High-dose rifampicin, moxifloxacin, and SQ109 for treating tuberculosis: a multi-arm, multi-stage randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis is the world's leading infectious disease killer. We aimed to identify shorter, safer drug regimens for the treatment of tuberculosis. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled, open-label trial with a multi-arm, multi-stage design. The trial was done in seven sites in South Africa and Tanzania, including hospitals, health centres, and clinical trial centres. Patients with newly diagnosed, rifampicin-sensitive, previously untreated pulmonary tuberculosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1:2 ratio to receive (all orally) either 35 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 15–20 mg/kg ethambutol, 20 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 400 mg moxifloxacin, 20 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 300 mg SQ109, 10 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 300 mg SQ109, or a daily standard control regimen (10 mg/kg rifampicin, 5 mg/kg isoniazid, 25 mg/kg pyrazinamide, and 15–20 mg/kg ethambutol). Experimental treatments were given with oral 5 mg/kg isoniazid and 25 mg/kg pyrazinamide per day for 12 weeks, followed by 14 weeks of 5 mg/kg isoniazid and 10 mg/kg rifampicin per day. Because of the orange discoloration of body fluids with higher doses of rifampicin it was not possible to mask patients and clinicians to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was time to culture conversion in liquid media within 12 weeks. Patients without evidence of rifampicin resistance on phenotypic test who took at least one dose of study treatment and had one positive culture on liquid or solid media before or within the first 2 weeks of treatment were included in the primary analysis (modified intention to treat). Time-to-event data were analysed using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model and adjusted for minimisation variables. The proportional hazard assumption was tested using Schoelfeld residuals, with threshold p<0·05 for non-proportionality. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01785186). FINDINGS: Between May 7, 2013, and March 25, 2014, we enrolled and randomly assigned 365 patients to different treatment arms (63 to rifampicin 35 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol; 59 to rifampicin 10 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, SQ109; 57 to rifampicin 20 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and SQ109; 63 to rifampicin 10 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and moxifloxacin; and 123 to the control arm). Recruitment was stopped early in the arms containing SQ109 since prespecified efficacy thresholds were not met at the planned interim analysis. Time to stable culture conversion in liquid media was faster in the 35 mg/kg rifampicin group than in the control group (median 48 days vs 62 days, adjusted hazard ratio 1·78; 95% CI 1·22–2·58, p=0·003), but not in other experimental arms. There was no difference in any of the groups in time to culture conversion on solid media. 11 patients had treatment failure or recurrent disease during post-treatment follow-up: one in the 35 mg/kg rifampicin arm and none in the moxifloxacin arm. 45 (12%) of 365 patients reported grade 3–5 adverse events, with similar proportions in each arm. INTERPRETATION: A dose of 35 mg/kg rifampicin was safe, reduced the time to culture conversion in liquid media, and could be a promising component of future, shorter regimens. Our adaptive trial design was successfully implemented in a multi-centre, high tuberculosis burden setting, and could speed regimen development at reduced cost. FUNDING: The study was funded by the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials partnership (EDCTP), the German Ministry for Education and Research (BmBF), and the Medical Research Council UK (MRC)

Treatment-shortening regimens for tuberculosis: updates and future priorities

In the past 2 years, remarkable advances have been made in shortening tuberculosis (TB) treatment. In particular, four clinical trials (Study 31/A5349, Nix-TB, ZeNix and TB-PRACTECAL) have provided evidence of the efficacy of regimens based on new and repurposed drugs: the 4-month regimen for drug-susceptible TB, and the 6-month bedaquiline–pretomanid–linezolid regimen with or without moxifloxacin for multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant TB. Even if the evidence at the basis of these new regimens is compelling, several questions remain open, particularly concerning linezolid dose finding, the upsurging threat of bedaquiline-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis and the feasibility of applying these results to the paediatric population. Several ongoing trials may fill the remaining gaps and produce further reliable evidence to address the outstanding questions in TB treatment shortening

Non-inferiority trials: are they inferior? A systematic review of reporting in major medical journals

OBJECTIVE: To assess the adequacy of reporting of non-inferiority trials alongside the consistency and utility of current recommended analyses and guidelines. DESIGN: Review of randomised clinical trials that used a non-inferiority design published between January 2010 and May 2015 in medical journals that had an impact factor >10 (JAMA Internal Medicine, Archives Internal Medicine, PLOS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine). DATA SOURCES: Ovid (MEDLINE). METHODS: We searched for non-inferiority trials and assessed the following: choice of non-inferiority margin and justification of margin; power and significance level for sample size; patient population used and how this was defined; any missing data methods used and assumptions declared and any sensitivity analyses used. RESULTS: A total of 168 trial publications were included. Most trials concluded non-inferiority (132; 79%). The non-inferiority margin was reported for 98% (164), but less than half reported any justification for the margin (77; 46%). While most chose two different analyses (91; 54%) the most common being intention-to-treat (ITT) or modified ITT and per-protocol, a large number of articles only chose to conduct and report one analysis (65; 39%), most commonly the ITT analysis. There was lack of clarity or inconsistency between the type I error rate and corresponding CIs for 73 (43%) articles. Missing data were rarely considered with (99; 59%) not declaring whether imputation techniques were used. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting and conduct of non-inferiority trials is inconsistent and does not follow the recommendations in available statistical guidelines, which are not wholly consistent themselves. Authors should clearly describe the methods used and provide clear descriptions of and justifications for their design and primary analysis. Failure to do this risks misleading conclusions being drawn, with consequent effects on clinical practice

Proposals on Kaplan–Meier plots in medical research and a survey of stakeholder views: KMunicate

OBJECTIVES: To examine reactions to the proposed improvements to standard Kaplan–Meier plots, the standard way to present time-to-event data, and to understand which (if any) facilitated better depiction of (1) the state of patients over time, and (2) uncertainty over time in the estimates of survival. DESIGN: A survey of stakeholders’ opinions on the proposals. SETTING: A web-based survey, open to international participation, for those with an interest in visualisation of time-to-event data. PARTICIPANTS: 1174 people participated in the survey over a 6-week period. Participation was global (although primarily Europe and North America) and represented a wide range of researchers (primarily statisticians and clinicians). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two outcome measures were of principal importance: (1) participants’ opinions of each proposal compared with a ‘standard’ Kaplan–Meier plot; and (2) participants’ overall ranking of the proposals (including the standard). RESULTS: Most proposals were more popular than the standard Kaplan–Meier plot. The most popular proposals in the two categories, respectively, were an extended table beneath the plot depicting the numbers at risk, censored and having experienced an event at periodic timepoints, and CIs around each Kaplan–Meier curve. CONCLUSION: This study produced a high response number, reflecting the importance of graphics for time-to-event data. Those producing and publishing Kaplan–Meier plots—both authors and journals—should, as a starting point, consider using the combination of the two favoured proposals

A comparison of liquid and solid culture for determining relapse and durable cure in phase III TB trials for new regimens

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis kills more people than any other infectious disease, and new regimens are essential. The primary endpoint for confirmatory phase III trials for new regimens is a composite outcome that includes bacteriological treatment failure and relapse. Culture methodology is critical to the primary trial outcome. Patients in clinical trials can have positive cultures after treatment ends that may not necessarily indicate relapse, which was ascribed previously to laboratory cross-contamination or breakdown of old lesions. Löwenstein-Jensen (LJ) medium was the previous standard in clinical trials, but almost all current and future trials will use the Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) system due to its simplicity and consistency of use, which will affect phase III trial results. LJ was used for the definition of the primary endpoint in the REMoxTB trial, but every culture was also inoculated in parallel into the MGIT system. The data from this trial, therefore, provide a unique opportunity to investigate and compare the incidence of false 'isolated positives' in liquid and solid media and their potential impact on the primary efficacy results. METHODS: All post-treatment positive cultures were reviewed in the REMoxTB clinical trial. Logistic regression models were used to model the incidence of isolated positive cultures on MGIT and LJ. RESULTS: A total of 12,209 sputum samples were available from 1652 patients; cultures were more often positive on MGIT than LJ. In 1322 patients with a favourable trial outcome, 126 (9.5%) had cultures that were positive in MGIT compared to 34 (2.6%) patients with positive cultures on LJ. Among patients with a favourable outcome, the incidence of isolated positives on MGIT differed by study laboratory (p < 0.0001) with 21.9% of these coming from one laboratory investigating only 4.9% of patients. No other baseline factors predicted isolated positives on MGIT after adjusting for laboratory. There was evidence of clustering of isolated positive cultures in some patients even after adjusting for laboratory, p < 0.0001. The incidence of isolated positives on MGIT did not differ by treatment arm (p = 0.845, unadjusted). Compared to negative MGIT cultures, positive MGIT cultures were more likely to be associated with higher grade TB symptoms reported within 7 days either side of sputum collection in patients with an unfavourable primary outcome (p < 0.0001) but not in patients with a favourable outcome (p = 0.481). CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory cross-contamination was a likely cause of isolated positive MGIT cultures which were clustered in some laboratories. Certain patients had repeated positive MGIT cultures that did not meet the definition of a relapse. This pattern was too common to be explained by cross-contamination only, suggesting that host factors were also responsible. We conclude that MGIT can replace LJ in phase III TB trials, but there are implications for the definition of the primary outcome and patient management in trials in such settings. Most importantly, the methodologies differ in the incidence of isolated positives and in their capacity for capturing non-tuberculosis mycobacteria. It emphasises the importance of effective medical monitoring after treatment ends and consideration of clinical signs and symptoms for determining treatment failure and relapse

Investigation of the efficacy of the short regimen for rifampicin-resistant TB from the STREAM trial

Background: The STREAM trial demonstrated that a 9–11-month “short” regimen had non-inferior efficacy and comparable safety to a 20+ month “long” regimen for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. Imbalance in the components of the composite primary outcome merited further investigation. / Methods: Firstly, the STREAM primary outcomes were mapped to alternatives in current use, including WHO programmatic outcome definitions and other recently proposed modifications for programmatic or research purposes. Secondly, the outcomes were re-classified according to the likelihood that it was a Failure or Relapse (FoR) event on a 5-point Likert scale: Definite, Probable, Possible, Unlikely, and Highly Unlikely. Sensitivity analyses were employed to explore the impact of informative censoring. The protocol-defined modified intention-to-treat (MITT) analysis population was used for all analyses. / Results: Cure on the short regimen ranged from 75.1 to 84.2% across five alternative outcomes. However, between-regimens results did not exceed 1.3% in favor of the long regimen (95% CI upper bound 10.1%), similar to the primary efficacy results from the trial. Considering only Definite or Probable FoR events, there was weak evidence of a higher risk of FoR in the short regimen, HR 2.19 (95%CI 0.90, 5.35), p = 0.076; considering only Definite FoR events, the evidence was stronger, HR 3.53 (95%CI 1.05, 11.87), p = 0.030. Cumulative number of grade 3–4 AEs was the strongest predictor of censoring. Considering a larger effect of informative censoring attenuated treatment differences, although 95% CI were very wide. / Conclusion: Five alternative outcome definitions gave similar overall results. The risk of failure or relapse (FoR) may be higher in the short regimen than in the long regimen, highlighting the importance of how loss to follow-up and other censoring is accounted for in analyses. The outcome of time to FoR should be considered as a primary outcome for future drug-sensitive and drug-resistant TB treatment trials, provided sensitivity analyses exploring the impact of departures from independent censoring are also included

Fluoroquinolones and isoniazid-resistant tuberculosis: implications for the 2018 WHO guidance.

INTRODUCTION: 2018 World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for the treatment of isoniazid (H)-resistant (Hr) tuberculosis recommend a four-drug regimen: rifampicin (R), ethambutol (E), pyrazinamide (Z) and levofloxacin (Lfx), with or without H ([H]RZE-Lfx). This is used once Hr is known, such that patients complete 6 months of Lfx (≥6[H]RZE-6Lfx). This cohort study assessed the impact of fluoroquinolones (Fq) on treatment effectiveness, accounting for Hr mutations and degree of phenotypic resistance. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 626 Hr tuberculosis patients notified in London, 2009-2013. Regimens were described and logistic regression undertaken of the association between regimen and negative regimen-specific outcomes (broadly, death due to tuberculosis, treatment failure or disease recurrence). RESULTS: Of 594 individuals with regimen information, 330 (55.6%) were treated with (H)RfZE (Rf=rifamycins) and 211 (35.5%) with (H)RfZE-Fq. The median overall treatment period was 11.9 months and median Z duration 2.1 months. In a univariable logistic regression model comparing (H)RfZE with and without Fqs, there was no difference in the odds of a negative regimen-specific outcome (baseline (H)RfZE, cluster-specific odds ratio 1.05 (95% CI 0.60-1.82), p=0.87; cluster NHS trust). Results varied minimally in a multivariable model. This odds ratio dropped (0.57, 95% CI 0.14-2.28) when Hr genotype was included, but this analysis lacked power (p=0.42). CONCLUSIONS: In a high-income setting, we found a 12-month (H)RfZE regimen with a short Z duration to be similarly effective for Hr tuberculosis with or without a Fq. This regimen may result in fewer adverse events than the WHO recommendations

A phase IIb, open-label, randomized controlled dose ranging multi-centre trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and exposure-response relationship of different doses of delpazolid in combination with bedaquiline delamanid moxifloxacin in adult subjects with newly diagnosed, uncomplicated, smear-positive, drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis

BACKGROUND: Linezolid is an effective, but toxic anti-tuberculosis drug that is currently recommended for the treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis. Improved oxazolidinones should have a better safety profile, while preserving efficacy. Delpazolid is a novel oxazolidinone developed by LegoChem Biosciences Inc. that has been evaluated up to phase 2a clinical trials. Since oxazolidinone toxicity can occur late in treatment, LegoChem Biosciences Inc. and the PanACEA Consortium designed DECODE to be an innovative dose-ranging study with long-term follow-up for determining the exposure-response and exposure-toxicity relationship of delpazolid to support dose selection for later studies. Delpazolid is administered in combination with bedaquiline, delamanid and moxifloxacin. METHODS: Seventy-five participants with drug-sensitive, pulmonary tuberculosis will receive bedaquiline, delamanid and moxifloxacin, and will be randomized to delpazolid dosages of 0 mg, 400 mg, 800 mg, 1200 mg once daily, or 800 mg twice daily, for 16 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint will be the rate of decline of bacterial load on treatment, measured by MGIT liquid culture time to detection from weekly sputum cultures. The primary safety endpoint will be the proportion of oxazolidinone class toxicities; neuropathy, myelosuppression, or tyramine pressor response. Participants who convert to negative liquid media culture by week 8 will stop treatment after the end of their 16-week course and will be observed for relapse until week 52. Participants who do not convert to negative culture will receive continuation phase treatment with rifampicin and isoniazid to complete a six-month treatment course. DISCUSSION: DECODE is an innovative dose-finding trial, designed to support exposure-response modelling for safe and effective dose selection. The trial design allows assessment of occurrence of late toxicities as observed with linezolid, which is necessary in clinical evaluation of novel oxazolidinones. The primary efficacy endpoint is the change in bacterial load, an endpoint conventionally used in shorter dose-finding trials. Long-term follow-up after shortened treatment is possible through a safety rule excluding slow-and non-responders from potentially poorly performing dosages. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DECODE was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov before recruitment start on 22 October 2021 (NCT04550832)