Search

Background: Drug-resistant (DR) tuberculosis (TB) is typically characterized by resistance to a single or combination of first- and/or second-line anti-TB agents and commonly includes rifampicin-resistant (RR)-TB, multidrug-resistant (MDR)-TB, pre-extensively drug-resistant (pre-XDR)-TB and XDR-TB. Historically, all variations of DR-TB required treatment with second-line drugs which are less effective and more toxic than first-line options, have a longer treatment duration and are more expensive to both patients and providers. The World Health Organization (WHO) now recommends a new second-line 3-drug 6-month all-oral regimen consisting of bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid referred to as BPaL. We estimate patient and provider costs of DR-TB treatment with BPaL compared to the current standard of care in South Africa., Methods and Findings: In coordination with South Africa's BPaL clinical access programme (CAP) we conducted an economic evaluation of A) patient costs through a cross-sectional patient cost survey and B) provider costs through a bottom-up costing analysis consisting of a retrospective medical record review (patient resource-use) and top-down financial record review (fixed/shared costs such as overhead). Across both costing perspectives, we compare costs of 1) BPaL, to current standard of care options including the 2) 9-11-month standard short oral regimen (SSOR) and 3) 18-21-month standard long oral regimen (SLOR). Eligible patients included those ≥14 years old with confirmed sputum pulmonary RR/MDR-TB, pre-XDR or XDR-TB. All costs are reported in 2022 United States Dollar (US$). A total of 72 patients were enrolled and completed the patient cost survey (41.7% on BPaL, 16.7% on the SSOR and 41.7% on the SLOR). Mean on-treatment patient costs were lowest among those on BPaL ($56.6) and increased four-fold among those on the SSOR ($228.1) and SLOR ($224.7). Direct medical patient costs were negligible across all treatment regimens, while direct non-medical patient and guardian costs for travel, food and nutritional supplementation accounted for the largest proportion of total costs ($54.6, $227.8 and $224.3 for BPaL, the SSOR and SLOR respectively). In assessing provider costs, a total of 112 medical records were reviewed (37.5%, 41.1% and 21.4% on BPaL, the SSOR and SLOR respectively). Total provider costs for producing a favorable treatment outcome (cured/completed treatment) were similar among those on BPaL ($4,948.7 per patient) and the SSOR ($4,905.6 per patient) with costs increasing substantially among those on the SLOR ($8,919.9 per patient). Based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), at even the lowest willingness to pay (WTP) threshold, treatment with the new BPaL regimen was more cost-effective than current standard of care treatment options (ICER: $311.4 < WTP: $3,341)., Conclusions: When using the newly recommended BPaL regimen, cost to patients decreased by 75% compared to current standard of care treatment options in South Africa. Due in part to higher resource-use within the BPaL CAP offsetting the shorter treatment duration, cost of treatment provision through BPaL and the 9-11-month SSOR were similar. However, when considering cost and treatment outcomes, BPaL was more cost-effective than other standard of care regimens currently available for DR-TB in South Africa., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have no competing interests., (Copyright: © 2024 Evans et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: There is a need for short and safe all-oral treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. We compared outcomes up to 24 months after treatment initiation for patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in South Africa treated with a short, all-oral bedaquiline-containing regimen (bedaquiline group), or a short, injectable-containing regimen (injectable group)., Methods: Patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, aged 18 years or older, eligible for a short regimen starting treatment between Jan 1 and Dec 31, 2017, with a bedaquiline-containing or WHO recommended injectable-containing treatment regimen of 9-12 months, registered in the drug-resistant tuberculosis database (EDRWeb), and with known age, sex, HIV status, and national identification number were eligible for study inclusion; patients receiving linezolid, carbapenems, terizidone or cycloserine, delamanid, or para-aminosalicylic acid were excluded. Bedaquiline was given at a dose of 400 mg once daily for two weeks followed by 200 mg three times a week for 22 weeks. To compare regimens, patients were exactly matched on HIV and ART status, previous tuberculosis treatment history, and baseline acid-fast bacilli smear and culture result, while propensity score matched on age, sex, province of treatment, and isoniazid-susceptibility status. We did binomial linear regression to estimate adjusted risk differences (aRD) and 95% CIs for 24-month outcomes, which included: treatment success (ie, cure or treatment completion without evidence of recurrence) versus all other outcomes, survival versus death, disease free survival versus survival with treatment failure or recurrence, and loss to follow-up versus all other outcomes., Findings: Overall, 1387 (14%) of 10152 patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis treated during 2017 met inclusion criteria; 688 in the bedaquiline group and 699 in the injectable group. Four patients (1%) had treatment failure or recurrence, 44 (6%) were lost to follow-up, and 162 (24%) died in the bedaquiline group, compared with 17 (2%), 87 (12%), and 199 (28%), respectively, in the injectable group. In adjusted analyses, treatment success was 14% (95% CI 8-20) higher in the bedaquiline group than in the injectable group (70% vs 57%); loss to follow-up was 4% (1-8) lower in the bedaquiline group (6% vs 12%); and disease-free survival was 2% (0-5) higher in the bedaquiline group (99% vs 97%). The bedaquiline group had 8% (4-11) lower risk of mortality during treatment (17·0% vs 22·4%), but there was no difference in mortality post-treatment., Interpretation: Patients in the bedaquiline group experienced significantly higher rates of treatment success at 24 months. This finding supports the use of short bedaquiline-containing regimens in eligible patients., Funding: WHO Global TB Programme., Translation: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.)

Background: Bedaquiline improves outcomes of patients with rifampicin-resistant and multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis; however, emerging resistance threatens this success. We did a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis evaluating the epidemiology, genetic basis, and treatment outcomes associated with bedaquiline resistance, using data from South Africa (2015-19)., Methods: Patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis starting bedaquiline-based treatment had surveillance samples submitted at baseline, month 2, and month 6, along with demographic information. Culture-positive baseline and post-baseline isolates had phenotypic resistance determined. Eligible patients were aged 12 years or older with a positive culture sample at baseline or, if the sample was invalid or negative, a sample within 30 days of the baseline sample submitted for bedaquiline drug susceptibility testing. For the longitudinal study, the first surveillance sample had to be phenotypically susceptible to bedaquiline for inclusion. Whole-genome sequencing was done on bedaquiline-resistant isolates and a subset of bedaquiline-susceptible isolates. The National Institute for Communicable Diseases tuberculosis reference laboratory, and national tuberculosis surveillance databases were matched to the Electronic Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis Register. We assessed baseline resistance prevalence, mutations, transmission, cumulative resistance incidence, and odds ratios (ORs) associating risk factors for resistance with patient outcomes., Findings: Between Jan 1, 2015, and July 31, 2019, 8041 patients had surveillance samples submitted, of whom 2023 were included in the cross-sectional analysis and 695 in the longitudinal analysis. Baseline bedaquiline resistance prevalence was 3·8% (76 of 2023 patients; 95% CI 2·9-4·6), and it was associated with previous exposure to bedaquiline or clofazimine (OR 7·1, 95% CI 2·3-21·9) and with rifampicin-resistant or MDR tuberculosis with additional resistance to either fluoroquinolones or injectable drugs (pre-extensively-drug resistant [XDR] tuberculosis: 4·2, 1·7-10·5) or to both (XDR tuberculosis: 4·8, 2·0-11·7). Rv0678 mutations were the sole genetic basis of phenotypic resistance. Baseline resistance could be attributed to previous bedaquiline or clofazimine exposure in four (5·3%) of 76 patients and to primary transmission in six (7·9%). Odds of successful treatment outcomes were lower in patients with baseline bedaquiline resistance (0·5, 0·3-1). Resistance during treatment developed in 16 (2·3%) of 695 patients, at a median of 90 days (IQR 62-195), with 12 of these 16 having pre-XDR or XDR., Interpretation: Bedaquiline resistance was associated with poorer treatment outcomes. Rapid assessment of bedaquiline resistance, especially when patients were previously exposed to bedaquiline or clofazimine, should be prioritised at baseline or if patients remain culture-positive after 2 months of treatment. Preventing resistance by use of novel combination therapies, current treatment optimisation, and patient support is essential., Funding: National Institute for Communicable Diseases of South Africa., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests NAI reports partial support from Janssen Pharmaceuticals to the institution for the consumables used for bedaquiline drug susceptibility testing. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

South African patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (TB) and resistance to fluoroquinolones and/or injectable drugs (extensively drug-resistant (XDR) and preXDR-TB) were granted access to bedaquiline through a clinical access programme with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria.PreXDR-TB and XDR-TB patients were treated with 24 weeks of bedaquiline within an optimised, individualised background regimen that could include levofloxacin, linezolid and clofazimine as needed. 200 patients were enrolled: 87 (43.9%) had XDR-TB, 99 (49.3%) were female and the median age was 34 years (interquartile range (IQR) 27-42). 134 (67.0%) were living with HIV; the median CD4 + count was 281 cells·μL -1 (IQR 130-467) and all were on antiretroviral therapy.16 out of 200 patients (8.0%) did not complete 6 months of bedaquiline: eight were lost to follow-up, six died, one stopped owing to side effects and one was diagnosed with drug-sensitive TB. 146 out of 200 patients (73.0%) had favourable outcomes: 139 (69.5%) were cured and seven (3.5%) completed treatment. 25 patients (12.5%) died, 20 (10.0%) were lost from treatment and nine (4.5%) had treatment failure. 22 adverse events were attributed to bedaquiline, including a QT interval corrected using the Fridericia formula (QTcF) >500 ms (n=5), QTcF increase >50 ms from baseline (n=11) and paroxysmal atrial flutter (n=1).Bedaquiline added to an optimised background regimen was associated with a high rate of successful treatment outcomes for this preXDR-TB and XDR-TB cohort., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: N. Ndjeka reports non-financial support (donation of bedaquiline) from Janssen Pharmaceutica, during the conduct of the study; and Janssen Pharmaceutica provided support to the SA TB Programme: funding for training, provision of ECG machines and hearing tests machines. N Ndjeka is an official within the South African Department of Health; his responsibilities include recommending guidelines for drug-resistant TB treatment. Conflict of interest: K. Schnippel has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: I. Master has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: G. Meintjes has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: G. Maartens has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Romero has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: X. Padanilam has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Enwerem has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Chotoo has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: N. Singh has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Hughes has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Variava has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: H. Ferreira has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. te Riele has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: N. Ismail has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: E. Mohr has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: N. Bantubani has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: F. Conradie reports sponsorship for travel and registration for conferences from Janssen Pharmacuetica, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©ERS 2018.)

Background: Addition of bedaquiline to treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis was associated with an increased risk of death in a phase 2b clinical trial, resulting in caution from WHO. Following a compassionate access programme and local regulatory approval, the South African National Tuberculosis Programme began widespread use of bedaquiline in March, 2015, especially among patients with extensively drug resistant tuberculosis for whom no other effective treatment options were available. We aimed to compare mortality in patients on standard regimens with that of patients on regimens including bedaquiline., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analysed patient data from the South African rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis case register (EDRweb), and identified additional mortality using the national vital statistics register. We excluded patients who started treatment before July 1, 2014, or after March 31, 2016; patients younger than 15 years or older than 75 years; patients without documented rifampicin resistance, and patients with pre-extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (multidrug-resistant tuberculosis with further resistance to a second-line injectable or fluoroquinolone). We compared all-cause mortality between patients who received bedaquiline in treatment regimens and those who did not. Patients who did not receive bedaquiline had kanamycin or capreomycin and moxifloxacin as core medicines in their regimen. We estimated hazard ratios for mortality separately for multidrug-resistant or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis and adjusted using propensity score quintile strata for the potential confounders of sex, age, HIV and antiretroviral therapy status, history of prior tuberculosis, valid identification number, and year and province of treatment., Findings: 24 014 tuberculosis cases were registered in the EDRweb between July 1, 2014, and March 31, 2016. Of these, 19 617 patients initiated treatment and met our analysis eligibility criteria. A bedaquiline-containing regimen was given to 743 (4·0%) of 18 542 patients with multidrug-resistant or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis and 273 (25·4%) of 1075 patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. Among 1016 patients who received bedaquiline, 128 deaths (12·6%) were reported, and there were 4612 deaths (24·8%) among 18 601 patients on the standard regimens. Bedaquiline was associated with a reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality for patients with multidrug-resistant or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·35, 95% CI 0·28-0·46) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (0·26, 0·18-0·38) compared with standard regimens., Interpretation: Our retrospective cohort analysis of routinely reported data in the context of high HIV and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis prevalence showed that bedaquiline-based treatment regimens were associated with a large reduction in mortality in patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis, compared with the standard regimen., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multidrug resistant-tuberculosis (MDR-TB) is a threat to global tuberculosis control which is worsened by human immune-deficiency virus (HIV) co-infection. There is however paucity of data on the effects of antiretroviral treatment (ART) before or after starting MDR-TB treatment. This study determined predictors of mortality and treatment failure among HIV co-infected MDR-TB patients on ART., Methods: A retrospective medical record review of 1200 HIV co-infected MDR-TB patients admitted at Sizwe Tropical Disease Hospital, Johannesburg from 2007 to 2010 was performed. Chi-square test was used to determine treatment outcomes in HIV co-infected MDR-TB patients on ART. Multivariable logistic regression and Poisson models were used to determine predictors of mortality and treatment failure respectively., Results: Mortality was higher (21.8% vs. 15.4%) among patients who started ART before initiating MDR-TB treatment compared with patients initiated on ART after commencing MDR-TB treatment (p = 0.013). Factors significantly associated with mortality included: the use of ART before starting MDR-TB treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.02-2.73), severely-underweight (OR 3.71, 95% CI 1.89-7.29) and underweight (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.30-4.26), cavities on chest x-rays at baseline (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.08-2.94), presence of other opportunistic infections (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.10-2.94) and presence of other co-morbidities (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.20-4.21). Factors predicting failure were severe anaemia (IRR (OR 4.72, 95% CI 1.47-15), other co-morbidities (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.05-5.43) and modified individualised regimen at baseline (OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.98-4.71)., Conclusions: High mortality among patients already on ART before initiating MDR-TB treatment is a worrisome development. Management of adverse-events, opportunistic infections and co-morbidities in these patients is important if the protective benefits of being on ART are to be maximized. There is the need to intensify intervention programmes targeted at early identification of MDR-TB, treatment initiation, drug monitoring and increasing adherence among HIV co-infected MDR-TB patients.