Dataset Information

Effectiveness and Cardiac Safety of Bedaquiline-Based Therapy for Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis: A Prospective Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Bedaquiline improves treatment outcomes in patients with rifampin-resistant (RR) tuberculosis but prolongs the QT interval and carries a black-box warning from the US Food and Drug Administration. The World Health Organization recommends that all patients with RR tuberculosis receive a regimen containing bedaquiline, yet a phase 3 clinical trial demonstrating its cardiac safety has not been published.

Methods

We conducted an observational cohort study of patients with RR tuberculosis from 3 provinces in South Africa who received regimens containing bedaquiline. We performed rigorous cardiac monitoring, which included obtaining electrocardiograms in triplicate at 4 time points during bedaquiline therapy. Participants were followed up until the end of therapy or 24 months. Outcomes included final tuberculosis treatment outcome and QT interval prolongation (QT prolongation), defined as any QT interval corrected by the Fridericia method (QTcF) >500 ms or an absolute change from baseline (ΔQTcF) >60 ms.

Results

We enrolled 195 eligible participants, of whom 40% had extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. Most participants (97%) received concurrent clofazimine. Of the participants, 74% were cured or successfully completed treatment, and outcomes did not differ by human immunodeficiency virus status. QTcF continued to increase throughout bedaquiline therapy, with a mean increase (standard deviation) of 23.7 (22.7) ms from baseline to month 6. Four participants experienced a QTcF >500 ms and 19 experienced a ΔQTcF >60 ms. Older age was independently associated with QT prolongation. QT prolongation was neither more common nor more severe in participants receiving concurrent lopinavir-ritonavir.

Conclusions

Severe QT prolongation was uncommon and did not require permanent discontinuation of either bedaquiline or clofazimine. Close monitoring of the QT interval may be advisable in older patients.

SUBMITTER: Brust JCM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8664482 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsA 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.).

Project description:Bedaquiline (BDQ), which is recommended for the treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB), was introduced in Taiwan in 2014. Due to the alarming emergence of BDQ resistance, we conducted BDQ resistance analyses to strengthen our DR-TB management program. This retrospective population-based study included initial Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates from 898 rifampicin-resistant (RR) or multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB cases never exposed to BDQ during 2008-2019. We randomly selected 65 isolates and identified 28 isolates with BDQ MIC<0.25μg/ml and MIC≥0.25μg/ml as the control and study groups, respectively. BDQ drug susceptibility testing (DST) using the MGIT960 system and Sanger sequencing of the atpE, Rv0678, and pepQ genes was conducted. Notably, 18 isolates with BDQ MIC=0.25μg/ml, 38.9% (7/18), and 61.1% (11/18) isolates were MGIT-BDQ resistant and susceptible, respectively. Consequently, we recommended redefining MIC=0.25μg/ml as an intermediate-susceptible category to resolve discordance between different DST methods. Of the 93 isolates, 22 isolates were MGIT-BDQ-resistant and 77.3% (17/22) of MGIT-BDQ-resistant isolates harbored Rv0678 mutations. After excluding 2 MGIT-BDQ-resistant isolates with borderline resistance (GU400growth control-GU100BDQ≤1day), 100% (15/15) harbored Rv0678 gene mutations, including seven novel mutations [g-14a, Ile80Ser (N=2), Phe100Tyr, Ala102Val, Ins g 181-182 frameshift mutation (N=2), Del 11-63 frameshift mutation, and whole gene deletion (N=2)]. Since the other 22.7% (5/22) MGIT-BDQ-resistant isolates with borderline resistance (GU400growth control-GU100BDQ≤1day) had no mutation in three analyzed genes. For isolates with phenotypic MGIT-BDQ borderline resistance, checking for GU differences or conducting genotypic analyses are suggested for ruling out BDQ resistance. In addition, we observed favorable outcomes among patients with BDQ-resistant isolates who received BDQ-containing regimens regardless of Rv0678 mutations. We concluded that based on MIC≥0.25μg/ml, 3.1% (28/898) of drug-resistant TB cases without BDQ exposure showed BDQ resistance, Rv0678 was not a robust marker of BDQ resistance, and its mutations were not associated with treatment outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundBedaquiline is a life-saving tuberculosis drug undergoing global scale-up. People at risk of weak tuberculosis drug regimens are a priority for novel drug access despite the potential source of Mycobacterium tuberculosis-resistant strains. We aimed to characterise bedaquiline resistance in individuals who had sustained culture positivity during bedaquiline-based treatment.MethodsWe did a retrospective longitudinal cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) with culture-positive pulmonary tuberculosis who received at least 4 months of a bedaquiline-containing regimen from 12 drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment facilities in Cape Town, South Africa, between Jan 20, 2016, and Nov 20, 2017. Sputum was programmatically collected at baseline (ie, before bedaquiline initiation) and each month to monitor treatment response per the national algorithm. The last available isolate from the sputum collected at or after 4 months of bedaquiline was designated the follow-up isolate. Phenotypic drug susceptibility testing for bedaquiline was done on baseline and follow-up isolates in MGIT960 media (WHO-recommended critical concentration of 1 μg/mL). Targeted deep sequencing for Rv0678, atpE, and pepQ, as well as whole-genome sequencing were also done.FindingsIn total, 40 (31%) of 129 patients from an estimated pool were eligible for this study. Overall, three (8%) of 38 patients assessable by phenotypic drug susceptibility testing for bedaquiline had primary resistance, 18 (47%) gained resistance (acquired or reinfection), and 17 (45%) were susceptible at both baseline and follow-up. Several Rv0678 and pepQ single-nucleotide polymorphisms and indels were associated with resistance. Although variants occurred in Rv0676c and Rv1979c, these variants were not associated with resistance. Targeted deep sequencing detected low-level variants undetected by whole-genome sequencing; however, none were in genes without variants already detected by whole-genome sequencing. Patients with baseline fluoroquinolone resistance, clofazimine exposure, and four or less effective drugs were more likely to have bedaquiline-resistant gain. Resistance gain was primarily due to acquisition; however, some reinfection by resistant strains occurred.InterpretationBedaquiline-resistance gain, for which we identified risk factors, was common in these programmatically treated patients with sustained culture positivity. Our study highlights risks associated with implementing life-saving new drugs and shows evidence of bedaquiline-resistance transmission. Routine drug susceptibility testing should urgently accompany scale-up of new drugs; however, rapid drug susceptibility testing for bedaquiline remains challenging given the diversity of variants observed.FundingDoris Duke Charitable Foundation, US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, South African Medical Research Council, National Research Foundation, Research Foundation Flanders, Stellenbosch University Faculty of Medicine Health Sciences, South African National Research Foundation, Swiss National Science Foundation, and Wellcome Trust.