Pyrazinamide Safety, Efficacy, and Dosing for Treating Drug-Susceptible Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Phase 3, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

RATIONALE: Optimizing pyrazinamide dosing is critical to improve treatment efficacy while minimizing toxicity during tuberculosis treatment. Study 31/ACTG A5349 represents the largest Phase 3 randomized controlled therapeutic trial to date for such investigation. OBJECTIVES: We sought to report pyrazinamide pharmacokinetic parameters, risk factors for lower pyrazinamide exposure, and relationships between pyrazinamide exposure with efficacy and safety outcomes. We aimed to determine pyrazinamide dosing strategies that optimize risks and benefits. METHODS: We analyzed pyrazinamide steady-state pharmacokinetic data using population nonlinear mixed-effects models. We evaluated the contribution of pyrazinamide exposure to long-term efficacy using parametric time-to-event models and safety outcomes using logistic regression. We evaluated optimal dosing with therapeutic windows targeting ≥95% durable cure and safety within the observed proportion of the primary safety outcome. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 2255 participants with 6978 plasma samples, pyrazinamide displayed 7-fold exposure variability (151-1053 mg·h/L). Body weight was not a clinically relevant predictor of drug clearance and thus did not justify the need for weight-banded dosing. Both clinical and safety outcomes were associated with pyrazinamide exposure, resulting in a therapeutic window of 231-355 mg·h/L for the control and 226-349 mg·h/L for the rifapentine-moxifloxacin regimen. Flat dosing of pyrazinamide at 1000 mg would have permitted an additional 13.1% (n=96) participants allocated to the control and 9.2% (n=70) to the rifapentine-moxifloxacin regimen dosed within the therapeutic window, compared to the current weight-banded dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Flat dosing of pyrazinamide at 1000 mg daily would be readily implementable and could optimize treatment outcomes in drug-susceptible tuberculosis. Clinical trial registration available at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, ID: NCT02410772. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Evidence From a Phase 3 Trial to Support Flat-Dosing of Rifampicin for Tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal dosing strategy for rifampicin in treating drug-susceptible tuberculosis (TB) is still highly debated. In the phase 3 clinical trial Study 31/ACTG 5349 (NCT02410772), all participants in the control regimen arm received 600 mg rifampicin daily as a flat dose. Here, we evaluated relationships between rifampicin exposure and efficacy and safety outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed rifampicin concentration time profiles using population nonlinear mixed-effects models. We compared simulated rifampicin exposure from flat- and weight-banded dosing. We evaluated the effect of rifampicin exposure on stable culture conversion at 6 months; TB-related unfavorable outcomes at 9, 12, and 18 months using Cox proportional hazard models; and all trial-defined safety outcomes using logistic regression. RESULTS: Our model-derived rifampicin exposure ranged from 4.57 mg · h/L to 140.0 mg · h/L with a median of 41.8 mg · h/L. Pharmacokinetic simulations demonstrated that flat-dosed rifampicin provided exposure coverage similar to the weight-banded dose. Exposure-efficacy analysis (n = 680) showed that participants with rifampicin exposure below the median experienced similar hazards of stable culture conversion and TB-related unfavorable outcomes compared with those with exposure above the median. Exposure-safety analysis (n = 722) showed that increased rifampicin exposure was not associated with increased grade 3 or higher adverse events or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Flat-dosing of rifampicin at 600 mg daily may be a reasonable alternative to the incumbent weight-banded dosing strategy for the standard-of-care 6-month regimen. Future research should assess the optimal dosing strategy for rifampicin, at doses higher than the current recommendation.

Research on the treatment of rifampin-susceptible tuberculosis-Time for a new approach.

In the Perspective, William Burman and colleagues advocate improving the safety and acceptability of treatment, rather than treatment-shortening, of rifampin-susceptible tuberculosis.

Four-Month Rifapentine Regimens with or without Moxifloxacin for Tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Rifapentine-based regimens have potent antimycobacterial activity that may allow for a shorter course in patients with drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3, randomized, controlled trial involving persons with newly diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis from 13 countries, we compared two 4-month rifapentine-based regimens with a standard 6-month regimen consisting of rifampin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol (control) using a noninferiority margin of 6.6 percentage points. In one 4-month regimen, rifampin was replaced with rifapentine; in the other, rifampin was replaced with rifapentine and ethambutol with moxifloxacin. The primary efficacy outcome was survival free of tuberculosis at 12 months. RESULTS: Among 2516 participants who had undergone randomization, 2343 had a culture positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis that was not resistant to isoniazid, rifampin, or fluoroquinolones (microbiologically eligible population; 768 in the control group, 791 in the rifapentine-moxifloxacin group, and 784 in the rifapentine group), of whom 194 were coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus and 1703 had cavitation on chest radiography. A total of 2234 participants could be assessed for the primary outcome (assessable population; 726 in the control group, 756 in the rifapentine-moxifloxacin group, and 752 in the rifapentine group). Rifapentine with moxifloxacin was noninferior to the control in the microbiologically eligible population (15.5% vs. 14.6% had an unfavorable outcome; difference, 1.0 percentage point; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.6 to 4.5) and in the assessable population (11.6% vs. 9.6%; difference, 2.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 5.1). Noninferiority was shown in the secondary and sensitivity analyses. Rifapentine without moxifloxacin was not shown to be noninferior to the control in either population (17.7% vs. 14.6% with an unfavorable outcome in the microbiologically eligible population; difference, 3.0 percentage points [95% CI, -0.6 to 6.6]; and 14.2% vs. 9.6% in the assessable population; difference, 4.4 percentage points [95% CI, 1.2 to 7.7]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred during the on-treatment period in 19.3% of participants in the control group, 18.8% in the rifapentine-moxifloxacin group, and 14.3% in the rifapentine group. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of a 4-month rifapentine-based regimen containing moxifloxacin was noninferior to the standard 6-month regimen in the treatment of tuberculosis. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others; Study 31/A5349 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02410772.).

Assessing Pretomanid for Tuberculosis (APT), a Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Pretomanid-Containing Regimens for Drug-Sensitive Tuberculosis: 12-Week Results.

Rationale: Pretomanid is a new nitroimidazole with proven treatment-shortening efficacy in drug-resistant tuberculosis. Pretomanid-rifamycin-pyrazinamide combinations are potent in mice but have not been tested clinically. Rifampicin, but not rifabutin, reduces pretomanid exposures. Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of regimens containing pretomanid-rifamycin-pyrazinamide among participants with drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis. Methods: A phase 2, 12-week, open-label randomized trial was conducted of isoniazid and pyrazinamide plus 1) pretomanid and rifampicin (arm 1), 2) pretomanid and rifabutin (arm 2), or 3) rifampicin and ethambutol (standard of care; arm 3). Laboratory values of safety and sputum cultures were collected at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. Time to culture conversion on liquid medium was the primary outcome. Measurements and Main Results: Among 157 participants, 125 (80%) had cavitary disease. Median time to liquid culture negativity in the modified intention-to-treat population (n = 150) was 42 (arm 1), 28 (arm 2), and 56 (arm 3) days (P = 0.01) (adjusted hazard ratio for arm 1 vs. arm 3, 1.41 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.93-2.12; P = 0.10]; adjusted hazard ratio for arm 2 vs. arm 3, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.24-2.87; P = 0.003]). Eight-week liquid culture conversion was 79%, 89%, and 69%, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 3 of 56 (5%), 5 of 53 (9%), and 2 of 56 (4%) participants. Six participants were withdrawn because of elevated transaminase concentrations (five in arm 2, one in arm 1). There were three serious adverse events (arm 2) and no deaths. Conclusions: Pretomanid enhanced the microbiologic activity of regimens containing a rifamycin and pyrazinamide. Efficacy and hepatic adverse events appeared highest with the pretomanid and rifabutin-containing regimen. Whether this is due to higher pretomanid concentrations merits exploration. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02256696).

A Standardized Approach for Collection of Objective Data to Support Outcome Determination for Late-Phase Tuberculosis Clinical Trials.

Rationale: We developed a standardized method, possible poor treatment response (PPTR), to help ascertain efficacy endpoints in Study S31/A5349 (NCT02410772), an open-label trial comparing two 4-month rifapentine-based regimens with a standard 6-month regimen for the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). Objectives: We describe the use of the PPTR process and evaluate whether the goals of minimizing bias in efficacy endpoint assessment and attainment of relevant data to determine outcomes for all participants were achieved. Methods: A PPTR event was defined as the occurrence of one or more prespecified triggers. Each PPTR required initiation of a standardized evaluation process that included obtaining multiple sputum samples for microbiology. Measurements and Main Results: Among 2,343 participants with culture-confirmed drug-susceptible TB, 454 individuals (19.4%) had a total of 534 individual PPTR events, of which 76.6% were microbiological (positive smear or culture at or after 17 wk). At least one PPTR event was experienced by 92.4% (133 of 144) of participants with TB-related unfavorable outcome and between 13.8% and 14.7% of participants with favorable and not-assessable outcomes. A total of 75% of participants with TB-related unfavorable outcomes had microbiological confirmation of failure to achieve a disease-free cure. Conclusions: Standardized methodologies, such as our PPTR approach, could facilitate unbiased efficacy outcome determinations, improve discrimination between outcomes that are related and unrelated to regimen efficacy, and enhance the ability to conduct pooled analyses of contemporary trials.

Rifapentine With and Without Moxifloxacin for Pulmonary Tuberculosis in People With Human Immunodeficiency Virus (S31/A5349).

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) Trials Consortium Study 31/AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5349, an international randomized open-label phase 3 noninferiority trial showed that a 4-month daily regimen substituting rifapentine for rifampin and moxifloxacin for ethambutol had noninferior efficacy and was safe for the treatment of drug-susceptible pulmonary TB (DS-PTB) compared with the standard 6-month regimen. We explored results among the prespecified subgroup of people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PWH). METHODS: PWH and CD4+ counts ≥100 cells/µL were eligible if they were receiving or about to initiate efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy (ART). Primary endpoints of TB disease-free survival 12 months after randomization (efficacy) and ≥ grade 3 adverse events (AEs) on treatment (safety) were compared, using a 6.6% noninferiority margin for efficacy. Randomization was stratified by site, pulmonary cavitation, and HIV status. PWH were enrolled in a staged fashion to support cautious evaluation of drug-drug interactions between rifapentine and efavirenz. RESULTS: A total of 2516 participants from 13 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and the Americas were enrolled. Among 194 (8%) microbiologically eligible PWH, the median CD4+ count was 344 cells/µL (interquartile range: 223-455). The rifapentine-moxifloxacin regimen was noninferior to control (absolute difference in unfavorable outcomes -7.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -20.8% to 6.0%); the rifapentine regimen was not noninferior to control (+7.5% [95% CI, -7.3% to +22.4%]). Fewer AEs were reported in rifapentine-based regimens (15%) than the control regimen (21%). CONCLUSIONS: In people with HIV-associated DS-PTB with CD4+ counts ≥100 cells/µL on efavirenz-based ART, the 4-month daily rifapentine-moxifloxacin regimen was noninferior to the 6-month control regimen and was safe. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02410772.

Implementation of Bedaquiline, Pretomanid, and Linezolid in the United States: Experience Using a Novel All-Oral Treatment Regimen for Treatment of Rifampin-Resistant or Rifampin-Intolerant Tuberculosis Disease.

BACKGROUND: Rifampin-resistant tuberculosis is a leading cause of morbidity worldwide; only one-third of persons start treatment, and outcomes are often inadequate. Several trials demonstrate 90% efficacy using an all-oral, 6-month regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid (BPaL), but significant toxicity occurred using 1200-mg linezolid. After US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2019, some US clinicians rapidly implemented BPaL using an initial 600-mg linezolid dose adjusted by serum drug concentrations and clinical monitoring. METHODS: Data from US patients treated with BPaL between 14 October 2019 and 30 April 2022 were compiled and analyzed by the BPaL Implementation Group (BIG), including baseline examination and laboratory, electrocardiographic, and clinical monitoring throughout treatment and follow-up. Linezolid dosing and clinical management was provider driven, and most patients had linezolid adjusted by therapeutic drug monitoring. RESULTS: Of 70 patients starting BPaL, 2 changed to rifampin-based therapy, 68 (97.1%) completed BPaL, and 2 of the 68 (2.9%) experienced relapse after completion. Using an initial 600-mg linezolid dose daily adjusted by therapeutic drug monitoring and careful clinical and laboratory monitoring for adverse effects, supportive care, and expert consultation throughout BPaL treatment, 3 patients (4.4%) with hematologic toxicity and 4 (5.9%) with neurotoxicity required a change in linezolid dose or frequency. The median BPaL duration was 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: BPaL has transformed treatment for rifampin-resistant or intolerant tuberculosis. In this cohort, effective treatment required less than half the duration recommended in 2019 US guidelines for drug-resistant tuberculosis. Use of individualized linezolid dosing and monitoring likely enhanced safety and treatment completion. The BIG cohort demonstrates that early implementation of new tuberculosis treatments in the United States is feasible.

Early Bactericidal Activity of Meropenem plus Clavulanate (with or without Rifampin) for Tuberculosis: The COMRADE Randomized, Phase 2A Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Carbapenems are recommended for treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Optimal dosing remains uncertain. Objectives: To evaluate the 14-day bactericidal activity of meropenem, at different doses, with or without rifampin. Methods: Individuals with drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis were randomized to one of four intravenous meropenem-based arms: 2 g every 8 hours (TID) (arm C), 2 g TID plus rifampin at 20 mg/kg once daily (arm D), 1 g TID (arm E), or 3 g once daily (arm F). All participants received amoxicillin/clavulanate with each meropenem dose. Serial overnight sputum samples were collected from baseline and throughout treatment. Median daily fall in colony-forming unit (CFU) counts per milliliter of sputum (solid culture) (EBACFU0-14) and increase in time to positive culture (TTP) in liquid media were estimated with mixed-effects modeling. Serial blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis on Day 13. Measurements and Main Results: Sixty participants enrolled. Median EBACFU0-14 counts (2.5th-97.5th percentiles) were 0.22 (0.12-0.33), 0.12 (0.057-0.21), 0.059 (0.033-0.097), and 0.053 (0.035-0.081); TTP increased by 0.34 (0.21-0.75), 0.11 (0.052-0.37), 0.094 (0.034-0.23), and 0.12 (0.04-0.41) (log10 h), for arms C-F, respectively. Meropenem pharmacokinetics were not affected by rifampin coadministration. Twelve participants withdrew early, many of whom cited gastrointestinal adverse events. Conclusions: Bactericidal activity was greater with the World Health Organization-recommended total daily dose of 6 g daily than with a lower dose of 3 g daily. This difference was only detectable with solid culture. Tolerability of intravenous meropenem, with amoxicillin/clavulanate, though, was poor at all doses, calling into question the utility of this drug in second-line regimens. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03174184).

Efavirenz Pharmacokinetics and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) Viral Suppression Among Patients Receiving Tuberculosis Treatment Containing Daily High-Dose Rifapentine.

BACKGROUND: A 4-month regimen containing rifapentine and moxifloxacin has noninferior efficacy compared to the standard 6-month regimen for drug-sensitive tuberculosis. We evaluated the effect of regimens containing daily, high-dose rifapentine on efavirenz pharmacokinetics and viral suppression in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated tuberculosis (TB). METHODS: In the context of a Phase 3 randomized controlled trial, HIV-positive individuals already virally suppressed on efavirenz--containing antiretroviral therapy (ART) (EFV1), or newly initiating efavirenz (EFV2) received TB treatment containing rifapentine (1200 mg), isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and either ethambutol or moxifloxacin. Mid-interval efavirenz concentrations were measured (a) during ART and TB cotreatment (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 17, different by EFV group) and (b) when ART was taken alone (pre- or post-TB treatment, Weeks 0 and 22). Apparent oral clearance (CL/F) was estimated and compared. Target mid-interval efavirenz concentrations were > 1 mg/L. Co-treatment was considered acceptable if > 80% of participants had mid-interval efavirenz concentrations meeting this target. RESULTS: EFV1 and EFV2 included 70 and 41 evaluable participants, respectively. The geometric mean ratio comparing efavirenz CL/F with vs without TB drugs was 0.79 (90% confidence interval [CI] .72-.85) in EFV1 and 0.84 [90% CI .69-.97] in EFV2. The percent of participants with mid-interval efavirenz concentrations > 1mg/L in EFV1 at Weeks 0, 4, 8, and 17 was 96%, 96%, 88%, and 89%, respectively. In EFV2, at approximately 4 and 8 weeks post efavirenz initiation, the value was 98%. CONCLUSIONS: TB treatment containing high-dose daily rifapentine modestly decreased (rather than increased) efavirenz clearance and therapeutic targets were met supporting the use of efavirenz with these regimens, without dose adjustment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02410772.