Bedaquiline-pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide for drug-sensitive and drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis treatment: a phase 2c, open-label, multicentre, partially randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The current tuberculosis (TB) drug development pipeline is being re-populated with candidates, including nitroimidazoles such as pretomanid, that exhibit a potential to shorten TB therapy by exerting a bactericidal effect on non-replicating bacilli. Based on results from preclinical and early clinical studies, a four-drug combination of bedaquiline, pretomanid, moxifloxacin, and pyrazinamide (BPaMZ) regimen was identified with treatment-shortening potential for both drug-susceptible (DS) and drug-resistant (DR) TB. This trial aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of BPaMZ. We compared 4 months of BPaMZ to the standard 6 months of isoniazid, rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol (HRZE) in DS-TB. 6 months of BPaMZ was assessed in DR-TB. METHODS: SimpliciTB was a partially randomised, phase 2c, open-label, clinical trial, recruiting participants at 26 sites in eight countries. Participants aged 18 years or older with pulmonary TB who were sputum smear positive for acid-fast bacilli were eligible for enrolment. Participants with DS-TB had Mycobacterium tuberculosis with sensitivity to rifampicin and isoniazid. Participants with DR-TB had M tuberculosis with resistance to rifampicin, isoniazid, or both. Participants with DS-TB were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by HIV status and cavitation on chest radiograph, using balanced block randomisation with a fixed block size of four. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to sputum culture-negative status by 8 weeks; the key secondary endpoint was unfavourable outcome at week 52. A non-inferiority margin of 12% was chosen for the key secondary outcome. Safety and tolerability outcomes are presented as descriptive analyses. The efficacy analysis population contained patients who received at least one dose of medication and who had efficacy data available and had no major protocol violations. The safety population contained patients who received at least one dose of medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03338621) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between July 30, 2018, and March 2, 2020, 455 participants were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment. 324 (71%) participants were male and 131 (29%) participants were female. 303 participants with DS-TB were randomly assigned to 4 months of BPaMZ (n=150) or HRZE (n=153). In a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis, by week 8, 122 (84%) of 145 and 70 (47%) of 148 participants were culture-negative on 4 months of BPaMZ and HRZE, respectively, with a hazard ratio for earlier negative status of 2·93 (95% CI 2·17-3·96; p<0·0001). Median time to negative culture (TTN) was 6 weeks (IQR 4-8) on 4 months of BPaMZ and 11 weeks (6-12) on HRZE. 86% of participants with DR-TB receiving 6 months of BPaMZ (n=152) reached culture-negative status by week 8, with a median TTN of 5 weeks (IQR 3-7). At week 52, 120 (83%) of 144, 134 (93%) of 144, and 111 (83%) of 133 on 4 months of BPaMZ, HRZE, and 6 months of BPaMZ had favourable outcomes, respectively. Despite bacteriological efficacy, 4 months of BPaMZ did not meet the non-inferiority margin for the key secondary endpoint in the pre-defined mITT population due to higher withdrawal rates for adverse hepatic events. Non-inferiority was demonstrated in the per-protocol population confirming the effect of withdrawals with 4 months of BPaMZ. At least one liver-related treatment-emergent adverse effect (TEAE) occurred among 45 (30%) participants on 4 months of BPaMZ, 38 (25%) on HRZE, and 33 (22%) on 6 months of BPaMZ. Serious liver-related TEAEs were reported by 20 participants overall; 11 (7%) among those on 4 months of BPaMZ, one (1%) on HRZE, and eight (5%) on 6 months of BPaMZ. The most common reasons for discontinuation of trial treatment were hepatotoxicity (ten participants [2%]), increased hepatic enzymes (nine participants [2%]), QTcF prolongation (three participants [1%]), and hypersensitivity (two participants [<1%]). INTERPRETATION: For DS-TB, BPaMZ successfully met the primary efficacy endpoint of sputum culture conversion. The regimen did not meet the key secondary efficacy endpoint due to adverse events resulting in treatment withdrawal. Our study demonstrated the potential for treatment-shortening efficacy of the BPaMZ regimen for DS-TB and DR-TB, providing clinical validation of a murine model widely used to identify such regimens. It also highlights that novel, treatment-shortening TB treatment regimens require an acceptable toxicity and tolerability profile with minimal monitoring in low-resource and high-burden settings. The increased risk of unpredictable severe hepatic adverse events with 4 months of BPaMZ would be a considerable obstacle to implementation of this regimen in settings with high burdens of TB with limited infrastructure for close surveillance of liver biochemistry. Future research should focus on improving the preclinical and early clinical detection and mitigation of safety issues together and further efforts to optimise shorter treatments. FUNDING: TB Alliance.

A 24-Week, All-Oral Regimen for Rifampin-Resistant Tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: In patients with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis, all-oral treatment regimens that are more effective, shorter, and have a more acceptable side-effect profile than current regimens are needed. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, phase 2-3, multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of three 24-week, all-oral regimens for the treatment of rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. Patients in Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan who were 15 years of age or older and had rifampin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis were enrolled. In stage 2 of the trial, a 24-week regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin (BPaLM) was compared with a 9-to-20-month standard-care regimen. The primary outcome was an unfavorable status (a composite of death, treatment failure, treatment discontinuation, loss to follow-up, or recurrence of tuberculosis) at 72 weeks after randomization. The noninferiority margin was 12 percentage points. RESULTS: Recruitment was terminated early. Of 301 patients in stage 2 of the trial, 145, 128, and 90 patients were evaluable in the intention-to-treat, modified intention-to-treat, and per-protocol populations, respectively. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 11% of the patients in the BPaLM group and 48% of those in the standard-care group had a primary-outcome event (risk difference, -37 percentage points; 96.6% confidence interval [CI], -53 to -22). In the per-protocol analysis, 4% of the patients in the BPaLM group and 12% of those in the standard-care group had a primary-outcome event (risk difference, -9 percentage points; 96.6% CI, -22 to 4). In the as-treated population, the incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher or serious adverse events was lower in the BPaLM group than in the standard-care group (19% vs. 59%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rifampin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis, a 24-week, all-oral regimen was noninferior to the accepted standard-care treatment, and it had a better safety profile. (Funded by Médecins sans Frontières; TB-PRACTECAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02589782.).

Evaluation of two short standardised regimens for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (STREAM stage 2): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The STREAM stage 1 trial showed that a 9-month regimen for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis was non-inferior to the 20-month 2011 WHO-recommended regimen. In STREAM stage 2, we aimed to compare two bedaquiline-containing regimens with the 9-month STREAM stage 1 regimen. METHODS: We did a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in 13 hospital clinics in seven countries, in individuals aged 15 years or older with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis without fluoroquinolone or aminoglycoside resistance. Participants were randomly assigned 1:2:2:2 to the 2011 WHO regimen (terminated early), a 9-month control regimen, a 9-month oral regimen with bedaquiline (primary comparison), or a 6-month regimen with bedaquiline and 8 weeks of second-line injectable. Randomisations were stratified by site, HIV status, and CD4 count. Participants and clinicians were aware of treatment-group assignments, but laboratory staff were masked. The primary outcome was favourable status (negative cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis without a preceding unfavourable outcome) at 76 weeks; any death, bacteriological failure or recurrence, and major treatment change were considered unfavourable outcomes. All comparisons used groups of participants randomly assigned concurrently. For non-inferiority to be shown, the upper boundary of the 95% CI should be less than 10% in both modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol analyses, with prespecified tests for superiority done if non-inferiority was shown. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN18148631. FINDINGS: Between March 28, 2016, and Jan 28, 2020, 1436 participants were screened and 588 were randomly assigned. Of 517 participants in the mITT population, 133 (71%) of 187 on the control regimen and 162 (83%) of 196 on the oral regimen had a favourable outcome: a difference of 11·0% (95% CI 2·9-19·0), adjusted for HIV status and randomisation protocol (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). By 76 weeks, 108 (53%) of 202 participants on the control regimen and 106 (50%) of 211 allocated to the oral regimen had an adverse event of grade 3 or 4; five (2%) participants on the control regimen and seven (3%) on the oral regimen had died. Hearing loss (Brock grade 3 or 4) was more frequent in participants on the control regimen than in those on the oral regimen (18 [9%] vs four [2%], p=0·0015). Of 134 participants in the mITT population who were allocated to the 6-month regimen, 122 (91%) had a favourable outcome compared with 87 (69%) of 127 participants randomly assigned concurrently to the control regimen (adjusted difference 22·2%, 95% CI 13·1-31·2); six (4%) of 143 participants on the 6-month regimen had grade 3 or 4 hearing loss. INTERPRETATION: Both bedaquiline-containing regimens, a 9-month oral regimen and a 6-month regimen with 8 weeks of second-line injectable, had superior efficacy compared with a 9-month injectable-containing regimen, with fewer cases of hearing loss. FUNDING: USAID and Janssen Research & Development.

Bedaquiline-Pretomanid-Linezolid Regimens for Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: The bedaquiline-pretomanid-linezolid regimen has been reported to have 90% efficacy against highly drug-resistant tuberculosis, but the incidence of adverse events with 1200 mg of linezolid daily has been high. The appropriate dose of linezolid and duration of treatment with this agent to minimize toxic effects while maintaining efficacy against highly drug-resistant tuberculosis are unclear. METHODS: We enrolled participants with extensively drug-resistant (XDR) tuberculosis (i.e., resistant to rifampin, a fluoroquinolone, and an aminoglycoside), pre-XDR tuberculosis (i.e., resistant to rifampin and to either a fluoroquinolone or an aminoglycoside), or rifampin-resistant tuberculosis that was not responsive to treatment or for which a second-line regimen had been discontinued because of side effects. We randomly assigned the participants to receive bedaquiline for 26 weeks (200 mg daily for 8 weeks, then 100 mg daily for 18 weeks), pretomanid (200 mg daily for 26 weeks), and daily linezolid at a dose of 1200 mg for 26 weeks or 9 weeks or 600 mg for 26 weeks or 9 weeks. The primary end point in the modified intention-to-treat population was the incidence of an unfavorable outcome, defined as treatment failure or disease relapse (clinical or bacteriologic) at 26 weeks after completion of treatment. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 181 participants were enrolled, 88% of whom had XDR or pre-XDR tuberculosis. Among participants who received bedaquiline-pretomanid-linezolid with linezolid at a dose of 1200 mg for 26 weeks or 9 weeks or 600 mg for 26 weeks or 9 weeks, 93%, 89%, 91%, and 84%, respectively, had a favorable outcome; peripheral neuropathy occurred in 38%, 24%, 24%, and 13%, respectively; myelosuppression occurred in 22%, 15%, 2%, and 7%, respectively; and the linezolid dose was modified (i.e., interrupted, reduced, or discontinued) in 51%, 30%, 13%, and 13%, respectively. Optic neuropathy developed in 4 participants (9%) who had received linezolid at a dose of 1200 mg for 26 weeks; all the cases resolved. Six of the seven unfavorable microbiologic outcomes through 78 weeks of follow-up occurred in participants assigned to the 9-week linezolid groups. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 84 to 93% of the participants across all four bedaquiline-pretomanid-linezolid treatment groups had a favorable outcome. The overall risk-benefit ratio favored the group that received the three-drug regimen with linezolid at a dose of 600 mg for 26 weeks, with a lower incidence of adverse events reported and fewer linezolid dose modifications. (Funded by the TB Alliance and others; ZeNix ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03086486.).

Cost-effectiveness of new MDR-TB regimens: study protocol for the TB-PRACTECAL economic evaluation substudy.

INTRODUCTION: Current treatment regimens for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) are long, poorly tolerated and have poor outcomes. Furthermore, the costs of treating MDR-TB are much greater than those for treating drug-susceptible TB, both for health service and patient-incurred costs. Urgent action is needed to identify short, effective, tolerable and cheaper treatments for people with both quinolone-susceptible and quinolone-resistant MDR-TB. We present the protocol for an economic evaluation (PRACTECAL-EE substudy) alongside an ongoing clinical trial (TB-PRACTECAL) aiming to assess the costs to patients and providers of new regimens, as well as their cost-effectiveness and impact on participant poverty levels. This substudy is based on data from the three countries participating in the main trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Primary cost data will be collected from the provider and patient perspectives, following economic best practice. We will estimate the probability that new MDR-TB regimens containing bedaquiline, pretomanid and linezolid are cost-effective from a societal perspective as compared with the standard of care for MDR-TB patients in Uzbekistan, South Africa and Belarus. Analysis uses a Markov model populated with primary cost and outcome data collected at each study site. We will also estimate the impact of new regimens on prevalence of catastrophic patient costs due to TB. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Médecins Sans Frontières. Local ethical approval will be sought in each study site. The results of the economic evaluation will be shared with the country health authorities and published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04207112); Pre-results.

Treatment of Highly Drug-Resistant Pulmonary Tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with highly drug-resistant forms of tuberculosis have limited treatment options and historically have had poor outcomes. METHODS: In an open-label, single-group study in which follow-up is ongoing at three South African sites, we investigated treatment with three oral drugs - bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid - that have bactericidal activity against tuberculosis and to which there is little preexisting resistance. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the drug combination for 26 weeks in patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis and patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis that was not responsive to treatment or for which a second-line regimen had been discontinued because of side effects. The primary end point was the incidence of an unfavorable outcome, defined as treatment failure (bacteriologic or clinical) or relapse during follow-up, which continued until 6 months after the end of treatment. Patients were classified as having a favorable outcome at 6 months if they had resolution of clinical disease, a negative culture status, and had not already been classified as having had an unfavorable outcome. Other efficacy end points and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients were enrolled in the study and were included in the evaluation of efficacy and safety end points. At 6 months after the end of treatment in the intention-to-treat analysis, 11 patients (10%) had an unfavorable outcome and 98 patients (90%; 95% confidence interval, 83 to 95) had a favorable outcome. The 11 unfavorable outcomes were 7 deaths (6 during treatment and 1 from an unknown cause during follow-up), 1 withdrawal of consent during treatment, 2 relapses during follow-up, and 1 loss to follow-up. The expected linezolid toxic effects of peripheral neuropathy (occurring in 81% of patients) and myelosuppression (48%), although common, were manageable, often leading to dose reductions or interruptions in treatment with linezolid. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid led to a favorable outcome at 6 months after the end of therapy in a high percentage of patients with highly drug-resistant forms of tuberculosis; some associated toxic effects were observed. (Funded by the TB Alliance and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02333799.).

A Trial of a Shorter Regimen for Rifampin-Resistant Tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Cohort studies in Bangladesh showed promising cure rates among patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis who received existing drugs in regimens shorter than that recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2011. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3 noninferiority trial in participants with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis that was susceptible to fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive a short regimen (9 to 11 months) that included high-dose moxifloxacin or a long regimen (20 months) that followed the 2011 WHO guidelines. The primary efficacy outcome was a favorable status at 132 weeks, defined by cultures negative for Mycobacterium tuberculosis at 132 weeks and at a previous occasion, with no intervening positive culture or previous unfavorable outcome. An upper 95% confidence limit for the between-group difference in favorable status that was 10 percentage points or less was used to determine noninferiority. RESULTS: Of 424 participants who underwent randomization, 383 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. Favorable status was reported in 79.8% of participants in the long-regimen group and in 78.8% of those in the short-regimen group - a difference, with adjustment for human immunodeficiency virus status, of 1.0 percentage point (95% confidence interval [CI], -7.5 to 9.5) (P = 0.02 for noninferiority). The results with respect to noninferiority were consistent among the 321 participants in the per-protocol population (adjusted difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -10.5 to 9.1). An adverse event of grade 3 or higher occurred in 45.4% of participants in the long-regimen group and in 48.2% in the short-regimen group. Prolongation of either the QT interval or the corrected QT interval (calculated with Fridericia's formula) to 500 msec occurred in 11.0% of participants in the short-regimen group, as compared with 6.4% in the long-regimen group (P = 0.14); because of the greater incidence in the short-regimen group, participants were closely monitored and some received medication adjustments. Death occurred in 8.5% of participants in the short-regimen group and in 6.4% in the long-regimen group, and acquired resistance to fluoroquinolones or aminoglycosides occurred in 3.3% and 2.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In persons with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis that was susceptible to fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides, a short regimen was noninferior to a long regimen with respect to the primary efficacy outcome and was similar to the long regimen in terms of safety. (Funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN78372190; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02409290.).