Effectiveness of Bedaquiline Use beyond Six Months in Patients with Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis.

Rationale: Current recommendations for the treatment of rifampicin- and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis include bedaquiline (BDQ) used for 6 months or longer. Evidence is needed to inform the optimal duration of BDQ. Objectives: We emulated a target trial to estimate the effect of three BDQ duration treatment strategies (6, 7-11, and ⩾12 mo) on the probability of successful treatment among patients receiving a longer individualized regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Methods: To estimate the probability of successful treatment, we implemented a three-step approach comprising cloning, censoring, and inverse probability weighting. Measurements and Main Results: The 1,468 eligible individuals received a median of 4 (interquartile range, 4-5) likely effective drugs. In 87.1% and 77.7% of participants, this included linezolid and clofazimine, respectively. The adjusted probability of successful treatment was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.88) for 6 months of BDQ, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81) for 7-11 months, and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.88) for ⩾12 months. Compared with 6 months of BDQ, the ratio of treatment success was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85-0.96) for 7-11 months and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.96-1.06) for ⩾12 months. Naive analyses that did not account for bias revealed a higher probability of successful treatment with ⩾12 months (ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.05-1.14]). Conclusions: BDQ use beyond 6 months did not increase the probability of successful treatment among patients receiving longer regimens that commonly included new and repurposed drugs. When not properly accounted for, immortal person-time bias can influence estimates of the effects of treatment duration. Future analyses should explore the effect of treatment duration of BDQ and other drugs in subgroups with advanced disease and/or receiving less potent regimens.

CASITA: a controlled pilot study of community-based family coaching to stimulate early child development in Lima, Peru.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the 3-month, community-based early stimulation coaching and social support intervention 'CASITA', delivered by community health workers, could improve early child development and caregiver-child interaction in a resource-limited district in Lima, Peru. DESIGN: A controlled two-arm proof-of-concept study. SETTING: Six neighbourhood health posts in Carabayllo, a mixed rural/urban district in Lima. Sessions were held in homes and community centres. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 6-24 months who screened positive for risk of neurodevelopmental delay (using validated developmental delay tool) and poverty (using progress out of poverty tool) were enrolled with their caregivers. Dyads with children born >21 days early were excluded. INTERVENTION: 12-week parenting/support intervention plus nutritional support (n=41) or nutrition alone (n=19). OUTCOME MEASURES: Development and home environment differences and mean changes from baseline to 3 months postintervention were evaluated using age-adjusted z-scores on the Extended Ages and Stages Questionnaire (EASQ) and the Home Observation Measurement of the Environment (HOME) scores, respectively. RESULTS: Development in CASITA improved significantly in all EASQ domains, whereas the control group's z-scores did not improve significantly in any domain. The mean adjusted difference (MAD) in change in EASQ age-adjusted z-scores between the two study arms was 1.39 (95% CI 0.55 to 2.22); Cohen's d effect size of 0.87 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.50). Likewise, intervention significantly improved global HOME scores versus control group (MAD change of 6.33 (95% CI 2.12 to 10.55); Cohen's d of 0.85 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.41)). CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based early intervention delivered weekly during 3 months by a community health worker significantly improved children's communication, motor and personal/social development in this proof-of-concept study.