cohort from which to identify groups, by age, sex, HIV, and viral suppression status, that would benefit from increased tuberculosis (TB) testing. Using NHLS data (2012-2016), we assessed levels and trends over time in TB diagnostic tests performed (count and per capita) and TB test positivity. Estimates were stratified by HIV status, viral suppression, age, sex, and province. We used logistic regression to estimate the odds of testing positive for TB by viral suppression status. Nineteen million TB diagnostic tests were conducted during period 2012-2016. Testing per capita was lower among PLHIV with viral suppression than those with unsuppressed HIV (0.08 vs 0.32) but lowest among people without HIV (0.03). Test positivity was highest among young adults (aged 15-35 years), males of all age groups, and people with unsuppressed HIV. Test positivity was higher for males without laboratory evidence of HIV than those with HIV viral suppression, despite similar individual odds of TB. Our results are an important national baseline characterizing who received TB testing in South Africa. People without evidence of HIV, young adults, and males would benefit from increased TB screening given their lower testing rates and higher test positivity. These high-test positivity groups can be used to guide future expansions of TB screening.