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).

Active case-finding method improves completeness and accuracy of data reported to the rural Eastern Cape Cancer Registry in South Africa.

The quality and accuracy of the data provided by cancer registries has a significant impact on decision making. Over decades, high-income countries have been successful in monitoring their cancer burden because of well-established data abstraction techniques such as digital systems. Conversely, in low- and middle-income countries, sparsely distributed cancer registries, using alternative less costly, but imprecise methods are struggling to capture all cancer cases. A population-based cancer registry in South Africa covering a resource-limited rural population is faced with challenges in case finding yet the quality and accuracy of the data provided has a significant impact on decision making. The objective of this study was to assess data quality using two data quality attributes 'completeness and accuracy' and also to determine the benefits of using active and passive case-finding methods for cancer registration in this population. Data used were collected between January 2014 and December 2015 from four hospitals to compare the quality of both active and passive case-finding methods. From all four hospitals during the same period, a first set of data obtained through passive reporting was compared with a second set of data obtained through active case finding. Covering multiple facilities during active case finding can significantly improve quality of data, while passive case finding is challenged by data collection being confined to one specific health facility, only. Better investment in active case finding is recommended in settings with resource-distribution disparities.