Management of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis.

Drug-resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis pose a major threat to global tuberculosis control. Despite the availability of curative antituberculosis therapy for nearly half a century, inappropriate and inadequate treatment of tuberculosis, as well as unchecked transmission of M. tuberculosis, has resulted in alarming levels of drug-resistant tuberculosis. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that there were 600,000 cases of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB)/rifampin-resistant (RR) tuberculosis in 2016, defined as strains that are resistant to at least isoniazid and rifampicin. Globally, WHO estimates that 4.1% of new tuberculosis cases and 19% of retreatment cases have MDR-TB. By the end of 2016, 123 countries had reported at least one case of extensively drug-resistant strains, which are MDR-TB strains that have acquired additional resistance to fluoroquinolones and at least one second-line injectable. It is estimated that only 22% of all MDR-TB cases are currently receiving therapy. This article reviews the management of MDR/RR-TB and updates recommendations regarding the use of shorter course regimens and new drugs.

Effectiveness and safety of clofazimine in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a nationwide report from Brazil.

Although clofazimine is used to treat multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), there is scant information on its effectiveness and safety. The aim of this retrospective, observational study was to evaluate these factors as well as the tolerability of clofazimine in populations in Brazil, where it was administered at a daily dose of 100 mg·day-1 (body weight ≥45 kg) as part of a standardised MDR-TB treatment regimen until 2006 (thereafter pyrazinamide was used).All MDR-TB patients included in the Sistema de Informação de Tratamentos Especiais da Tuberculose (SITETB) individual electronic register were analysed. The effectiveness of clofazimine was assessed by comparing the treatment outcomes of patients undergoing clofazimine-containing regimens against those undergoing clofazimine-free regimens and its safety by describing clofazimine-attributed adverse events. A total of 1446 patients were treated with clofazimine-containing regimens and 1096 with pyrazinamide-containing regimens.Although success rates were similar in patients treated with clofazimine versus those treated with pyrazinamide (880 out of 1446, 60.9%, versus 708 out of 1096, 64.6%; p=0.054), clofazimine-treated cases exhibited higher death rates due to tuberculosis than pyrazinamide-treated ones (314 out of 1446, 21.7%, versus 120 out of 1096, 10.9%) but fewer failures (78 out of 1446, 5.4%, versus 95 out of 1096, 8.7%) and less loss to follow-up (144 out of 1446, 10.0%, versus 151 out of 1096, 13.8%). No relevant differences were detected when comparing adverse events in patients treated with clofazimine-containing regimens to those treated with clofazimine-free regimens. However, the incidence of side-effects was less than previously reported (gastro-intestinal complaints: 10.5%; hyper-pigmentation: 50.2%; neurological disturbances: 9-13%).

Effectiveness and safety of bedaquiline-containing regimens in the treatment of MDR- and XDR-TB: a multicentre study.

Large studies on bedaquiline used to treat multidrug-resistant (MDR-) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of bedaquiline-containing regimens in a large, retrospective, observational study conducted in 25 centres and 15 countries in five continents.428 culture-confirmed MDR-TB cases were analysed (61.5% male; 22.1% HIV-positive, 45.6% XDR-TB). MDR-TB cases were admitted to hospital for a median (interquartile range (IQR)) 179 (92-280) days and exposed to bedaquiline for 168 (86-180) days. Treatment regimens included, among others, linezolid, moxifloxacin, clofazimine and carbapenems (82.0%, 58.4%, 52.6% and 15.3% of cases, respectively).Sputum smear and culture conversion rates in MDR-TB cases were 63.6% and 30.1%, respectively at 30 days, 81.1% and 56.7%, respectively at 60 days; 85.5% and 80.5%, respectively at 90 days and 88.7% and 91.2%, respectively at the end of treatment. The median (IQR) time to smear and culture conversion was 34 (30-60) days and 60 (33-90) days. Out of 247 culture-confirmed MDR-TB cases completing treatment, 71.3% achieved success (62.4% cured; 8.9% completed treatment), 13.4% died, 7.3% defaulted and 7.7% failed. Bedaquiline was interrupted due to adverse events in 5.8% of cases. A single case died, having electrocardiographic abnormalities that were probably non-bedaquiline related.Bedaquiline-containing regimens achieved high conversion and success rates under different nonexperimental conditions.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of imipenem/clavulanate- versus meropenem/clavulanate-containing regimens in the treatment of MDR- and XDR-TB.

No large study to date has ever evaluated the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of imipenem/clavulanate versus meropenem/clavulanate to treat multidrug- and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR- and XDR-TB). The aim of this observational study was to compare the therapeutic contribution of imipenem/clavulanate versus meropenem/clavulanate added to background regimens to treat MDR- and XDR-TB cases.84 patients treated with imipenem/clavulanate-containing regimens showed a similar median number of antibiotic resistances (8 versus 8) but more fluoroquinolone resistance (79.0% versus 48.9%, p<0.0001) and higher XDR-TB prevalence (67.9% versus 49.0%, p=0.01) in comparison with 96 patients exposed to meropenem/clavulanate-containing regimens. Patients were treated with imipenem/clavulanate- and meropenem/clavulanate-containing regimens for a median (interquartile range) of 187 (60-428) versus 85 (49-156) days, respectively.Statistically significant differences were observed on sputum smear and culture conversion rates (79.7% versus 94.8%, p=0.02 and 71.9% versus 94.8%, p<0.0001, respectively) and on success rates (59.7% versus 77.5%, p=0.03). Adverse events to imipenem/clavulanate and meropenem/clavulanate were reported in 5.4% and 6.5% of cases only.Our study suggests that meropenem/clavulanate is more effective than imipenem/clavulanate in treating MDR/XDR-TB patients.

Effectiveness and safety of meropenem/clavulanate-containing regimens in the treatment of MDR- and XDR-TB.

No large study has ever evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of meropenem/clavulanate to treat multidrug- and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR- and XDR-TB). The aim of this observational study was to evaluate the therapeutic contribution, effectiveness, safety and tolerability profile of meropenem/clavulanate added to a background regimen when treating MDR- and XDR-TB cases.Patients treated with a meropenem/clavulanate-containing regimen (n=96) showed a greater drug resistance profile than those exposed to a meropenem/clavulanate-sparing regimen (n=168): in the former group XDR-TB was more frequent (49% versus 6.0%, p<0.0001) and the median (interquartile range (IQR)) number of antibiotic resistances was higher (8 (6-9)versus 5 (4-6)). Patients were treated with a meropenem/clavulanate-containing regimen for a median (IQR) of 85 (49-156) days.No statistically significant differences were observed in the overall MDR-TB cohort and in the subgroups with and without the XDR-TB patients; in particular, sputum smear and culture conversion rates were similar in XDR-TB patients exposed to meropenem/clavulanate-containing regimens (88.0% versus 100.0%, p=1.00 and 88.0% versus 100.0%, p=1.00, respectively). Only six cases reported adverse events attributable to meropenem/clavulanate (four of them then restarting treatment).The nondifferent outcomes and bacteriological conversion rate observed in cases who were more severe than controls might imply that meropenem/clavulanate could be active in treating MDR- and XDR-TB cases.

Management of patients with multidrug-resistant/extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in Europe: a TBNET consensus statement.

The emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) tuberculosis (TB) substantially challenges TB control, especially in the European Region of the World Health Organization, where the highest prevalence of MDR/XDR cases is reported. The current management of patients with MDR/XDR-TB is extremely complex for medical, social and public health systems. The treatment with currently available anti-TB therapies to achieve relapse-free cure is long and undermined by a high frequency of adverse drug events, suboptimal treatment adherence, high costs and low treatment success rates. Availability of optimal management for patients with MDR/XDR-TB is limited even in the European Region. In the absence of a preventive vaccine, more effective diagnostic tools and novel therapeutic interventions the control of MDR/XDR-TB will be extremely difficult. Despite recent scientific advances in MDR/XDR-TB care, decisions for the management of patients with MDR/XDR-TB and their contacts often rely on expert opinions, rather than on clinical evidence. This document summarises the current knowledge on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of adults and children with MDR/XDR-TB and their contacts, and provides expert consensus recommendations on questions where scientific evidence is still lacking.

Management of multidrug resistant tuberculosis.

Drug-resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis have emerged as a major threat to global tuberculosis control. Despite the availability of curative antituberculosis therapy for nearly half a century, inappropriate and inadequate treatment has allowed M. tuberculosis to acquire resistance to our most important antituberculosis drugs. The epidemic of drug-resistant tuberculosis has spread quickly in some areas due to the convergence of resistant strains of M. tuberculosis in high-risk patients (e.g., those with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) and high-risk environments (e.g., hospitals and prisons). The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that there were 650,000 cases of multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in 2010, defined as strains that are resistant to at least isoniazid (INH) and rifampicin (RIF). Globally, WHO estimates that 3.7% of new tuberculosis cases and 20% of re-treatment cases have MDR-TB. By the end of 2012, 84 countries had reported at least one case of extensively drug resistant strains (XDR-TB), which are MDR-TB strains that have acquired additional resistance to fluoroquinolones and at least one second-line injectable. Recently, cases of "totally drug resistant" tuberculosis have been reported. It is estimated that only 10% of all MDR-TB cases are currently receiving therapy and only 2% are receiving quality-assured drugs. This article reviews the management of MDR and XDR-TB and highlights the updated 2011 WHO guidelines on the programmatic management of drug-resistant tuberculosis.

Efficacy, safety and tolerability of linezolid containing regimens in treating MDR-TB and XDR-TB: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Linezolid is used off-label to treat multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in absence of systematic evidence. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy, safety and tolerability of linezolid-containing regimes based on individual data analysis. 12 studies (11 countries from three continents) reporting complete information on safety, tolerability, efficacy of linezolid-containing regimes in treating MDR-TB cases were identified based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed using the individual data of 121 patients with a definite treatment outcome (cure, completion, death or failure). Most MDR-TB cases achieved sputum smear (86 (92.5%) out of 93) and culture (100 (93.5%) out of 107) conversion after treatment with individualised regimens containing linezolid (median (inter-quartile range) times for smear and culture conversions were 43.5 (21-90) and 61 (29-119) days, respectively) and 99 (81.8%) out of 121 patients were successfully treated. No significant differences were detected in the subgroup efficacy analysis (daily linezolid dosage ≤ 600 mg versus >600 mg). Adverse events were observed in 63 (58.9%) out of 107 patients, of which 54 (68.4%) out of 79 were major adverse events that included anaemia (38.1%), peripheral neuropathy (47.1%), gastro-intestinal disorders (16.7%), optic neuritis (13.2%) and thrombocytopenia (11.8%). The proportion of adverse events was significantly higher when the linezolid daily dosage exceeded 600 mg. The study results suggest an excellent efficacy but also the necessity of caution in the prescription of linezolid.

A predictive scoring instrument for tuberculosis lost to follow-up outcome.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to tuberculosis (TB) treatment is troublesome, due to long therapy duration, quick therapeutic response which allows the patient to disregard about the rest of their treatment and the lack of motivation on behalf of the patient for improved. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a scoring system to predict the probability of lost to follow-up outcome in TB patients as a way to identify patients suitable for directly observed treatments (DOT) and other interventions to improve adherence. METHODS: Two prospective cohorts, were used to develop and validate a logistic regression model. A scoring system was constructed, based on the coefficients of factors associated with a lost to follow-up outcome. The probability of lost to follow-up outcome associated with each score was calculated. Predictions in both cohorts were tested using receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC). RESULTS: The best model to predict lost to follow-up outcome included the following characteristics: immigration (1 point value), living alone (1 point) or in an institution (2 points), previous anti-TB treatment (2 points), poor patient understanding (2 points), intravenous drugs use (IDU) (4 points) or unknown IDU status (1 point). Scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 points were associated with a lost to follow-up probability of 2,2% 5,4% 9,9%, 16,4%, 15%, and 28%, respectively. The ROC curve for the validation group demonstrated a good fit (AUC: 0,67 [95% CI; 0,65-0,70]). CONCLUSION: This model has a good capacity to predict a lost to follow-up outcome. Its use could help TB Programs to determine which patients are good candidates for DOT and other strategies to improve TB treatment adherence.

Treatment interruption patterns and adverse events among patients on bedaquiline containing regimen under programmatic conditions in India.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to analyze frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs) and other reasons for interruption of treatment and loss to follow up (LTFU) during first six months of treatment among tuberculosis patients on bedaquiline containing regimens. METHODS: This pilot exploratory observational study included 275 patients enrolled consecutively over two years who received bedaquiline containing regimen under programmatic conditions in India. RESULTS: Among 275 patients with median age of 25 years, 86 (31.3%) patients had at least one interruption with 122 total episodes of interruption. Among these 70 were temporary, 35 were permanent interruptions and 17 were LTFU. The AEs due to drugs were the commonest reason for interruption observed in 81.4% of temporary interruption group and 97.1% of permanent interruption group. Among a total 192 adverse event episodes, (49.5%) were minor (grade 1-2) and (50.5%) were serious (grade 3-5). Personal factors were the commonest reason for interruption observed in LTFU (94.1%) group. The most common temporarily interrupted drug was bedaquiline in 8.7% and permanently stopped drug was linezolid in 5% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our study observed that drug related AEs are important risk factors associated with treatment interruptions in bedaquiline containing regimens. Bedaquiline is the most common temporarily interrupted drug due to AEs.

Rapid Diagnosis of XDR and Pre-XDR TB: A Systematic Review of Available Tools.

INTRODUCTION: No previous systematic reviews have comprehensively investigated the features of Xpert MTB/XDR and other rapid tests to diagnose pre-XDR/XDR-TB. The aim of this systematic review is to assess existing rapid diagnostics for pre-XDR/XDR-TB from a point-of-care perspective and describe their technical characteristics (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values). METHODS: Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to detect the articles focused on the accuracy of commercially available rapid molecular diagnostic tests for XDR-TB according to PRISMA guidelines. The analysis compared the diagnostic techniques and approaches in terms of sensitivity, specificity, laboratory complexity, time to confirmed diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 1298 records identified, after valuating article titles and abstracts, 97 (7.5%) records underwent full-text evaluation and 38 records met the inclusion criteria. Two rapid World Health Organization (WHO)-endorsed tests are available: Xpert MTB/XDR and GenoType MTBDRsl (VER1.0 and VER 2.0). Both tests had similar performance, slightly favouring Xpert, although only 2 studies were available (sensitivity 91.4-94; specificity 98.5-99; accuracy 97.2-97.7; PPV 88.9-99.1; NPV 95.8-98.9). CONCLUSIONS: Xpert MTB/XDR could be suggested at near-point-of-care settings to be used primarily as a follow-on test for laboratory-confirmed TB, complementing existing rapid tests detecting at least rifampicin-resistance. Both Xpert MTB/XDR and GenoType MTBDRsl are presently diagnosing what WHO defined, in 2021, as pre-XDR-TB.