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.

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.).

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.

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.

Association Between Staff Experience and Effective Tuberculosis Contact Tracing in North Carolina, 2008-2009.

BACKGROUND: Effective investigation of tuberculosis (TB) contacts is essential for continued progress toward TB elimination. As the incidence of TB declines, staff experience will also decline. Little is known about the association between the experience level of public health TB staff and the quality of contact investigations. METHODS: Contact investigations involving fewer than 30 contacts during the period 2008-2009 were included in this analysis. Multivariable models were used to examine associations between staff TB experience (assessed by a standardized survey) and measures of contact investigation quality: time from case identification to contact identification and number of contacts identified per case investigated. RESULTS: A total of 501 cases and 3,230 contacts met the inclusion criteria. Data were stratified by the number of cases in the county and whether the case was smear-positive or smear-negative. For contacts of smear-positive cases, greater staff experience was associated with more rapid contact identification both in counties with high case counts (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.43; 95% CI, 1.79-3.31) and in counties with low case counts (HR = 1.142; 95% CI, 0.95-1.37). However, for smear-negative cases, staff in counties with low case counts identified contacts more slowly as years of experience increased (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.62-1.07). For contacts of smear-negative cases, more contacts (relative risk [RR] = 1.20; 95% CI, 1.07-1.35) were identified per case in high case-count counties (more than 20 cases during 2008-2009). Conversely, in low case-count counties, fewer contacts were identified per case (RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08); however, this finding was not significant. DISCUSSION: Speed of identification and number of contacts are imperfect surrogates for the most important outcome of contact investigations-that is, the rapid identification and treatment of infected contacts. CONCLUSION: More TB experience was associated with more rapid and thorough TB contact investigations. Retaining experienced staff and mentoring staff new to case management should be high priorities for TB control programs.

Risk-stratified treatment for drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis.

The Phase 3 randomized controlled trial, TBTC Study 31/ACTG A5349 (NCT02410772) demonstrated that a 4-month rifapentine-moxifloxacin regimen for drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis was safe and effective. The primary efficacy outcome was 12-month tuberculosis disease free survival, while the primary safety outcome was the proportion of grade 3 or higher adverse events during the treatment period. We conducted an analysis of demographic, clinical, microbiologic, radiographic, and pharmacokinetic data and identified risk factors for unfavorable outcomes and adverse events. Among participants receiving the rifapentine-moxifloxacin regimen, low rifapentine exposure is the strongest driver of tuberculosis-related unfavorable outcomes (HR 0.65 for every 100 µg∙h/mL increase, 95%CI 0.54-0.77). The only other risk factors identified are markers of higher baseline disease severity, namely Xpert MTB/RIF cycle threshold and extent of disease on baseline chest radiography (Xpert: HR 1.43 for every 3-cycle-threshold decrease, 95%CI 1.07-1.91; extensive disease: HR 2.02, 95%CI 1.07-3.82). From these risk factors, we developed a simple risk stratification to classify disease phenotypes as easier-, moderately-harder, or harder-to-treat TB. Notably, high rifapentine exposures are not associated with any predefined adverse safety outcomes. Our results suggest that the easier-to-treat subgroup may be eligible for further treatment shortening while the harder-to-treat subgroup may need higher doses or longer treatment.

Central monitoring in a randomized, open-label, controlled phase 3 clinical trial for a treatment-shortening regimen for pulmonary tuberculosis.

INTRODUCTION: With the growing use of online study management systems and rapid availability of data, timely data review and quality assessments are necessary to ensure proper clinical trial implementation. In this report we describe central monitoring used to ensure protocol compliance and accurate data reporting, implemented during a large phase 3 clinical trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Tuberculosis Trials Consortium (TBTC) Study 31/AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) study A5349 (S31) is an international, multi-site, randomized, open-label, controlled, non-inferiority phase 3 clinical trial comparing two 4-month regimens to a standard 6 month regimen for treatment of drug-susceptible tuberculosis (TB) among adolescents and adults with a sample size of 2500 participants. RESULTS: Central monitoring utilized primary study data in a five-tiered approach, including (1) real-time data checks & topic-specific intervention reports, (2) missing forms reports, (3) quality assurance metrics, (4) critical data reports and (5) protocol deviation identification, aimed to detect and resolve quality challenges. Over the course of the study, 240 data checks and reports were programed across the five tiers used. DISCUSSION: This use of primary study data to identify issues rapidly allowed the study sponsor to focus quality assurance and data cleaning activities on prioritized data, related to protocol compliance and accurate reporting of study results. Our approach enabled us to become more efficient and effective as we informed sites about deviations, resolved missing or inconsistent data, provided targeted guidance, and gained a deeper understanding of challenges experienced at clinical trial sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02410772) on April 8, 2015.