Search

Among the challenges in controlling tuberculosis, a rapid and accurate diagnostic test for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBc) and its resistance to first line therapies is crucial. We evaluated the performance of the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay (Xpert Ultra) for the rapid detection of MTBc and rifampicin resistance (RR) in 1120 pulmonary and 461 extra-pulmonary clinical specimens and compared it with conventional phenotypic techniques. The Xpert Ultra assay detected MTBc in 223 (14.1%) samples with an overall sensitivity and specificity, using culture as the "gold standard", of 91.1% (95% CI, 85.6–95.1) and 94.5% (95% CI, 93.1–95.6), respectively. The sensitivity of the Xpert Ultra test for smear-negative extra-pulmonary specimens was high (87.1%), even higher than with smear-negative pulmonary specimens (81.8%). But this enhanced sensitivity came with a low overall specificity of smear-negative extra-pulmonary specimens (66.7%). For 73 patients, 79/1423 (3.4%) negative mycobacterial culture samples were found to be positive with Xpert Ultra. Clinical data was necessary to correctly interpret potential false-positive results, especially trace-positive results. Sensitivity of the Xpert Ultra to detect RR compared to drug susceptibility testing was 100% (95% CI, 29.2–100) and specificity was 99.2% (95% CI, 95.8–100). We concluded that the Xpert Ultra test is able to provide a reliable TB diagnosis within a significantly shorter turnaround time than culture. This is especially true for paucibacillary samples such as smear-negative pulmonary specimens and extra-pulmonary specimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: In the absence of a commonly agreed dosing protocol based on pharmacokinetic (PK) considerations, the dose and treatment duration for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in COVID‐19 disease currently vary across national guidelines and clinical study protocols. We have used a model‐based approach to explore the relative impact of alternative dosing regimens proposed in different dosing protocols for hydroxychloroquine in COVID‐19. Methods: We compared different PK exposures using Monte Carlo simulations based on a previously published population pharmacokinetic model in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, externally validated using both independent data in lupus erythematous patients and recent data in French COVID‐19 patients. Clinical efficacy and safety information from COVID‐19 patients treated with HCQ were used to contextualize and assess the actual clinical value of the model predictions. Results: Literature and observed clinical data confirm the variability in clinical responses in COVID‐19 when treated with the same fixed doses. Confounding factors were identified that should be taken into account for dose recommendation. For 80% of patients, doses higher than 800 mg day on day 1 followed by 600 mg daily on following days might not be needed for being cured. Limited adverse drug reactions have been reported so far for this dosing regimen, most often confounded by co‐medications, comorbidities or underlying COVID‐19 disease effects. Conclusion: Our results were clear, indicating the unmet need for characterization of target PK exposures to inform HCQ dosing optimization in COVID‐19. Dosing optimization for HCQ in COVID‐19 is still an unmet need. Efforts in this sense are a prerequisite for best benefit/risk balance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dolutegravir is an increasingly-used second-generation human immunodeficiency virus integrase strand transfer inhibitor. Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS) syndrome has been described in several patients treated with raltegravir but to our knowledge, there is no previous report of DRESS syndrome associated with dolutegravir. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 Ag assay performance was evaluated on prospectively collected saliva and nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) of recently ill in- and outpatients and according to the estimated viral load. Performances were calculated using RT-PCR positive NPS from patients with symptoms ≤ 7 days and RT-PCR negative NPS as gold standard. In addition, non-selected positive NPS were analyzed to assess the performances on various viral loads. This assay yielded a sensitivity of 93.1% on NPS and 71.4% on saliva for recently ill patients. For NPS with a viral load > 103 RNA copies/mL, sensitivity was 96.4%. A model established on our daily routine showed fluctuations of the performances depending on the epidemic trends but an overall good negative predictive value. Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 assay yielded good performance for an automated antigen detection assay on NPS. Using it for the detection of recently ill patients or to screen high-risk patients could be an interesting alternative to the more expensive RT-PCR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that countries implement pharmacovigilance and collect information on active drug safety monitoring (aDSM) and management of adverse events.The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the frequency and severity of adverse events to anti-tuberculosis (TB) drugs in a cohort of consecutive TB patients treated with new ( i.e. bedaquiline, delamanid) and repurposed ( i.e. clofazimine, linezolid) drugs, based on the WHO aDSM project. Adverse events were collected prospectively after attribution to a specific drug together with demographic, bacteriological, radiological and clinical information at diagnosis and during therapy. This interim analysis included patients who completed or were still on treatment at time of data collection.Globally, 45 centres from 26 countries/regions reported 658 patients (68.7% male, 4.4% HIV co-infected) treated as follows: 87.7% with bedaquiline, 18.4% with delamanid (6.1% with both), 81.5% with linezolid and 32.4% with clofazimine. Overall, 504 adverse event episodes were reported: 447 (88.7%) were classified as minor (grade 1-2) and 57 (11.3%) as serious (grade 3-5). The majority of the 57 serious adverse events reported by 55 patients (51 out of 57, 89.5%) ultimately resolved. Among patients reporting serious adverse events, some drugs held responsible were discontinued: bedaquiline in 0.35% (two out of 577), delamanid in 0.8% (one out of 121), linezolid in 1.9% (10 out of 536) and clofazimine in 1.4% (three out of 213) of patients. Serious adverse events were reported in 6.9% (nine out of 131) of patients treated with amikacin, 0.4% (one out of 221) with ethionamide/prothionamide, 2.8% (15 out of 536) with linezolid and 1.8% (eight out of 498) with cycloserine/terizidone.The aDSM study provided valuable information, but implementation needs scaling-up to support patient-centred care., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: S. Borisov has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Danila has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Maryandyshev has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Dalcolmo has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Miliauskas has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L. Kuksa reports personal fees for trial participation from Otsuka and Tibotec, personal fees for lectures from Johnson and Johnson Services Inc., outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Manga has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Skrahina has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Diktanas reports personal fees for trial participation from Otsuka, grants for meeting attendance from Janssen (Sirturo), outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: L.R. Codecasa has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Aleksa has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Bruchfeld has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Koleva has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Piubello has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Z.F. Udwadia has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: O.W. Akkerman has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Belilovski has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Bernal has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M.J. Boeree has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Cadiñanos Loidi has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Q. Cai has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J.J. Cebrian Gallardo has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Dara has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Davidavičienė has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L. Davies Forsman has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. De Los Rios has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Denholm has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Drakšienė has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Duarte has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S.E. Elamin has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: N. Escobar Salinas has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Ferrarese has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Filippov has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Garcia has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J.M. García-García has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: I. Gaudiesiute has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: B. Gavazova has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Gayoso has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Gomez Rosso has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: V. Gruslys has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: G. Gualano has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: W. Hoefsloot has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Jonsson has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Khimova has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: H. Kunst has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Laniado-Laborín has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Y. Li has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C. Magis-Escurra has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: V. Manfrin has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: V. Marchese has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Martínez Robles has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Matteelli has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Mazza-Stalder has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C. Moschos has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Muñoz-Torrico has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: H. Mustafa Hamdan has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: B. Nakčerienė has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L. Nicod has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Nieto Marcos has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: D.J. Palmero has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: F. Palmieri has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Papavasileiou has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M-C. Payen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Pontarelli has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Quirós has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Rendon has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L. Saderi has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Šmite has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: I. Solovic has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M.B. Souleymane has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Tadolini has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. van den Boom has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Vescovo has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: P. Viggiani has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Yedilbayev has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Zablockis has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: D. Zhurkin has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Zignol has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: D. Visca has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Spanevello has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J.A. Caminero has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J-W. Alffenaar has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Tiberi has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Centis has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L. D'Ambrosio has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Pontali has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: G. Sotgiu has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: G.B. Migliori has nothing to disclose., (Copyright ©ERS 2019.)

Objectives: A decreasing incidence of tuberculosis (TB) among HIV patients has been documented in high-income settings and screening for tuberculosis is not systematically performed in many clinics (such as ours). Our objectives are to evaluate whether a same decline of incidence was seen in our Belgian tertiary center and to evaluate whether systematic screening and prophylaxis of tuberculosis should remain part of routine practice., Methods: Between 2005 and 2012, the annual incidence of tuberculosis among adult HIV patients was measured. The impact of demographic characteristics and CD 4 nadir on the incidence of active TB was evaluated., Results: Among the 1167 patients who entered the cohort, 42 developed active TB with a significant decrease of annual incidence from 28/1000 patient-years in 2005 to 3/1000 patient-years in 2012. Among the 42 cases, 83% were of sub-Saharan origin. Median CD4 cell count upon HIV diagnosis was significantly lower in TB cases and 60% had a nadir CD4 below 200/μl. Thirty-six percent of incident TB occurred within 14 days after HIV diagnosis., Conclusion: A significant decline of TB incidence in HIV patients was observed. Incident TB occurred mainly in African patients, with low CD4 upon HIV diagnosis. A significant proportion of TB cases were discovered early in follow-up which probably reflects TB already present upon HIV diagnosis. In a low endemic setting, exclusion of active TB upon HIV diagnosis remains a priority and screening for LTBI should focus on HIV patients from high risk groups such as migrants from endemic regions, especially in patients with low CD4 nadir.

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside this article at erj.ersjournals.com, (Copyright ©ERS 2017.)

Introduction: This study investigates the influence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection on immune activation biomarkers, both in HIV-infected and -uninfected subjects., Methods: Forty-eight treatment-naive HIV-infected patients and 74 HIV-uninfected subjects were recruited and divided into groups according to their M. tuberculosis infection status: latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), active tuberculosis (TB), and no evidence of M. tuberculosis infection. The expression of cellular markers CD38 and HLA-DR on circulating CD8 T lymphocytes and the plasmatic levels of soluble markers interleukin-6, sCD14, and D-Dimer were measured and compared between groups. The HIV-infected patients with no evidence of M. tuberculosis or with LTBI who initiated antiretroviral treatment were tested again for these biomarkers once viral suppression was reached., Results: In both HIV-infected and -uninfected groups, patients with TB had higher levels of immune activation markers than subjects with LTBI and with no evidence of M. tuberculosis. Among the HIV-uninfected subjects, no significant difference in biomarker level was found between those presenting LTBI and those with no evidence of M. tuberculosis. The effect of LTBI on activation biomarkers in the HIV-infected groups was inconclusive because of the small number of individuals in the HIV+/LTBI group. sCD14 and D-Dimer levels were significantly higher in the TB-only group than in the HIV-only group., Discussion: Although TB is associated with an increase in biomarkers of immune activation, the effect of LTBI is less evident. Further investigation is warranted, and according to our results, soluble markers may offer greater sensitivity for the evaluation of M. tuberculosis-associated immune activation than cellular markers.

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., (Copyright ©ERS 2016.)

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., (Copyright ©ERS 2016.)