Treatment outcomes 24 months after initiating short, all-oral bedaquiline-containing or injectable-containing rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis treatment regimens in South Africa: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".