ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine-induced Fc receptor binding tracks with differential susceptibility to COVID-19.

Despite the success of COVID-19 vaccines, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern have emerged that can cause breakthrough infections. Although protection against severe disease has been largely preserved, the immunological mediators of protection in humans remain undefined. We performed a substudy on the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccinees enrolled in a South African clinical trial. At peak immunogenicity, before infection, no differences were observed in immunoglobulin (Ig)G1-binding antibody titers; however, the vaccine induced different Fc-receptor-binding antibodies across groups. Vaccinees who resisted COVID-19 exclusively mounted FcγR3B-binding antibodies. In contrast, enhanced IgA and IgG3, linked to enriched FcγR2B binding, was observed in individuals who experienced breakthrough. Antibodies unable to bind to FcγR3B led to immune complex clearance and resulted in inflammatory cascades. Differential antibody binding to FcγR3B was linked to Fc-glycosylation differences in SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. These data potentially point to specific FcγR3B-mediated antibody functional profiles as critical markers of immunity against COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 Viral Replication Persists in the Human Lung for Several Weeks after Symptom Onset.

Rationale: In the upper respiratory tract, replicating (culturable) severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is recoverable for ∼4-8 days after symptom onset, but there is a paucity of data about the frequency and duration of replicating virus in the lower respiratory tract (i.e., the human lung).Objectives: We undertook lung tissue sampling (needle biopsy) shortly after death in 42 mechanically ventilated decedents during the Beta and Delta waves. An independent group of 18 ambulatory patients served as a control group.Methods: Lung biopsy cores from decedents underwent viral culture, histopathological analysis, electron microscopy, transcriptomic profiling, and immunohistochemistry.Measurements and Main Results: Thirty-eight percent (16 of 42) of mechanically ventilated decedents had culturable virus in the lung for a median of 15 days (persisting for up to 4 wk) after symptom onset. Lung viral culture positivity was not associated with comorbidities or steroid use. Delta but not Beta variant lung culture positivity was associated with accelerated death and secondary bacterial infection (P < 0.05). Nasopharyngeal culture was negative in 23.1% (6 of 26) of decedents despite lung culture positivity. This hitherto undescribed biophenotype of lung-specific persisting viral replication was associated with an enhanced transcriptomic pulmonary proinflammatory response but with concurrent viral culture positivity.Conclusions: Concurrent rather than sequential active viral replication continues to drive a heightened proinflammatory response in the human lung beyond the second week of illness and was associated with variant-specific increased mortality and morbidity. These findings have potential implications for the design of interventional strategies and clinical management of patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

Review of the current TB human infection studies for use in accelerating TB vaccine development: A meeting report.

Tools to evaluate and accelerate tuberculosis (TB) vaccine development are needed to advance global TB control strategies. Validated human infection studies for TB have the potential to facilitate breakthroughs in understanding disease pathogenesis, identify correlates of protection, develop diagnostic tools, and accelerate and de-risk vaccine and drug development. However, key challenges remain for realizing the clinical utility of these models, which require further discussion and alignment amongst key stakeholders. In March 2023, the Wellcome Trust and the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) convened international experts involved in developing both TB and Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) human infection studies (including mucosal and intradermal challenge routes) to discuss the status of each of the models and the key enablers to move the field forward. This report provides a summary of the presentations and discussion from the meeting. Discussions identified key issues, including demonstrating model validity, to provide confidence for vaccine developers, which may be addressed through demonstration of known vaccine effects, e.g. BCG vaccination in specific populations, and by comparing results from field efficacy and human infection studies. The workshop underscored the importance of establishing safe and acceptable studies in high-burden settings, and the need to validate more than one model to allow for different scientific questions to be addressed as well as to provide confidence to vaccine developers and regulators around use of human infection study data in vaccine development and licensure pathways.

Efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 Covid-19 Vaccine against the B.1.351 Variant.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants threatens progress toward control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In a phase 1-2 trial involving healthy adults, the NVX-CoV2373 nanoparticle vaccine had an acceptable safety profile and was associated with strong neutralizing-antibody and antigen-specific polyfunctional CD4+ T-cell responses. Evaluation of vaccine efficacy was needed in a setting of ongoing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. METHODS: In this phase 2a-b trial in South Africa, we randomly assigned human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative adults between the ages of 18 and 84 years or medically stable HIV-positive participants between the ages of 18 and 64 years in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of either the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (5 µg of recombinant spike protein with 50 µg of Matrix-M1 adjuvant) or placebo. The primary end points were safety and vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic Covid-19 at 7 days or more after the second dose among participants without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Of 6324 participants who underwent screening, 4387 received at least one injection of vaccine or placebo. Approximately 30% of the participants were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. Among 2684 baseline seronegative participants (94% HIV-negative and 6% HIV-positive), predominantly mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 15 participants in the vaccine group and in 29 in the placebo group (vaccine efficacy, 49.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.1 to 72.8). Vaccine efficacy among HIV-negative participants was 60.1% (95% CI, 19.9 to 80.1). Of 41 sequenced isolates, 38 (92.7%) were the B.1.351 variant. Post hoc vaccine efficacy against B.1.351 was 51.0% (95% CI, -0.6 to 76.2) among the HIV-negative participants. Preliminary local and systemic reactogenicity events were more common in the vaccine group; serious adverse events were rare in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was efficacious in preventing Covid-19, with higher vaccine efficacy observed among HIV-negative participants. Most infections were caused by the B.1.351 variant. (Funded by Novavax and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04533399.).

Efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Covid-19 Vaccine against the B.1.351 Variant.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the safety and efficacy of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different populations is essential, as is investigation of the efficacy of the vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including the B.1.351 (501Y.V2) variant first identified in South Africa. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) in people not infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in South Africa. Participants 18 to less than 65 years of age were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of vaccine containing 5×1010 viral particles or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) 21 to 35 days apart. Serum samples obtained from 25 participants after the second dose were tested by pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization assays against the original D614G virus and the B.1.351 variant. The primary end points were safety and efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic coronavirus 2019 illness (Covid-19) more than 14 days after the second dose. RESULTS: Between June 24 and November 9, 2020, we enrolled 2026 HIV-negative adults (median age, 30 years); 1010 and 1011 participants received at least one dose of placebo or vaccine, respectively. Both the pseudovirus and the live-virus neutralization assays showed greater resistance to the B.1.351 variant in serum samples obtained from vaccine recipients than in samples from placebo recipients. In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.2%) and in 19 of 750 vaccine recipients (2.5%), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], -49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid-19, 39 cases (95.1% of 41 with sequencing data) were caused by the B.1.351 variant; vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, -76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: A two-dose regimen of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine did not show protection against mild-to-moderate Covid-19 due to the B.1.351 variant. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04444674; Pan African Clinical Trials Registry number, PACTR202006922165132).

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).

Chest X-ray Analysis With Deep Learning-Based Software as a Triage Test for Pulmonary Tuberculosis: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Automated radiologic analysis using computer-aided detection software (CAD) could facilitate chest X-ray (CXR) use in tuberculosis diagnosis. There is little to no evidence on the accuracy of commercially available deep learning-based CAD in different populations, including patients with smear-negative tuberculosis and people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV, PLWH). METHODS: We collected CXRs and individual patient data (IPD) from studies evaluating CAD in patients self-referring for tuberculosis symptoms with culture or nucleic acid amplification testing as the reference. We reanalyzed CXRs with three CAD programs (CAD4TB version (v) 6, Lunit v3.1.0.0, and qXR v2). We estimated sensitivity and specificity within each study and pooled using IPD meta-analysis. We used multivariable meta-regression to identify characteristics modifying accuracy. RESULTS: We included CXRs and IPD of 3727/3967 participants from 4/7 eligible studies. 17% (621/3727) were PLWH. 17% (645/3727) had microbiologically confirmed tuberculosis. Despite using the same threshold score for classifying CXR in every study, sensitivity and specificity varied from study to study. The software had similar unadjusted accuracy (at 90% pooled sensitivity, pooled specificities were: CAD4TBv6, 56.9% [95% confidence interval {CI}: 51.7-61.9]; Lunit, 54.1% [95% CI: 44.6-63.3]; qXRv2, 60.5% [95% CI: 51.7-68.6]). Adjusted absolute differences in pooled sensitivity between PLWH and HIV-uninfected participants were: CAD4TBv6, -13.4% [-21.1, -6.9]; Lunit, +2.2% [-3.6, +6.3]; qXRv2: -13.4% [-21.5, -6.6]; between smear-negative and smear-positive tuberculosis was: were CAD4TBv6, -12.3% [-19.5, -6.1]; Lunit, -17.2% [-24.6, -10.5]; qXRv2, -16.6% [-24.4, -9.9]. Accuracy was similar to human readers. CONCLUSIONS: For CAD CXR analysis to be implemented as a high-sensitivity tuberculosis rule-out test, users will need threshold scores identified from their own patient populations and stratified by HIV and smear status.

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

High mortality among patients hospitalized for drug-resistant tuberculosis with acquired second-line drug resistance and high HIV prevalence.

OBJECTIVES: We compared mortality between HIV-positive and HIV-negative South African adults with drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) and high incidence of acquired second-line drug resistance. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of DR-TB patients with serial second-line TB drug susceptibility tests (2008-2015) who were hospitalized at a specialized TB hospital. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox models to examine associations with mortality. RESULTS: Of 245 patients, the median age was 33 years, 54% were male and 40% were HIV-positive, 96% of whom had ever received antiretroviral therapy (ART). At initial drug resistance detection, 99% of patients had resistance to at least rifampicin and isoniazid, and 18% had second-line drug resistance (fluoroquinolones and/or injectable drugs). At later testing, 88% of patients had acquired additional second-line drug resistance. Patient-initiated treatment interruptions (> 2 months) occurred in 47%. Mortality was 79%. Those with HIV had a shorter time to death (p = 0.02; log-rank): median survival time from DR-TB treatment initiation was 2.44 years [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.09-3.15] versus 3.99 years (95% CI: 3.12-4.75) for HIV-negative patients. HIV-positive patients who received ART within 6 months before DR-TB treatment had a higher mortality hazard than HIV-negative patients [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) ratio = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.21-2.74]. By contrast, HIV-positive patients who did not receive ART within 6 months before DR-TB treatment did not have a significantly higher mortality hazard than HIV-negative patients (aHR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.72-1.65), although those on ART had lower median CD4 counts than those not on ART (157 vs. 281 cells/µL, respectively; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: A very high incidence of acquired second-line drug resistance and high overall mortality were observed, reinforcing the need to reduce the risk of acquired resistance and for more effective treatment.

Linezolid Population Pharmacokinetics in South African Adults with Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis.

Linezolid is widely used for drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) but has a narrow therapeutic index. To inform dose optimization, we aimed to characterize the population pharmacokinetics of linezolid in South African participants with DR-TB and explore the effect of covariates, including HIV coinfection, on drug exposure. Data were obtained from pharmacokinetic substudies in a randomized controlled trial and an observational cohort study, both of which enrolled adults with drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis. Participants underwent intensive and sparse plasma sampling. We analyzed linezolid concentration data using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling and performed simulations to estimate attainment of putative efficacy and toxicity targets. A total of 124 participants provided 444 plasma samples; 116 were on the standard daily dose of 600 mg, while 19 had dose reduction to 300 mg due to adverse events. Sixty-one participants were female, 71 were HIV-positive, and their median weight was 56 kg (interquartile range [IQR], 50 to 63). In the final model, typical values for clearance and central volume were 3.57 liters/h and 40.2 liters, respectively. HIV coinfection had no significant effect on linezolid exposure. Simulations showed that 600-mg dosing achieved the efficacy target (area under the concentration-time curve for the free, unbound fraction of the drug [[Formula: see text] at a MIC level of 0.5 mg/liter) with 96% probability but had 56% probability of exceeding safety target ([Formula: see text]. The 300-mg dose did not achieve adequate efficacy exposures. Our model characterized population pharmacokinetics of linezolid in South African patients with DR-TB and supports the 600-mg daily dose with safety monitoring.

Diagnostic accuracy of a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay in small hair samples for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis drug concentrations in a routine care setting.

BACKGROUND: Treatment monitoring of drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) in resource-limited settings is challenging. We developed a multi-analyte assay for eleven anti-TB drugs in small hair samples as an objective metric of drug exposure. METHODS: Small hair samples were collected from participants at various timepoints during directly observed RR-TB treatment at an inpatient tertiary referral facility in South Africa (DR-TB cohort). We assessed qualitative determination (i.e., detection above limit of detection) of bedaquiline, linezolid, clofazimine, pretomanid, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, pyrazinamide, isoniazid, ethambutol, ethionamide, and prothionamide in an LC-MS/MS index panel assay against a reference standard of inpatient treatment records. Because treatment regimens prior to hospitalization were not available, we also analyzed specificity (for all drugs except isoniazid) using an external cohort of HIV-positive patients treated for latent TB infection with daily isoniazid (HIV/LTBI cohort) in Uganda. RESULTS: Among the 57 DR-TB patients (58% with pre-XDR/XDR-TB; 70% HIV-positive) contributing analyzable hair samples, the sensitivity of the investigational assay was 94% or higher for all drugs except ethionamide (58.5, 95% confidence interval [CI], 40.7-99.9). Assay specificity was low across all tested analytes within the DR-TB cohort; conversely, assay specificity was 100% for all drugs in the HIV/LTBI cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Hair drug concentrations reflect long-term exposure, and multiple successive regimens commonly employed in DR-TB treatment may result in apparent false-positive qualitative and falsely elevated quantitative hair drug levels when prior treatment histories within the hair growth window are not known.

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults.

BACKGROUND: Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and Xpert MTB/RIF are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) widely used for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum. To extend our previous review on extrapulmonary tuberculosis (Kohli 2018), we performed this update to inform updated WHO policy (WHO Consolidated Guidelines (Module 3) 2020). OBJECTIVES: To estimate diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive extrapulmonary tuberculosis. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, 2 August 2019 and 28 January 2020 (Xpert Ultra studies), without language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cross-sectional and cohort studies using non-respiratory specimens. Forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: tuberculous meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, disseminated tuberculosis. Reference standards were culture and a study-defined composite reference standard (tuberculosis detection); phenotypic drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays (rifampicin resistance detection). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. For tuberculosis detection, we performed separate analyses by specimen type and reference standard using the bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). We applied a latent class meta-analysis model to three forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: 69 studies: 67 evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF and 11 evaluated Xpert Ultra, of which nine evaluated both tests. Most studies were conducted in China, India, South Africa, and Uganda. Overall, risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains, and low (49%) or unclear (43%) for the reference standard domain. Applicability for the patient selection domain was unclear for most studies because we were unsure of the clinical settings. Cerebrospinal fluid Xpert Ultra (6 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 89.4% (79.1 to 95.6) (89 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 91.2% (83.2 to 95.7) (386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 168 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 79 (47%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives) and 832 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 11 (1%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). Xpert MTB/RIF (30 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 71.1% (62.8 to 79.1) (571 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 96.9% (95.4 to 98.0) (2824 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 99 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 28 (28%) would not have tuberculosis; and 901 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Pleural fluid Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 75.0% (58.0 to 86.4) (158 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 87.0% (63.1 to 97.9) (240 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 192 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 117 (61%) would not have tuberculosis; and 808 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 25 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (25 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 49.5% (39.8 to 59.9) (644 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 98.9% (97.6 to 99.7) (2421 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 60 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 10 (17%) would not have tuberculosis; and 940 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 50 (5%) would have tuberculosis. Lymph node aspirate Xpert Ultra (1 study) Xpert Ultra sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) against composite reference standard were 70% (51 to 85) (30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 100% (92 to 100) (43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 70 would be Xpert Ultra-positive and 0 (0%) would not have tuberculosis; 930 would be Xpert Ultra-negative and 30 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (4 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against composite reference standard were 81.6% (61.9 to 93.3) (377 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 96.4% (91.3 to 98.6) (302 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 118 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive and 37 (31%) would not have tuberculosis; 882 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative and 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis. In lymph node aspirate, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity against culture was 86.2% (78.0 to 92.3), lower than that against a composite reference standard. Using the latent class model, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity was 99.5% (99.1 to 99.7), similar to that observed with a composite reference standard. Rifampicin resistance Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity were 100.0% (95.1 to 100.0), (24 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 100.0% (99.0 to 100.0) (105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 100 would be Xpert Ultra-positive (resistant): of these, zero (0%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 900 would be Xpert Ultra-negative (susceptible): of these, zero (0%) would have rifampicin resistance. Xpert MTB/RIF (19 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 96.5% (91.9 to 98.8) (148 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 99.1% (98.0 to 99.7) (822 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 105 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive (resistant): of these, 8 (8%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 895 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative (susceptible): of these, 3 (0.3%) would have rifampicin resistance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF may be helpful in diagnosing extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens: while for most specimens specificity is high, the tests rarely yield a positive result for people without tuberculosis. For tuberculous meningitis, Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than Xpert MTB/RIF against culture. Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF had similar sensitivity and specificity for rifampicin resistance. Future research should acknowledge the concern associated with culture as a reference standard in paucibacillary specimens and consider ways to address this limitation.

A Human Lung Challenge Model to Evaluate the Safety and Immunogenicity of PPD and Live Bacillus Calmette-Guérin.

Rationale: A human model to better understand tuberculosis immunopathogenesis and facilitate vaccine development is urgently needed.Objectives: We evaluated the feasibility, safety, and immunogenicity of live bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) in a lung-oriented controlled human infection model.Methods: We recruited 106 healthy South African participants with varying degrees of tuberculosis susceptibility. Live BCG, sterile PPD, and saline were bronchoscopically instilled into separate lung segments (n = 65). A control group (n = 34) underwent a single bronchoscopy without challenge. The primary outcome was safety. Cellular and antibody immune signatures were identified in BAL before and 3 days after challenge using flow cytometry, ELISA, RNA sequencing, and mass spectrometry.Measurements and Main Results: The frequency of adverse events was low (9.4%; n = 10), similar in the challenge versus control groups (P = 0.8), and all adverse events were mild and managed conservatively in an outpatient setting. The optimal PPD and BCG dose was 0.5 TU and 104 cfu, respectively, based on changes in BAL cellular profiles (P = 0.02) and antibody responses (P = 0.01) at incremental doses before versus after challenge. At 104 versus 103 cfu BCG, there was a significant increase in number of differentially expressed genes (367 vs. 3; P < 0.001) and dysregulated proteins (64 vs. 0; P < 0.001). Immune responses were highly setting specific (in vitro vs. in vivo) and compartment specific (BAL vs. blood) and localized to the challenged lung segments.Conclusions: A lung-oriented mycobacterial controlled human infection model using live BCG and PPD is feasible and safe. These data inform the study of tuberculosis immunopathogenesis and strategies for evaluation and development of tuberculosis vaccine candidates.

'You're only there on the phone'? A qualitative exploration of community, affect and agential capacity in HIV self-testing using a smartphone app.

Mobile health (mHealth) technologies for HIV care are developed to provide diagnostic support, health education, risk assessment and self-monitoring. They aim to either improve or replace part of the therapeutic relationship. Part of the therapeutic relationship is affective, with the emergence of feelings and emotion, yet little research on mHealth for HIV care focuses on affect and HIV testing practices. Furthermore, most of the literature exploring affect and care relations with the introduction of mHealth is limited to the European and Australian context. This article explores affective dimensions of HIV self-testing using a smartphone app strategy in Cape Town, South Africa and Montréal, Canada. This study is based on observation notes, 41 interviews and 1 focus group discussion with study participants and trained HIV healthcare providers from two quantitative studies evaluating the app-based self-test strategy. Our paper reveals how fear, apathy, judgement, frustration and comfort arise in testing encounters using the app and in previous testing experiences, as well as how this relates to care providers and test materials. Attending to affective aspects of this app-based self-testing practice makes visible certain affordances and limitations of the app within the therapeutic encounter and illustrates how mHealth can contribute to HIV care.

N-Acetyltransferase 2 Genotypes among Zulu-Speaking South Africans and Isoniazid and N-Acetyl-Isoniazid Pharmacokinetics during Antituberculosis Treatment.

The distribution of N-acetyltransferase 2 gene (NAT2) polymorphisms varies considerably among different ethnic groups. Information on NAT2 single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the South African population is limited. We investigated NAT2 polymorphisms and their effect on isoniazid pharmacokinetics (PK) in Zulu black HIV-infected South Africans in Durban, South Africa. HIV-infected participants with culture-confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) were enrolled from two unrelated studies. Participants with culture-confirmed pulmonary TB were genotyped for the NAT2 polymorphisms 282C>T, 341T>C, 481C>T, 857G>A, 590G>A, and 803A>G using Life Technologies prevalidated TaqMan assays (Life Technologies, Paisley, UK). Participants underwent sampling for determination of plasma isoniazid and N-acetyl-isoniazid concentrations. Among the 120 patients, 63/120 (52.5%) were slow metabolizers (NAT2*5/*5), 43/120 (35.8%) had an intermediate metabolism genotype (NAT2*5/12), and 12/120 (11.7%) had a rapid metabolism genotype (NAT2*4/*11, NAT2*11/12, and NAT2*12/12). The NAT2 alleles evaluated in this study were *4, *5C, *5D, *5E, *5J, *5K, *5KA, *5T, *11A, *12A/12C, and *12M. NAT2*5 was the most frequent allele (70.4%), followed by NAT2*12 (27.9%). Fifty-eight of 60 participants in study 1 had PK results. The median area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞) was 5.53 (interquartile range [IQR], 3.63 to 9.12 µg h/ml), and the maximum concentration (Cmax) was 1.47 µg/ml (IQR, 1.14 to 1.89 µg/ml). Thirty-four of 40 participants in study 2 had both PK results and NAT2 genotyping results. The median AUC0-∞ was 10.76 µg·h/ml (IQR, 8.24 to 28.96 µg·h/ml), and the Cmax was 3.14 µg/ml (IQR, 2.39 to 4.34 µg/ml). Individual polymorphisms were not equally distributed, with some being represented in small numbers. The genotype did not correlate with the phenotype, with those with a rapid acetylator genotype showing higher AUC0-∞ values than those with a slow acetylator genotype, but the difference was not significant (P = 0.43). There was a high prevalence of slow acetylator genotypes, followed by intermediate and then rapid acetylator genotypes. The poor concordance between genotype and phenotype suggests that other factors or genetic loci influence isoniazid metabolism, and these warrant further investigation in this population.

Management of drug-resistant tuberculosis.

Drug-resistant tuberculosis is a major public health concern in many countries. Over the past decade, the number of patients infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis resistant to the most effective drugs against tuberculosis (ie, rifampicin and isoniazid), which is called multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, has continued to increase. Globally, 4·6% of patients with tuberculosis have multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, but in some areas, like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, and Ukraine, this proportion exceeds 25%. Treatment for patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is prolonged (ie, 9-24 months) and patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis have less favourable outcomes than those treated for drug-susceptible tuberculosis. Individualised multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment with novel (eg, bedaquiline) and repurposed (eg, linezolid, clofazimine, or meropenem) drugs and guided by genotypic and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing can improve treatment outcomes. Some clinical trials are evaluating 6-month regimens to simplify management and improve outcomes of patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Here we review optimal diagnostic and treatment strategies for patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis and their contacts.

A regimen containing bedaquiline and delamanid compared to bedaquiline in patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis.

There are limited data on combining delamanid and bedaquiline in drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) regimens. Prospective long-term outcome data, including in HIV-infected persons, are unavailable.We prospectively followed up 122 South African patients (52.5% HIV-infected) with DR-TB and poor prognostic features between 2014 and 2018. We examined outcomes and safety in those who received a bedaquiline-based regimen (n=82) compared to those who received a bedaquiline-delamanid combination regimen (n=40).There was no significant difference in 6-month culture conversion (92.5% versus 81.8%; p=0.26) and 18-month favourable outcome rate (63.4% versus 67.5%; p=0.66) in the bedaquiline versus the bedaquiline-delamanid combination group, despite the latter having more advanced drug resistance (3.7% versus 22.5% resistant to at least five drugs; p=0.001) and higher pre-treatment failure rates (12.2% versus 52.5% with pre-treatment multidrug-resistant TB therapy failure; p<0.001). Although the proportion of prolongation of the QT interval corrected using Fridericia's formula was higher in the combination group (>60 ms from baseline (p=0.001) or >450 ms during treatment (p=0.001)), there were no symptomatic cases or drug withdrawals in either group. Results were similar in HIV-infected patients.A bedaquiline-delamanid combination regimen showed comparable long-term safety compared to a bedaquiline-based regimen in patients with DR-TB, irrespective of HIV status. These data inform regimen selection in patients with DR-TB from TB-endemic settings.

A landscape of genomic alterations at the root of a near-untreatable tuberculosis epidemic.

BACKGROUND: Atypical Beijing genotype Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains are widespread in South Africa and have acquired resistance to up to 13 drugs on multiple occasions. It is puzzling that these strains have retained fitness and transmissibility despite the potential fitness cost associated with drug resistance mutations. METHODS: We conducted Illumina sequencing of 211 Beijing genotype M. tuberculosis isolates to facilitate the detection of genomic features that may promote acquisition of drug resistance and restore fitness in highly resistant atypical Beijing forms. Phylogenetic and comparative genomic analysis was done to determine changes that are unique to the resistant strains that also transmit well. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) determination for streptomycin and bedaquiline was done for a limited number of isolates to demonstrate a difference in MIC between isolates with and without certain variants. RESULTS: Phylogenetic analysis confirmed that two clades of atypical Beijing strains have independently developed resistance to virtually all the potent drugs included in standard (pre-bedaquiline) drug-resistant TB treatment regimens. We show that undetected drug resistance in a progenitor strain was likely instrumental in this resistance acquisition. In this cohort, ethionamide (ethA A381P) resistance would be missed in first-line drug-susceptible isolates, and streptomycin (gidB L79S) resistance may be missed due to an MIC close to the critical concentration. Subsequent inadequate treatment historically led to amplification of resistance and facilitated spread of the strains. Bedaquiline resistance was found in a small number of isolates, despite lack of exposure to the drug. The highly resistant clades also carry inhA promoter mutations, which arose after ethA and katG mutations. In these isolates, inhA promoter mutations do not alter drug resistance, suggesting a possible alternative role. CONCLUSION: The presence of the ethA mutation in otherwise susceptible isolates from ethionamide-naïve patients demonstrates that known exposure is not an adequate indicator of drug susceptibility. Similarly, it is demonstrated that bedaquiline resistance can occur without exposure to the drug. Inappropriate treatment regimens, due to missed resistance, leads to amplification of resistance, and transmission. We put these results into the context of current WHO treatment regimens, underscoring the risks of treatment without knowledge of the full drug resistance profile.