MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Bedaquiline Adherence Predicts Retention-in-Care in Patients With Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis and HIV

2025· article· en· W4410269180 on OpenAlexaff
Simon W. Lam, Allison Wolf, Xuan Lu, Jennifer Zelnick, K. Rivet Amico, Kevin Guzman, Rubeshan Perumal, Mbawe Zulu, G. Friedland, Amrita Daftary, Boitumelo Seepamore, Kogieleum Naidoo, Martin O’Donnell

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBedaquilineTuberculosisHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Drug resistant tuberculosisDrug resistanceDrugMedication adherenceAntiretroviral drugIntensive care medicineMycobacterium tuberculosisAntiretroviral therapyViral loadVirologyInternal medicinePharmacologyMicrobiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract RATIONALE: While non-adherence to medication is a well-known challenge in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment, the link between adherence and loss to retention in care remains underexplored in high-burden settings. Adherence has been difficult to study due to the lack of real-time monitoring tools. With the adoption of bedaquiline (BDQ)-based all-oral regimens, research is crucial to identifying populations at higher risk of treatment interruption. We hypothesized that adherence measured using mHealth will predict retention in care, and pill-to-pill BDQ adherence will be independently associated with retention in care. METHODS: People with MDR-TB and HIV on ART starting BDQ-based regimens were prospectively enrolled from 2016 to 2020 in South Africa. BDQ adherence was measured using electronic dose monitoring (Wisepill RT2000) for 6 months, and participants were followed monthly until treatment completion (up to 24 months). Adherence was estimated based on recorded versus expected pill box openings and 6-month cumulative adherence was classified as low (<90%) or high (≥90%). Stratified Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed with differences assessed using log-rank p test. Logistic regression identified the effect of adherence on end-of-treatment retention, with the model's strength of association calculated using ROC analysis. Cox proportional hazards were utilized to predict the risk of non-retention, with adherence as a covariate among other confounders gathered from prior literature. RESULTS: Patients with high BDQ adherence had significantly better retention in care (89%) compared to those with lower adherence (66%) (p < 0.0001) at the end of treatment. Although adherence was assessed over the first six months, the gap in retention continued to widen. Logistic regression suggested that higher cumulative adherence strongly predicted end-of-treatment retention, with an odds ratio of 1.05 (95% CI 1.038-1.083) per percentile increase in adherence and an AUC of 0.759, indicating good model accuracy. Key confounders, including DOT presence, severe adverse effects, age, gender, and socioeconomic factors, were also identified. After adjustment, both higher adherence and older age significantly reduced loss to retention in care (p = 0.018 and p = 0.006, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore the pivotal role of adherence in MDR-TB treatment. High BDQ adherence not only serves as a strong predictor of MDR-TB treatment outcome but also identifies individuals at risk for loss of retention in care. Early identification of adherence challenges can help direct interventions to support adherence and may reduce risks of treatment failure, drug resistance, and mortality associated with MDR-TB.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment→French-language works237,207→