MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411405426 · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(25)00218-x

Treatment outcomes of bedaquiline-resistant tuberculosis: a retrospective and matched cohort study

2025· article· en· W4411405426 on OpenAlexaff
Lindokuhle Mdlenyani, Zahraa Mohamed, Jacob A M Stadler, Nomfuneko Mtwa, Graeme Meintjes, Robin M. Warren, Matthew J Saunders, Johanna Kuhlin, Sean Wasserman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Infectious Diseases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersNational Institutes of HealthSvenska LäkaresällskapetHjärt-LungfondenMedical Research CouncilDepartment of Science and Technology, Republic of South AfricaSouth African Medical Research CouncilNational Research FoundationWellcome TrustNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsBedaquilineMedicineTuberculosisCulture conversionInternal medicineHazard ratioClofazimineRetrospective cohort studyRifampicinCohortSputum cultureSurgerySputumMycobacterium tuberculosisConfidence intervalImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rising prevalence of bedaquiline resistance undermines benefits from this life-saving drug for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (RR tuberculosis). Despite increasing awareness, patient-level outcomes for bedaquiline-resistant tuberculosis have not been well characterised and case management has been poorly defined. METHODS: We did a retrospective cohort study of bedaquiline-resistant tuberculosis with matched RR tuberculosis controls at a tuberculosis referral hospital in East London, South Africa. Cases included patients aged 13 years or older with a phenotypic bedaquiline-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolate identified between Jan 1, 2018 and June 30, 2023. Controls with confirmed bedaquiline-susceptible tuberculosis, matched 1:1 by baseline culture status, age, and HIV status, were selected from a prospective observational study conducted during an overlapping period at the same facility. Primary outcomes included time to sputum culture conversion (SCC), a modified WHO-defined unfavourable outcome, and tuberculosis-free survival (alive, with SCC, and in care or treatment completed) up until 18 months. Adjusted analyses used Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models. FINDINGS: 82 patients with bedaquiline-resistant tuberculosis were included, 57 (70%) of whom were HIV positive. Bedaquiline was prescribed for 72 (88%) of 82 patients and meropenem (plus amoxicillin-clavulanate) for 32 (39%) of 82. Together with bedaquiline, the most frequently prescribed drugs included clofazimine, linezolid, and terizidone. Median time to SCC after treatment initiation was 175 days (IQR 100-254) in the bedaquiline-resistant cohort and 32 days (30-42) in matched controls. In the analysis of the combined cohorts, bedaquiline resistance (adjusted hazard ratio 0·03, 95% CI 0·0023-0·29, p=0·003) was associated with longer time to SCC when adjusted for baseline microscopy grade and baseline fluoroquinolone resistance. WHO treatment outcomes in those with bedaquiline-resistant tuberculosis were unfavourable in 54 (67%) of 81 patients, driven by treatment failure in 35 (43%) of 81. At 18 months, 43 (52%) of 82 patients had reached tuberculosis-free survival, 19 (23%) of 82 had died, and 50 (79%) of 63 survivors were still on treatment. INTERPRETATION: Current treatment options for bedaquiline-resistant tuberculosis result in prolonged therapy, delayed microbiological responses, and poor clinical outcomes. Implementation of more rapid resistance testing, including targeted next-generation sequencing, and access to novel treatment options within randomised controlled trials for bedaquiline-resistant tuberculosis, are priorities for tuberculosis programmes. FUNDING: The South African Medical Research Council.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Infectious DiseasesSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207