Bedaquiline-Pretomanid-Linezolid Regimens for Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: The bedaquiline-pretomanid-linezolid regimen has been reported to have 90% efficacy against highly drug-resistant tuberculosis, but the incidence of adverse events with 1200 mg of linezolid daily has been high. The appropriate dose of linezolid and duration of treatment with this agent to minimize toxic effects while maintaining efficacy against highly drug-resistant tuberculosis are unclear. METHODS: We enrolled participants with extensively drug-resistant (XDR) tuberculosis (i.e., resistant to rifampin, a fluoroquinolone, and an aminoglycoside), pre-XDR tuberculosis (i.e., resistant to rifampin and to either a fluoroquinolone or an aminoglycoside), or rifampin-resistant tuberculosis that was not responsive to treatment or for which a second-line regimen had been discontinued because of side effects. We randomly assigned the participants to receive bedaquiline for 26 weeks (200 mg daily for 8 weeks, then 100 mg daily for 18 weeks), pretomanid (200 mg daily for 26 weeks), and daily linezolid at a dose of 1200 mg for 26 weeks or 9 weeks or 600 mg for 26 weeks or 9 weeks. The primary end point in the modified intention-to-treat population was the incidence of an unfavorable outcome, defined as treatment failure or disease relapse (clinical or bacteriologic) at 26 weeks after completion of treatment. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 181 participants were enrolled, 88% of whom had XDR or pre-XDR tuberculosis. Among participants who received bedaquiline-pretomanid-linezolid with linezolid at a dose of 1200 mg for 26 weeks or 9 weeks or 600 mg for 26 weeks or 9 weeks, 93%, 89%, 91%, and 84%, respectively, had a favorable outcome; peripheral neuropathy occurred in 38%, 24%, 24%, and 13%, respectively; myelosuppression occurred in 22%, 15%, 2%, and 7%, respectively; and the linezolid dose was modified (i.e., interrupted, reduced, or discontinued) in 51%, 30%, 13%, and 13%, respectively. Optic neuropathy developed in 4 participants (9%) who had received linezolid at a dose of 1200 mg for 26 weeks; all the cases resolved. Six of the seven unfavorable microbiologic outcomes through 78 weeks of follow-up occurred in participants assigned to the 9-week linezolid groups. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 84 to 93% of the participants across all four bedaquiline-pretomanid-linezolid treatment groups had a favorable outcome. The overall risk-benefit ratio favored the group that received the three-drug regimen with linezolid at a dose of 600 mg for 26 weeks, with a lower incidence of adverse events reported and fewer linezolid dose modifications. (Funded by the TB Alliance and others; ZeNix ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03086486.).

Treatment of Highly Drug-Resistant Pulmonary Tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with highly drug-resistant forms of tuberculosis have limited treatment options and historically have had poor outcomes. METHODS: In an open-label, single-group study in which follow-up is ongoing at three South African sites, we investigated treatment with three oral drugs - bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid - that have bactericidal activity against tuberculosis and to which there is little preexisting resistance. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the drug combination for 26 weeks in patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis and patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis that was not responsive to treatment or for which a second-line regimen had been discontinued because of side effects. The primary end point was the incidence of an unfavorable outcome, defined as treatment failure (bacteriologic or clinical) or relapse during follow-up, which continued until 6 months after the end of treatment. Patients were classified as having a favorable outcome at 6 months if they had resolution of clinical disease, a negative culture status, and had not already been classified as having had an unfavorable outcome. Other efficacy end points and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients were enrolled in the study and were included in the evaluation of efficacy and safety end points. At 6 months after the end of treatment in the intention-to-treat analysis, 11 patients (10%) had an unfavorable outcome and 98 patients (90%; 95% confidence interval, 83 to 95) had a favorable outcome. The 11 unfavorable outcomes were 7 deaths (6 during treatment and 1 from an unknown cause during follow-up), 1 withdrawal of consent during treatment, 2 relapses during follow-up, and 1 loss to follow-up. The expected linezolid toxic effects of peripheral neuropathy (occurring in 81% of patients) and myelosuppression (48%), although common, were manageable, often leading to dose reductions or interruptions in treatment with linezolid. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid led to a favorable outcome at 6 months after the end of therapy in a high percentage of patients with highly drug-resistant forms of tuberculosis; some associated toxic effects were observed. (Funded by the TB Alliance and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02333799.).

Randomized Controlled Trial of Urokinase versus Placebo for Nondraining Malignant Pleural Effusion.

RATIONALE: Patients with malignant pleural effusion experience breathlessness, which is treated by drainage and pleurodesis. Incomplete drainage results in residual dyspnea and pleurodesis failure. Intrapleural fibrinolytics lyse septations within pleural fluid, improving drainage. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of intrapleural urokinase on dyspnea and pleurodesis success in patients with nondraining malignant effusion. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Patients with nondraining effusion were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to intrapleural urokinase (100,000 IU, three doses, 12-hourly) or matched placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Co-primary outcome measures were dyspnea (average daily 100-mm visual analog scale scores over 28 d) and time to pleurodesis failure to 12 months. Secondary outcomes were survival, hospital length of stay, and radiographic change. A total of 71 subjects were randomized (36 received urokinase, 35 placebo) from 12 U.K. centers. The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. There was no difference in mean dyspnea between groups (mean difference, 3.8 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 4.4 mm; P = 0.36). Pleurodesis failure rates were similar (urokinase, 13 of 35 [37%]; placebo, 11 of 34 [32%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.2; P = 0.65). Urokinase was associated with decreased effusion size visualized by chest radiography (adjusted relative improvement, -19%; 95% CI, -28 to -11%; P < 0.001), reduced hospital stay (1.6 d; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.6; P = 0.049), and improved survival (69 vs. 48 d; P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Use of intrapleural urokinase does not reduce dyspnea or improve pleurodesis success compared with placebo and cannot be recommended as an adjunct to pleurodesis. Other palliative treatments should be used. Improvements in hospital stay, radiographic appearance, and survival associated with urokinase require further evaluation. Clinical trial registered with ISRCTN (12852177) and EudraCT (2008-000586-26).