Journal Article > Short ReportFull Text
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 November 2; Volume 71 (Issue 2); 415-418.; DOI:10.1093/cid/ciz1084
Seung KJ, Khan PY, Franke MF, Ahmed SM, Aiylchiev S, et al.
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 November 2; Volume 71 (Issue 2); 415-418.; DOI:10.1093/cid/ciz1084
Delamanid should be effective against highly resistant strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, but uptake has been slow globally. In the endTB (expand new drug markets for TB) Observational Study, which enrolled a large, heterogeneous cohorts of patients receiving delamanid as part of a multidrug regimen, 80% of participants experienced sputum culture conversion within 6 months.
Protocol > Research Study
BMJ Open. 2020 October 10; Volume 10 (Issue 10); e036599.; DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036599
Sweeney S, Gomez G, Kitson N, Sinha A, Yatskevich N, et al.
BMJ Open. 2020 October 10; Volume 10 (Issue 10); e036599.; DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036599
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.
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.
Conference Material > Slide Presentation
Yatskevich N, Hurevich H, Solodovnikova V, Garsevanidze E, Lachenal N, et al.
MSF Scientific Day International 2023. 2023 June 7; DOI:10.57740/3sk2-bf43
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2023 January 1; Volume 27 (Issue 1); 34-40.; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.22.0324
Zeng C, Mitnick CD, Hewison CCH, Bastard M, Khan PY, et al.
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2023 January 1; Volume 27 (Issue 1); 34-40.; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.22.0324
BACKGROUND
The WHO provides standardized outcome definitions for rifampicin-resistant (RR) and multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB. However, operationalizing these definitions can be challenging in some clinical settings, and incorrect classification may generate bias in reporting and research. Outcomes calculated by algorithms can increase standardization and be adapted to suit the research question. We evaluated concordance between clinician-assigned treatment outcomes and outcomes calculated based on one of two standardized algorithms, one which identified failure at its earliest possible recurrence (i.e., failure-dominant algorithm), and one which calculated the outcome based on culture results at the end of treatment, regardless of early occurrence of failure (i.e., success-dominant algorithm).
METHODS
Among 2,525 patients enrolled in the multi-country endTB observational study, we calculated the frequencies of concordance using cross-tabulations of clinician-assigned and algorithm-assigned outcomes. We summarized the common discrepancies.
RESULTS
Treatment success calculated by algorithms had high concordance with treatment success assigned by clinicians (95.8 and 97.7% for failure-dominant and success-dominant algorithms, respectively). The frequency and pattern of the most common discrepancies varied by country.
CONCLUSION
High concordance was found between clinician-assigned and algorithm-assigned outcomes. Heterogeneity in discrepancies across settings suggests that using algorithms to calculate outcomes may minimize bias.
The WHO provides standardized outcome definitions for rifampicin-resistant (RR) and multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB. However, operationalizing these definitions can be challenging in some clinical settings, and incorrect classification may generate bias in reporting and research. Outcomes calculated by algorithms can increase standardization and be adapted to suit the research question. We evaluated concordance between clinician-assigned treatment outcomes and outcomes calculated based on one of two standardized algorithms, one which identified failure at its earliest possible recurrence (i.e., failure-dominant algorithm), and one which calculated the outcome based on culture results at the end of treatment, regardless of early occurrence of failure (i.e., success-dominant algorithm).
METHODS
Among 2,525 patients enrolled in the multi-country endTB observational study, we calculated the frequencies of concordance using cross-tabulations of clinician-assigned and algorithm-assigned outcomes. We summarized the common discrepancies.
RESULTS
Treatment success calculated by algorithms had high concordance with treatment success assigned by clinicians (95.8 and 97.7% for failure-dominant and success-dominant algorithms, respectively). The frequency and pattern of the most common discrepancies varied by country.
CONCLUSION
High concordance was found between clinician-assigned and algorithm-assigned outcomes. Heterogeneity in discrepancies across settings suggests that using algorithms to calculate outcomes may minimize bias.
Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
Clin Infect Dis. 2024 March 20; Volume 78 (Issue 3); 730-741.; DOI:10.1093/cid/ciad653
Hasan T, Medcalf E, Nyang'wa BT, Egizi E, Berry C, et al.
Clin Infect Dis. 2024 March 20; Volume 78 (Issue 3); 730-741.; DOI:10.1093/cid/ciad653
BACKGROUND
Effectiveness, safety, tolerability, and adherence are critical considerations in shifting to shorter tuberculosis (TB) regimens. Novel 6-month oral regimens that include bedaquiline (B), pretomanid (Pa), and linezolid (L), with or without a fourth drug, have been shown to be as or more effective than the established longer regimens for the treatment of multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant TB (MDR/RR-TB). We aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of linezolid in BPaL-containing regimens for the treatment of MDR/RR-TB among recently completed clinical trials.
METHODS
A review and meta-analysis was undertaken including published and unpublished data from clinical trials, conducted between 2010 and 2021, that evaluated regimens containing BPaL for the treatment of MDR/RR-TB. Individual patient data were obtained. For each BPaL-containing regimen, we evaluated the frequency and severity of treatment-related adverse events. The risk difference of adverse events for each regimen was calculated, in comparison to patients assigned to receiving the lowest cumulative exposure of linezolid.
RESULTS
Data from 3 clinical trials investigating 8 unique BPaL-containing regimens were included, comprising a total of 591 participants. Adverse events were more frequent in groups randomized to a higher cumulative linezolid dose. Among patients who were randomized to a daily dose of 1200 mg linezolid, 68 of 195 (35%) experienced a grade 3–4 adverse event versus 89 of 396 (22%) patients receiving BPaL-containing regimens containing 600 mg linezolid.
CONCLUSIONS
Regimens containing BPaL were relatively well tolerated when they included a daily linezolid dose of 600 mg. These novel regimens promise to improve the tolerability of treatment for MDR/RR-TB.
Effectiveness, safety, tolerability, and adherence are critical considerations in shifting to shorter tuberculosis (TB) regimens. Novel 6-month oral regimens that include bedaquiline (B), pretomanid (Pa), and linezolid (L), with or without a fourth drug, have been shown to be as or more effective than the established longer regimens for the treatment of multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant TB (MDR/RR-TB). We aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of linezolid in BPaL-containing regimens for the treatment of MDR/RR-TB among recently completed clinical trials.
METHODS
A review and meta-analysis was undertaken including published and unpublished data from clinical trials, conducted between 2010 and 2021, that evaluated regimens containing BPaL for the treatment of MDR/RR-TB. Individual patient data were obtained. For each BPaL-containing regimen, we evaluated the frequency and severity of treatment-related adverse events. The risk difference of adverse events for each regimen was calculated, in comparison to patients assigned to receiving the lowest cumulative exposure of linezolid.
RESULTS
Data from 3 clinical trials investigating 8 unique BPaL-containing regimens were included, comprising a total of 591 participants. Adverse events were more frequent in groups randomized to a higher cumulative linezolid dose. Among patients who were randomized to a daily dose of 1200 mg linezolid, 68 of 195 (35%) experienced a grade 3–4 adverse event versus 89 of 396 (22%) patients receiving BPaL-containing regimens containing 600 mg linezolid.
CONCLUSIONS
Regimens containing BPaL were relatively well tolerated when they included a daily linezolid dose of 600 mg. These novel regimens promise to improve the tolerability of treatment for MDR/RR-TB.
Conference Material > Poster
Motta I, Cusinato M, Ludman A, Abdrasuliev T, Butabekov I, et al.
MSF Scientific Day International 2023. 2023 June 7; DOI:10.57740/vz2n-4971
Conference Material > Slide Presentation
Nyang'wa BT, Berry C, Motta I, Kazounis E
MSF Scientific Days International 2021: Research. 2021 May 19
Conference Material > Slide Presentation
Stringer B, Lowton K, Cusinato M, Fielding K, Liverko I, et al.
MSF Scientific Day International 2023. 2023 June 7; DOI:10.57740/by3w-4h53
Conference Material > Slide Presentation
Berry C, Motta I, Kazounis E, Fielding K, Dodd M, et al.
MSF Scientific Days International 2022. 2022 May 11; DOI:10.57740/v9ye-0032
Conference Material > Video
Berry C, Motta I, Kazounis E, Fielding K, Dodd M, et al.
MSF Scientific Days International 2022. 2022 June 7; DOI:10.57740/atfr-ws57