Mycobacteriology and Aerobic Actinomycetes

Mycobactericidal Effects of Different Regimens Measured by Molecular Bacterial Load Assay among People Treated for Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Tanzania

Peter M. Mbelele, Emmanuel A. Mpolya, Elingarami Sauli, Bariki Mtafya, Nyanda E. Ntinginya, Kennedy K. Addo, Katharina Kreppel, Sayoki Mfinanga, Patrick P. J. Phillips, Stephen H. Gillespie, Scott K. Heysell, Wilber Sabiiti, Stellah G. Mpagama
Christine Y. Turenne, Editor
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02927-20

ABSTRACT

Rifampin or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (RR/MDR-TB) treatment has largely transitioned to regimens free of the injectable aminoglycoside component, despite the drug class’ purported bactericidal activity early in treatment. We tested whether Mycobacterium tuberculosis killing rates measured by tuberculosis molecular bacterial load assay (TB-MBLA) in sputa correlate with composition of the RR/MDR-TB regimen. Serial sputa were collected from patients with RR/MDR- and drug-sensitive TB at days 0, 3, 7, and 14, and then monthly for 4 months of anti-TB treatment. TB-MBLA was used to quantify viable M. tuberculosis 16S rRNA in sputum for estimation of colony forming units per ml (eCFU/ml). M. tuberculosis killing rates were compared among regimens using nonlinear-mixed-effects modeling of repeated measures. Thirty-seven patients produced 296 serial sputa and received treatment as follows: 13 patients received an injectable bedaquiline-free reference regimen, 9 received an injectable bedaquiline-containing regimen, 8 received an all-oral bedaquiline-based regimen, and 7 patients were treated for drug-sensitive TB with conventional rifampin/isoniazid/pyrazinamide/ethambutol (RHZE). Compared to the adjusted M. tuberculosis killing of −0.17 (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.23 to −0.12) for the injectable bedaquiline-free reference regimen, the killing rates were −0.62 (95% CI −1.05 to −0.20) log10 eCFU/ml for the injectable bedaquiline-containing regimen (P = 0.019), −0.35 (95% CI −0.65 to −0.13) log10 eCFU/ml for the all-oral bedaquiline-based regimen (P = 0.054), and −0.29 (95% CI −0.78 to +0.22) log10 eCFU/ml for the RHZE regimen (P = 0.332). Thus, M. tuberculosis killing rates from sputa were higher among patients who received bedaquiline but were further improved with the addition of an injectable aminoglycoside.

INTRODUCTION

Measurement of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) treatment response in areas of endemicity largely depends on sputum smear microscopy (1). While the sputum smear microscopy detection threshold is at least 103 Mycobacterium tuberculosis colony forming units in 1 ml (CFU/ml) of sputum sample, many patients with PTB, such as those with human immunodeficiency virus and AIDS (HIV/AIDS), present with paucibacillary disease and may be unable to produce a good quality sputum for detection of acid-fast bacilli (AFB) (2, 3). Besides, microscopy does not distinguish viable from nonviable M. tuberculosis and therefore does not inform how patients with rifampin- and/or multidrug-resistant (RR/MDR)-TB respond to treatment (3). Patients with RR/MDR-TB are typically monitored for cultured growth in Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) solid medium or the Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) liquid culture system. This culture system is sensitive, with a detection limit of 10 to 100 CFU/ml of sputum, yet it is also prone to contamination and can take up to 8 weeks to determine a definitive positive or negative result, thereby limiting the ability to take appropriate and timely clinical action (4).

The DNA-based methods, such as Xpert MTB/RIF (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) and line probe assays (LPA) like genotype MTBDRplus/sl (Hain Lifescience GmbH, Nehren, Germany) are rapid in detecting M. tuberculosis compared to culture-based methods (5, 6). Nevertheless, DNA of M. tuberculosis can persist in a patient’s sputum for a prolonged time after successful treatment (7, 8). Even if the sputum sample is pretreated with propidium monoazide (Biotium Inc., Hayward, CA, USA), a chemical substance previously known to bind the DNA of dead bacilli, the Xpert MTB/RIF (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) cannot distinguish viable from nonviable DNA of M. tuberculosis (9, 10). Therefore, DNA-based assays are not suitable for monitoring TB treatment response. Fortunately, there is growing evidence that RNA can serve as a surrogate biomarker for microbial viability (11–13), and therefore can be used for monitoring TB treatment response (14, 15). TB molecular bacterial load assay (TB-MBLA) was first reported in 2011 as a biomarker for drug-sensitive TB treatment response and proved a robust measure in different settings (14, 16). TB-MBLA is a real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) assay that detects and quantifies killing of 16S rRNA from both viable replicating and dormant M. tuberculosis in patient sputum during treatment (14). It is rapid and results are available within 24 h, thereby allowing informed clinical assessment of patient progress (14, 17). TB-MBLA was found to be consistently read as positive for samples with as low as 10 CFU/ml of M. tuberculosis. This bacterial load corresponds to a RT-qPCR quantification cycle (Cq) value of 30, the limit of quantification for positive M. tuberculosis (14). Therefore, TB-MBLA has the potential to replace or complement both smear microscopy and culture for monitoring TB treatment response (14, 16, 18).

Because the treatment is difficult and complex, more that 40% of patients treated for RR/MDR-TB in 2019 worldwide had an unfavorable treatment outcome (19). However, the 10-year RR/MDR-TB treatment success, defined as the total number of patients who achieve microbiological cure and those who complete the treatment regimen, has been consistently above 75% in Tanzania (20). During this decade, the injectable aminoglycoside class of antibiotics, such as kanamycin, has been one of the backbones of RR/MDR-TB treatment regimens (21). Because administering injectable aminoglycoside is not only invasive to patients but is also associated with severe adverse events, including ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity (22, 23), the WHO has endorsed a transition from injectable to all-oral MDR-TB treatment regimens (24). To align with this transition, countries where TB is endemic, including Tanzania, have recently adopted new and repurposed TB medicines, such as bedaquiline, delamanid, and linezolid, and constructed regimens with limited microbiological evidence of effectiveness in patients with RR/MDR-TB. Hence, we deployed TB-MBLA to describe killing of M. tuberculosis in patients receiving RR/MDR-TB and drug-susceptible TB (DS-TB) treatment. We tested the hypothesis that M. tuberculosis killing rates from the sputum, as measured by TB-MBLA, not only correlated with time-to-culture conversion but were dependent upon the composition of the RR/MDR-TB antibiotic regimen.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients and ethical considerations.From August 2018 to December 2019, two populations of patients with TB participated in this study. The primary target population was patients with RR/MDR-TB. A small population of patients with DS-TB was included as a control to inform the reproducibility of previous TB-MBLA study findings (14, 16). Rifampin susceptibility in M. tuberculosis was confirmed using Xpert MTB/RIF (25). Moreover, all patients harbored M. tuberculosis that was deemed susceptible to fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides by line probe assay (Hain, LifeScience, Germany), the genotype MTBDRsl version 2.0 (26). The study included all patients aged at least 18 years who were able to expectorate and provide quality early morning sputum. Quality sputum was defined by an adequate volume of >5 ml and absence of food particles. No sputum induction was done to patients who were unable to provide quality sputum. Critically ill or moribund patients, as previously defined by Robertson et al. (27), and pregnant women were excluded. Additionally, patients who interrupted treatment were excluded from the final analysis. Prior to any study procedure, all patients signed a witnessed oral or written informed consent. The study was approved by the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) in Tanzania (NIMR/HQ/R.8a/Vol. IX/2662). Permission to conduct the study was granted by authorities of the Kibong’oto Infectious Diseases Hospital (KIDH).

Study design and treatment regimens.This was a longitudinal cohort study design where each patient was followed for 16 weeks of anti-TB treatment. The treatment regimens for patients with RR/MDR-TB were as follows: (i) an injectable but bedaquiline-free regimen composed of daily dosed kanamycin (15 mg/kg), levofloxacin (750 mg for patients weighing <50 kg and 1,000 mg for those weighing ≥50 kg), pyrazinamide (25 mg/kg), ethionamide (750 mg), and cycloserine (750 mg); (ii) an all-oral based regimen composed of bedaquiline (400 mg daily for 2 weeks, and then 200 mg thrice per week), linezolid (600 mg/day), levofloxacin, pyrazinamide, and ethionamide; (iii) an injectable bedaquiline-containing regimen composed of kanamycin, bedaquiline, levofloxacin, pyrazinamide, and ethionamide; and (iv) a standard fixed-dose combination containing rifampin (150 mg), isoniazid (75 mg), pyrazinamide (400 mg), and ethambutol (275 mg), termed RHZE, for patients with DS-TB. Patients weighing <50 kg received three tablets of RHZE and those weighing ≥50 kg received four tablets of RHZE per day.

Study setting.Patients were recruited at Kibong’oto Infectious Diseases Hospital, a national center of excellence for clinical management of drug resistant (DR)-TB located in the Siha district of the Kilimanjaro region in Tanzania (25). TB-MBLA testing was performed at the National Institute for Medical Research, Mbeya Medical Research Centre branch, given that laboratory’s prior experience with the assay.

Sample size determination.The numbers of patients required to determine differences in bactericidal activity over time in 4 treatment regimens were calculated as previously reported by Guo et al. (28). We assumed a Spearman correlation of 0.51 and a baseline M. tuberculosis burden of 5.5 log10 eCFU/ml, as well as daily M. tuberculosis decline and decay rate of 0.42 and 0.05 log10 eCFU/ml, respectively (14, 16). Hence, at least 7 patients were needed per regimen to reach a power of 80% with a two-sided type I error of 5%. Adjusting for least 25% of patients who were likely to be lost to follow-up, not evaluated due to negative microbiological results at baseline, and/or died, a minimum of 37 patients was desirable for sampling and analyzing at the end of 4 months of treatment.

Sputum collection, processing, and culturing of M. tuberculosis.One sample of approximately 5 ml of early morning sputum was collected from each patient for laboratory testing at day 0 (baseline) and at days 3, 7, 14, 28, 56, 84, and 112 of anti-TB treatment. Before culturing, sputum was homogenized using a sterile magnetic stirrer at room temperature for 30 min. Then, 1 ml of homogenized sputum was treated using 4 ml of 4 M guanidine thiocyanate (GTC) containing 1 M Tris-HCl (pH 7.5) and 1% (vol/vol) of β-mercaptoethanol, and was frozen at −80°C in order to preserve the M. tuberculosis RNA from degrading. The M. tuberculosis culture was performed on LJ slants from the remaining sputum samples collected at six time points from days 0, 14, 28, 56, 84, and 112 of treatment, as per previous description (29). In brief, sputum was decontaminated by N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NALC)-NaOH, and finally resuspended in 1 ml of phosphate buffer. A total of 200 μl of decontaminated sputum was inoculated into two LJ slants and incubated for up to 8 weeks to detect mycobacterial growth. Incubated LJ slants were read on a weekly basis and were deemed negative if there was no growth at week 8.

RNA extraction and RT-qPCR for TB-MBLA.M. tuberculosis quantification by TB-MBLA was performed as described by Gillespie et al. (30). In summary, M. tuberculosis RNA in 1 ml of homogenized sputum preserved in 4 ml of guanidine thiocyanate (GTC) at −80°C was extracted using the RNA pro kit (FastRNA Pro BlueKit; MP Biomedical, CA, USA) as instructed by the manufacturer. The extract was treated with DNase I enzyme (TURBO DNA-free kit; Ambion, CA, USA) to remove DNA from the dead cells. The M. tuberculosis 16S rRNA, a biomarker for viable cells, was amplified and quantified by RT-qPCR using specific primers and probes. The Cq was translated to bacterial load (estimated CFU per ml [eCFU/ml]) using a standard curve on a Rotor gene Q 5plex platform (Qiagen). The cutoff for TB-MBLA positivity was a 30 Cq value that corresponds to 1.0 log10 eCFU/ml, beyond which the test was considered negative (16, 30).

Statistical analysis.Data were recorded in a clinical case report form, entered, and cleaned before statistical analysis. Patients who completed 8 treatment visits and had positive pretreatment TB-MBLA results were analyzed and visualized in R softward version 4.0.2 (http://www.R-project.org). Continuous variables, such as age, body mass index (BMI) in kg/m2, and time to TB-MBLA negativity were described by the median with the 25th and 75th interquartile range (IQR), and were compared across different regimens using a Kruskal-Wallis test. Accordingly, proportions for HIV status, gender, cavitary lung disease on chest, and previous TB treatment were compared across different regimens using a chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. Using baseline bacterial load, chest cavity, HIV, silicosis, and gender as fixed effects, the rate of M. tuberculosis killing (log10eCFU/ml) was fitted on quartic polynomial nonlinear mixed effects (NLME) for repeated measures as previously described (31, 32). Individual patients were accounted for random effect. A model was reliably selected if it had low Akaike information criterion but high intraclass correlation coefficient (Table 1). The mean difference in M. tuberculosis load, due to two different regimens received by patients at the end of 4 months of treatment, was compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test for repeated measures (33). An injectable regimen without bedaquiline was used as a reference regimen. The median time to TB-MBLA and culture conversion to negative was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and was compared across different regimens using a log rank test (34). Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) for M. tuberculosis killing, and was adjusted for the effects of HIV, baseline bacillary load, cavitary disease, silicosis, gender, history of treatment for drug-sensitive TB, and clearance rate. We computed an overall mean M. tuberculosis load of 4.0 log10 eCFU/ml, and it was used to categorize a patient’s bacterial load as “high bacterial load” versus “low bacterial load” depending on whether patients had detectable M. tuberculosis above or below this mean, respectively. A P value of <0.05 was considered significant. A 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean clearance rate and HR was included.

View this table:
TABLE 1

Fitting and selection of a reliable polynomial nonlinear mixed effects model for repeated measuresa

RESULTS

Population.Of 59 patients enrolled, 37 patients produced a total of 296 serial sputa for final analysis. Reasons for exclusion and patient’s distribution are outlined in Fig. 1. Among 296 serial sputa analyzed, 104 sputa came from 13 patients who received an injectable but bedaquiline-free regimen, 72 sputa were from 9 patients who received an injectable bedaquiline-containing regimen, 64 from 8 patients who received an all-oral bedaquiline-based regimen, and 56 sputa from 7 patients who were treated for drug-sensitive TB with conventional RHZE. Clinical and demographic parameters are presented in Table 2. Twenty-seven (73%) out of 37 patients were male. Their median (IQR) age was 37 (32 to 49) years. Patients who received standard RHZE treatment were younger than those who received RR/MDR-TB treatment regimens (P = 0.038). Also, 11 (30%) patients were living with HIV with a CD4 T cell count of 208 (95% CI 144 to 272) cells/μl. More patients with HIV received an all-oral than injectable-based treatment regimen (P = 0.001).

FIG 1
FIG 1

Recruitment and patient distribution into different treatment regimens. Patients with drug-sensitive (DS) and rifampin/multidrug-resistant (RR/MDR)-TB were recruited and treated using different anti-TB treatment regimens. Regimens included (i) standard RHZE composed of rifampin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol; (ii) injectable bedaquiline (BDQ)-free regimen composed of kanamycin (KAN), levofloxacin (LFX), pyrazinamide (PZA), ethionamide (ETH), and cycloserine (CS); (iii) injectable BDQ-containing regimen composed of KAN, BDQ, LFX, PZA, and ETH; and (iv) all-oral BDQ regimen contained BDQ, LFX, linezolid (LZD), PZA, and ETH. Among other criteria, 11 out of 59 patients recruited had negative TB molecular bacterial load assay (TB-MBLA) results at baseline and were excluded from the final analysis.

View this table:
TABLE 2

Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of patients per treatment regimena

Mycobactericidal activities of different regimens over time.The M. tuberculosis load measured by TB-MBLA and culturing in Fig. 2 decreased significantly over time (R = −0.77, P < 0.001). The mean M. tuberculosis load in log10 eCFU/ml (95% CI) was reduced from 5.19 (4.40 to 5.78) at baseline to 3.10 (2.70 to 3.50) at day 14, then to 2.52 (2.13 to 2.90) at day 28, 1.88 (1.53 to 2.22) at day 56, and <1.36 (1.03 to 1.70) at day 84 through 112 of treatment. The overall mean daily M. tuberculosis killing was −0.24 (95% CI −0.39 to −0.08) log10 eCFU/ml, and it varied with treatment regimen (Table 3, P < 0.001). An injectable bedaquiline-containing regimen had the highest mean M. tuberculosis killing rate, followed by an all-oral bedaquiline-based regimen compared to the injectable but bedaquiline-free reference regimen (Table 3, P = 0.019). Kanamycin-containing regimens in Fig. 3 had rapid bactericidal activity at day 14, but this was not translated into long-term bactericidal effect (P < 0.001). An all-oral bedaquiline-based regimen had a sharp decline after day 28.

FIG 2
FIG 2

M. tuberculosis killing during the first 4 months of anti-TB treatment. The plots show M. tuberculosis (Mtb) kinetics as measured by TB-MBLA during treatment with different anti-TB regimens. The dotted line is the cutoff value for a positive TB-MBLA test. (A) Overall time-dependent decline of M. tuberculosis load in estimated CFU per 1 ml (eCFU/ml) of sputum between patients as measured by TB-MBLA. (B) Delineation of this decline as measure by both TB-MBLA and Lowenstein-Jensen culture. Overall, bacterial load at baseline has a strong positive correlation with median time to sputum conversion to negative by both TB-MBLA and culture. Patients with higher bacterial load at baseline had a later culture conversion to negative than those with lower baseline loads. (C to F) M. tuberculosis decline in eCFU/ml among patients treated with standard RHZE (C); injectable bedaquiline-free regimen containing kanamycin (KAN), levofloxacin (LFX), pyrazinamide (PZA), ethionamide (ETH), and cycloserine (CS) (D); injectable bedaquiline-containing regimen was composed of KAN, bedaquiline (BDQ), LFX, PZA and ETH (E); and an all-oral bedaquiline regimen containing BDQ, LFX, linezolid (LZD), PZA, and ETH (F).

FIG 3
FIG 3

Kaplan-Meier curves showing median time to M. tuberculosis killing in patient sputum per treatment regimen. The dotted lines denote the median time to TB-MBLA conversion from positive to negative. Bedaquiline-containing regimens had short median time to TB-MBLA conversion to negative compared to the injectable but bedaquiline-free regimen containing kanamycin (KAN), levofloxacin (LFX), pyrazinamide (PZA), ethionamide (ETH), and cycloserine (CS). Injectable bedaquiline-containing regimen was composed of KAN, bedaquiline (BDQ), LFX, PZA, and ETH. The all-oral bedaquiline regimen was composed of BDQ, LFX, linezolid (LZD), PZA, and ETH. Standard RHZE was composed of rifampin, isoniazid, PZA, and ethambutol.

View this table:
TABLE 3

Mean daily M. tuberculosis killing rates (log10 eCFU/ml) and corresponding burden at day 0 (baseline) and day 112 of treatment

Median time to M. tuberculosis killing.There was strong positive correlation in time to sputum conversion between TB-MBLA and culture (r = 0.46 [95% CI 0.36 to 0.55]; P < 0.001). The overall median time to sputum TB-MBLA conversion to negative was 56 (IQR 28 to 84) days. The median times to TB-MBLA conversion to negative were 28, 42, and 84 days among patients on injectable bedaquiline, an all-oral bedaquiline-based regimen, and injectable but bedaquiline-free regimens, respectively. Irrespective of treatment regimen, 92% (34/37) of patients had negative culture results compared to 65% (24/37) of negative TB-MBLA at day 56 (P = 0.037). The number of patients who converted to sputum negative by culture and TB-MBLA per treatment regimen is shown in Fig. 4. Among 13 patients who received the injectable but bedaquiline-free regimen, 2 and 7 of them remained culture and TB-MBLA positive, respectively, whereas all 8 patients who received injectable bedaquiline-containing regimens had negative LJ culture and TB-MBLA at day 56 (Fig. 4A to D). Favorably, all patients on injectable bedaquiline for MDR-TB and standard RHZE regimen for DS-TB had negative TB-MBLA at days 56 and 84, respectively. Compared to 31% (4/13) of patients who received an injectable but bedaquiline-free regimen, only 11% (1/9) of those who received an all-oral bedaquiline-containing regimen remained positive TB-MBLA but negative LJ culture at day 112 of treatment (Fig. 4A and B versus Fig.4E and F; P = 0.283).

FIG 4
FIG 4

Number of patients who converted to negative by TB-MBLA and Lowenstein-Jensen culture during the first 4 months of treatment with different anti-TB regimens. The overall sputum conversion from positive to negative TB-MBLA and LJ culture results had the same trend in four different regimens. At recruitment (day 0), all 37 patients had positive results for TB by TB-MBLA and culture (MBLA+, LJ+). Both TB-MBLA and culture tests were negative (MBLA−, LJ−) at days 56 and 84, respectively, in all patients on either injectable plus bedaquiline (B) or standard RHZE (D) composed of rifampin, isoniazid, PZA, and ethambutol. A total of 3 patients who received the injectable bedaquiline-free regimen (A), together with 1 patient on the all-oral bedaquiline regimen (C), remained TB-MBLA positive but culture negative (MBLA+, LJ−).

Hazard ratios of M. tuberculosis killing.The overall mean M. tuberculosis load log10 eCFU/ml at baseline was 5.19 (95% CI 4.40 to 5.78), and was similar in all patients treated with any of the 4 regimens (Table 3, P = 0.453). The mean M. tuberculosis load (log10 eCFU/ml) among female patients was 5.6 (95% CI 5.0 to 6.2) log10 eCFU/ml compared to 4.7 (95% CI 4.3 to 5.2) log10 eCFU/ml among male patients (P = 0.017). Patients with chest cavity had mean M. tuberculosis load of 5.26 (95% CI 4.45 to 5.87) compared to 4.40 (95% CI 3.91 to 4.75) log10 eCFU/ml in those without cavity (P = 0.080). Adjusting for bacterial load, initial killing rate, silicosis, chest cavity, HIV status, and gender, the hazard ratios (HR) for M. tuberculosis killing were 12.37 (95% CI 2.87 to 53.30; P = 0.001) and 14.31 (95% CI 3.49 to 58.65; P < 0.001) for patients who received an all-oral bedaquiline versus injectable bedaquiline-containing regimens, respectively (Table 4). Bacterial load at baseline strongly correlated positively with median time to sputum conversion to negative measured by both TB-MBLA and culture (r = 0.48 [95% CI 0.18 to 0.69]; P = 0.003). High M. tuberculosis load and TB with silicosis were independent predictors of slow M. tuberculosis killing compared to low M. tuberculosis load and TB without silicosis (Table 4, P ≤ 0.033).

View this table:
TABLE 4

Hazard ratio (HR) of M. tuberculosis killing in a Cox proportion-hazard model

DISCUSSION

This study shows for the first time to our knowledge that the killing rates of M. tuberculosis in patients treated for RR/MDR-TB, as well as those with concomitant TB with silicosis, varies with treatment regimens. As measured by TB-MBLA, M. tuberculosis decreased significantly over time on treatment, and this kinetic correlated with what was observed using LJ culture medium. For decades, culture has been used as a routine microbiological tool for monitoring drug-resistant TB treatment response (15, 35), but in many settings with endemic TB, culture is unavailable or limited to specialized centers. Importantly, culture results can take up to 8 weeks from the time of sputum collection, which delays patient care if a treatment decision is made based on a result from a specimen collected 2 months earlier. Given the continued decentralization of RR/MDR-TB services in Tanzania and elsewhere, monitoring treatment response in laboratories capable of performing qPCR, such as with Xpert MTB/RIF, will allow laboratory assays to impact treatment decisions closer to the point-of-care. Therefore, this study in RR/MDR-TB complements the growing evidence supporting the application of TB-MBLA in routine clinical management (14, 16, 36).

Interestingly, our findings suggest that bactericidal activity at day 14 may not be a suitable predictor of the long-term efficacy of a regimen, particularly when that regimen contains bedaquiline. In this cohort at day 14, more than 75% of people had a positive TB-MBLA and more than half had a positive culture result. However, between 14 and 56 days we observed substantial M. tuberculosis killing in those treated with a bedaquiline-containing regimens, suggesting that evaluation of bactericidal activity be performed later, such as at day 56, for modern RR/MDR-TB regimens. Using culture, one previous phase 2b clinical trial reported high bactericidal activity of a bedaquiline-containing regimen in patients with DS- and RR/MDR-TB (37). However, detectable M. tuberculosis beyond day 56 in our study supports this trial’s argument that day 56 is unreliable as an indicator of a regimen’s ability to either predict long-term treatment outcomes or shorten treatment duration (37). This further raises the question of whether TB-MBLA may in fact be a superior predictor to culture.

Another important finding from this study of TB-MBLA is that M. tuberculosis killing kinetics were regimen dependent. Overall, there was rapid and prominent killing of M. tuberculosis at day 14 for patients who received kanamycin regardless of receipt of bedaquiline. However, superior activity of kanamycin-containing regimens at day 14 had no long-term bactericidal effect. As a result, 3 patients on the injectable but bedaquiline-free regimen remained positive by TB-MBLA but negative by LJ culture after 4 months of treatment. On the other hand, patients who received an all-oral bedaquiline-containing regimen achieved these rates of killing at or after 1 month of treatment. This observation concurs with previous reports that the bactericidal activity of bedaquiline in MDR-TB is delayed at the beginning, but accelerates later in therapy (38). Usually, recovery of M. tuberculosis by TB-MBLA correlates better with Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) liquid culture than with LJ solid culture, which may partially explain the discrepancy between the two tests at month 4 of treatment (16). This argument supports previous findings that culturing M. tuberculosis on LJ recovers a lower yield than in MGIT liquid culture (39). Nonetheless, our findings, as measured by TB-MBLA, fit with the pharmacodynamical understanding that kanamycin and other aminoglycoside/polypeptides that are active against mycobacteria will primarily exert their effect against those extracellular organisms that are rapidly dividing, and these may be more abundant early in the treatment course (40, 41).

The shorter overall time to sputum conversion to negative, as measured by TB-MBLA and conventional culture, for all patients who received bedaquiline regardless of kanamycin further supports the argument that bedaquiline should be a cornerstone of regimens designed to shorten the duration of MDR-TB treatment (42). The conventional injectable but bedaquiline-free regimen has been in practice for decades, even though more than 40% of patients treated with this regimen had unfavorable outcomes in settings where TB is endemic (43). Aminoglycosides such as kanamycin are no longer part of the current MDR-TB treatment regimens, not due to lack of bactericidal activity, as our data would suggest the contrary in the early treatment period, but rather because of the significant toxicity and patient intolerance that leads to treatment interruption (24, 44). From a microbiological perspective alone, as demonstrated in this study and others, such as Mpagama et al. (45), and also in a more patient-centered approach, our results demonstrate the potential importance of finding more tolerable substitutes for kanamycin that can match the early bactericidal effect.

The main strength of this study is that we utilized TB-MBLA to model killing rates among patients with RR/MDR-TB and those with TB/silicosis. We have shown that patients with TB/silicosis had slower M. tuberculosis killing rates by TB-MBLA compared to those with TB and without silicosis. This low rate of killing could partially be attributed to the underlying pulmonary pathophysiology, which can include progressive massive fibrosis (46, 47) and a blunted local host immune response to M. tuberculosis infection (46). We observed a similarly lower rate of M. tuberculosis killing among patients with RR/MDR-TB who had high initial bacterial load, which is consistent with previous studies of TB-MBLA kinetics from patients with drug-sensitive TB (14, 16, 36). In this study, approximately 1 and 4 out of 10 patients had, respectively, positive LJ culture and positive TB-MBLA at day 56. This supports the previous argument that TB-MBLA is more sensitive compared to agar-based Loewenstein-Jensen culture, in which the M. tuberculosis population gets lost due to contamination at later time points (18). Limitations of the study include the timing of endpoints, which were limited to 4 months, such that predicting long-term treatment success was beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, modeling M. tuberculosis killing for 4 months as we accomplished here has been used as a marker for treatment failure and relapse in several observational studies (35, 48), and exceeds the duration of monitoring used in other trials of RR/MDR-TB regimens that have employed conventional culture-based techniques (37). Additionally, this study had no control over the treatment regimens prescribed. However, given the feasibility of TB-MBLA and the comparability of this study’s findings to prior studies with TB-MBLA in drug-susceptible TB (16), we plan to apply TB-MBLA systematically within an ongoing operational research protocol for injectable-free RR/MDR-TB treatment in Tanzania that employs standardized regimens over various treatment durations. Lastly, because of the small number of patients per treatment regimen, these findings should be cautiously inferred to other RR/MDR-TB populations. Nevertheless, a longitudinal cohort design in this study allowed control of variabilities between patients, as well as intrapatient tracking of each regimen’s bactericidal activities over time (28, 49).

In conclusion, patients who received bedaquiline-containing regimens exhibited higher M. tuberculosis killing rates and had shorter time to sputum TB-MBLA and culture conversion to negative. While both kanamycin-containing regimens had superior bactericidal activity during the first 2 weeks of RR/MDR-TB treatment, the addition of bedaquiline allowed for improved killing after 1 month of therapy. Together, these findings provide insight into formulating optimal all-oral bedaquiline-containing regimens with the best potential to shorten duration of MDR-TB treatment (37, 44, 50). Given that TB-MBLA does not require laboratory procedures associated with culture and the prolonged time to receive a culture-based result, we envision it can be used to make regimen adjustments in the presence of anti-TB drug susceptibility testing results.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study received financial support from the EDCTP2 program supported by the European Union project (grant number TMA2016SF-1463-REMODELTZ) and DELTAS Africa Initiative (Afrique One-ASPIRE/DEL-15-008). The Afrique One-ASPIRE is funded by a consortium of donors, including the African Academy of Sciences, Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in Africa, the New Partnership for Africa's Development Planning and Coordinating Agency, the Wellcome Trust (107753/A/15/Z), and the UK Government. The funding bodies had no role in the conceptualization, methodology, data interpretation, or writing of the manuscript.

We acknowledge Batuli Mono, Taji Mnzava, Joseph Kachala, and Bibie Said of KIDH for their assistance with recruitment and data collection from study participants. We also thank Elisha S. Juma and Sarapia P. Malya of KIDH, and Emmanuel Sichone and Joseph John of NIMR Mbeya for assisting with laboratory work. In addition, we also acknowledge the KIDH administration for granting permission to conduct this study.

We have no conflicts of interest to declare.

P.M.M., E.A.M., E.S., W.S., K.K.A., S.M., and S.G.M. conceived and designed the study. P.M.M. and B.M. acquired data. P.M.M., B.M., E.A.M., E.S., W.S., and S.G.M. interpreted the clinical and TB-MBLA results. P.M.M., K.K., E.A.M., P.P.J.P., W.S., and S.G.M. analyzed the data. P.M.M. drafted the manuscript and responded to all coauthors’ inputs. S.H.G., K.K.A., S.M., N.E.N., and S.K.H. reviewed the manuscript. All authors wrote, approved, and agreed to be accountable for all scientific aspects in the final version of the manuscript.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 19 November 2020.
    • Returned for modification 12 January 2021.
    • Accepted 28 January 2021.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 3 February 2021.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Mitnick CD,
    2. White RA,
    3. Lu C,
    4. Rodriguez CA,
    5. Bayona J,
    6. Becerra MC,
    7. Burgos M,
    8. Centis R,
    9. Cohen T,
    10. Cox H,
    11. D’Ambrosio L,
    12. Danilovitz M,
    13. Falzon D,
    14. Gelmanova IY,
    15. Gler MT,
    16. Grinsdale JA,
    17. Holtz TH,
    18. Keshavjee S,
    19. Leimane V,
    20. Menzies D,
    21. Migliori GB,
    22. Milstein MB,
    23. Mishustin SP,
    24. Pagano M,
    25. Quelapio MI,
    26. Shean K,
    27. Shin SS,
    28. Tolman AW,
    29. Van Der Walt ML,
    30. Van Deun A,
    31. Viiklepp P,
    32. Ahuja SD,
    33. Andreev YG,
    34. Ashkin D,
    35. Avendano M,
    36. Banerjee R,
    37. Bauer M,
    38. Benedetti A,
    39. Brand J,
    40. Chan ED,
    41. Chiang CY,
    42. DeRiemer K,
    43. Dung NH,
    44. Enarson D,
    45. Flanagan K,
    46. Flood J,
    47. García-García L,
    48. Gandhi N,
    49. Granich RM,
    50. Hollm-Delgado MG
    , Collaborative Group for Analysis of Bacteriology Data in MDR-TB Treatment, et al. 2016. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment failure detection depends on monitoring interval and microbiological method. Eur Respir J 48:1160–1170. doi:10.1183/13993003.00462-2016.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Park JH,
    2. Choe J,
    3. Bae M,
    4. Choi S,
    5. Jung KH,
    6. Kim MJ,
    7. Chong YP,
    8. Lee SO,
    9. Choi SH,
    10. Kim YS,
    11. Woo JH,
    12. Jo KW,
    13. Shim TS,
    14. Kim MY,
    15. Kim SH
    . 2019. Clinical characteristics and radiologic features of immunocompromised patients with pauci-bacillary pulmonary tuberculosis receiving delayed diagnosis and treatment. Open Forum Infect Dis 6:ofz002. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofz002.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Das P,
    2. Ganguly SB,
    3. Mandal B
    . 2019. Sputum smear microscopy in tuberculosis: it is still relevant in the era of molecular diagnosis when seen from the public health perspective. Biomed Biotechnol Res J 3:77–79. doi:10.4103/bbrj.bbrj_54_19.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. van Zyl-Smit RN,
    2. Binder A,
    3. Meldau R,
    4. Mishra H,
    5. Semple PL,
    6. Theron G,
    7. Peter J,
    8. Whitelaw A,
    9. Sharma SK,
    10. Warren R,
    11. Bateman ED,
    12. Dheda K
    . 2011. Comparison of quantitative techniques including Xpert MTB/RIF to evaluate mycobacterial burden. PLoS One 6:e28815. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028815.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    1. Boehme CC,
    2. Nicol MP,
    3. Nabeta P,
    4. Michael JS,
    5. Gotuzzo E,
    6. Tahirli R,
    7. Gler MT,
    8. Blakemore R,
    9. Worodria W,
    10. Gray C,
    11. Huang L,
    12. Caceres T,
    13. Mehdiyev R,
    14. Raymond L,
    15. Whitelaw A,
    16. Sagadevan K,
    17. Alexander H,
    18. Albert H,
    19. Cobelens F,
    20. Cox H,
    21. Alland D,
    22. Perkins MD
    . 2011. Feasibility, diagnostic accuracy, and effectiveness of decentralised use of the Xpert MTB/RIF test for diagnosis of tuberculosis and multidrug resistance: a multicentre implementation study. Lancet 377:1495–1505. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60438-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    World Health Organization. 2016. The use of molecular line probe assays for detection of resistance to second line anti-tuberculosis drugs: policy guidance. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
  7. 7.↵
    1. Nicol MP
    . 2013. Xpert MTB/RIF: monitoring response to tuberculosis treatment. Lancet Respir Med 1:427–428. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(13)70133-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Theron G,
    2. Venter R,
    3. Calligaro G,
    4. Smith L,
    5. Limberis J,
    6. Meldau R,
    7. Chanda D,
    8. Esmail A,
    9. Peter J,
    10. Dheda K
    . 2016. Xpert MTB/RIF results in patients with previous tuberculosis: can we distinguish true from false positive results? Clin Infect Dis 62:995–1001. doi:10.1093/cid/civ1223.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Nikolayevskyy V,
    2. Miotto P,
    3. Pimkina E,
    4. Balabanova Y,
    5. Kontsevaya I,
    6. Ignatyeva O,
    7. Ambrosi A,
    8. Skenders G,
    9. Ambrozaitis A,
    10. Kovalyov A,
    11. Sadykhova A,
    12. Simak T,
    13. Kritsky A,
    14. Mironova S,
    15. Tikhonova O,
    16. Dubrovskaya Y,
    17. Rodionova Y,
    18. Cirillo D,
    19. Drobniewski F
    . 2015. Utility of propidium monoazide viability assay as a biomarker for a tuberculosis disease. Tuberculosis (Edinb) 95:179–185. doi:10.1016/j.tube.2014.11.005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Kayigire XA,
    2. Friedrich SO,
    3. Karinja MN,
    4. van der Merwe L,
    5. Martinson NA,
    6. Diacon AH
    . 2016. Propidium monoazide and Xpert MTB/RIF to quantify Mycobacterium tuberculosis cells. Tuberculosis 101:79–84. doi:10.1016/j.tube.2016.08.006.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Cangelosi GA,
    2. Meschke JS
    . 2014. Dead or alive: molecular assessment of microbial viability. Appl Environ Microbiol 80:5884–5891. doi:10.1128/AEM.01763-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Li R,
    2. Tun HM,
    3. Jahan M,
    4. Zhang Z,
    5. Kumar A,
    6. Fernando D,
    7. Farenhorst A,
    8. Khafipour E
    . 2017. Comparison of DNA-, PMA-, and RNA-based 16S rRNA Illumina sequencing for detection of live bacteria in water. Sci Rep 7:5752. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-02516-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    1. Desjardin LE,
    2. Perkins MD,
    3. Wolski K,
    4. Haun S,
    5. Teixeira L,
    6. Chen Y,
    7. Johnson JL,
    8. Ellner JJ,
    9. Dietze R,
    10. Bates J,
    11. Cave MD,
    12. Eisenach KD
    . 1999. Measurement of sputum Mycobacterium tuberculosis messenger RNA as a surrogate for response to chemotherapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 160:203–210. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.160.1.9811006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Honeyborne I,
    2. McHugh TD,
    3. Phillips PPJ,
    4. Bannoo S,
    5. Bateson A,
    6. Carroll N,
    7. Perrin FM,
    8. Ronacher K,
    9. Wright L,
    10. Van Helden PD,
    11. Walzl G,
    12. Gillespie SH
    . 2011. Molecular bacterial load assay, a culture-free biomarker for rapid and accurate quantification of sputum Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacillary load during treatment. J Clin Microbiol 49:3905–3911. doi:10.1128/JCM.00547-11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Rockwood N,
    2. Du Bruyn E,
    3. Morris T,
    4. Wilkinson RJ
    . 2016. Assessment of treatment response in tuberculosis. Expert Rev Respir Med 10:643–654. doi:10.1586/17476348.2016.1166960.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Sabiiti W,
    2. Azam K,
    3. Farmer ECW,
    4. Kuchaka D,
    5. Mtafya B,
    6. Bowness R,
    7. Oravcova K,
    8. Honeyborne I,
    9. Evangelopoulos D,
    10. McHugh TD,
    11. Khosa C,
    12. Rachow A,
    13. Heinrich N,
    14. Kampira E,
    15. Davies G,
    16. Bhatt N,
    17. Ntinginya EN,
    18. Viegas S,
    19. Jani I,
    20. Kamdolozi M,
    21. Mdolo A,
    22. Khonga M,
    23. Boeree MJ,
    24. Phillips PPJ,
    25. Sloan D,
    26. Hoelscher M,
    27. Kibiki G,
    28. Gillespie SH
    . 2020. Tuberculosis bacillary load, an early marker of disease severity: the utility of tuberculosis Molecular Bacterial Load Assay. Thorax 75:606–608. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2019-214238.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Shiferaw MB,
    2. Yismaw G
    . 2019. Magnitude of delayed turnaround time of laboratory results in Amhara Public Health Institute, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. BMC Health Serv Res 19:240. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4077-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Mtafya B,
    2. Sabiiti W,
    3. Sabi I,
    4. John J,
    5. Sichone E,
    6. Ntinginya NE,
    7. Gillespie SH
    . 2019. Molecular bacterial load assay concurs with culture on NaOH-induced loss of Mycobacterium tuberculosis viability. J Clin Microbiol 57:e01992-18. doi:10.1128/JCM.01992-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    World Health Organization. 2020. Global tuberculosis report 2020. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
  20. 20.↵
    1. Leveri TH,
    2. Lekule I,
    3. Mollel E,
    4. Lyamuya F,
    5. Kilonzo K
    . 2019. Predictors of treatment outcomes among multidrug resistant tuberculosis patients in Tanzania. Tuberc Res Treat 2019:3569018. doi:10.1155/2019/3569018.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    World Health Organization. 2014. Companion handbook to the WHO guidelines for the programmatic management of drug-resistant tuberculosis. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
  22. 22.↵
    1. Harris T,
    2. Bardien S,
    3. Simon Schaaf H,
    4. Petersen L,
    5. de Jong G,
    6. Fagan JJ
    . 2012. Aminoglycoside-induced hearing loss in HIV-positive and HIV-negative multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients. S Afr Med J 102:363–366. doi:10.7196/samj.4964.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Perumal R,
    2. Abdelghani N,
    3. Naidu N,
    4. Yende-Zuma N,
    5. Dawood H,
    6. Naidoo K,
    7. Singh N,
    8. Padayatchi N
    . 2018. Risk of nephrotoxicity in patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis treated with Kanamycin/capreomycin with or without concomitant use of tenofovir-containing antiretroviral therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 78:536–542. doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000001705.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    World Health Organization. 2019. WHO consolidated guidelines on drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
  25. 25.↵
    1. Mbelele PM,
    2. Aboud S,
    3. Mpagama SG,
    4. Matee MI
    . 2017. Improved performance of Xpert MTB/RIF assay on sputum sediment samples obtained from presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis cases at Kibong’oto infectious diseases hospital in Tanzania. BMC Infect Dis 17:808. doi:10.1186/s12879-017-2931-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    1. Theron G,
    2. Peter J,
    3. Richardson M,
    4. Warren R,
    5. Dheda K,
    6. Steingart KR
    . 2016. GenoType MTBDRsl assay for resistance to second-line anti-tuberculosis drugs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD010705. doi:10.1002/14651858.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Robertson LC,
    2. Al-Haddad M
    . 2013. Recognizing the critically ill patient. Anaesth Intensive Care Med 14:11–14. doi:10.1016/j.mpaic.2012.11.010.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    1. Guo Y,
    2. Logan HL,
    3. Glueck DH,
    4. Muller KE
    . 2013. Selecting a sample size for studies with repeated measures. BMC Med Res Methodol 13:100. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-100.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Tripathi K,
    2. Tripathi PC,
    3. Nema S,
    4. Shrivastava AK,
    5. Dwiwedi K
    . 2014. Modified Petroff’s method: an excellent simplified decontamination technique in comparison with Petroff’s method. Int J Recent Trends Sci Technol 10:461–464.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Gillespie H,
    2. Stephen SW
    . 2017. Mybacterial load assay. Methods Mol Biol 1616:89–105. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-7037-7_5.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. 31.↵
    1. Rustomjee R,
    2. Lienhardt C,
    3. Kanyok T,
    4. Davies GR,
    5. Levin J,
    6. Mthiyane T,
    7. Reddy C,
    8. Sturm AW,
    9. Sirgel FA,
    10. Allen J,
    11. Coleman DJ,
    12. Fourie B,
    13. Mitchison DA,
    14. Bah-Sow OY,
    15. Diop H,
    16. Fielding K,
    17. Gninafon M,
    18. Mitchison D,
    19. Lienhardt C,
    20. Odhiambo J,
    21. Perronne C,
    22. Portaels F,
    23. Rustomjee R,
    24. Ramjee A,
    25. Master I,
    26. Olowolagba A,
    27. Chinappa T,
    28. Osburne G,
    29. Bamber S,
    30. Pala AS,
    31. Pillay L,
    32. Tembe C,
    33. Mpangase P,
    34. Hadebe T,
    35. Ngcobo CP,
    36. Mkhize Z,
    37. Dlamini CN,
    38. Gill L,
    39. Dube T,
    40. Saul M,
    41. Merle C,
    42. Suma KF
    , Gatifloxacin for TB (OFLOTUB) study team. 2008. A phase II study of the sterilising activities of ofloxacin, gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin in pulmonary tuberculosis. Int J Tuber Lung Dis 12:128–138.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Movshovitz-Hadar N,
    2. Shmukler A
    . 1991. A qualitative study of polynomials in high school. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol 22:523–543. doi:10.1080/0020739910220404.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. 33.↵
    1. Hazra A,
    2. Gogtay N
    . 2016. Biostatistics series module 3: comparing groups: numerical variables. Indian J Dermatol 61:251–260. doi:10.4103/0019-5154.182416.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.↵
    1. Gillespie SH,
    2. Crook AM,
    3. McHugh TD,
    4. Mendel CM,
    5. Meredith SK,
    6. Murray SR,
    7. Pappas F,
    8. Phillips PPJ,
    9. Nunn AJ
    , REMoxTB Consortium. 2014. Four-month moxifloxacin-based regimens for drug-sensitive tuberculosis. N Engl J Med 371:1577–1587. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1407426.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. 35.↵
    1. Goletti D,
    2. Lindestam Arlehamn CS,
    3. Scriba TJ,
    4. Anthony R,
    5. Cirillo DM,
    6. Alonzi T,
    7. Denkinger CM,
    8. Cobelens F
    . 2018. Can we predict tuberculosis cure? What tools are available? Eur Respir J 52:1801089. doi:10.1183/13993003.01089-2018.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Honeyborne I,
    2. Mtafya B,
    3. Phillips PPJ,
    4. Hoelscher M,
    5. Ntinginya EN,
    6. Kohlenberg A,
    7. Rachow A,
    8. Rojas-Ponce G,
    9. McHugh TD,
    10. Heinrich N
    , Pan African Consortium for the Evaluation of Anti-tuberculosis Antibiotics. 2014. The molecular bacterial load assay replaces solid culture for measuring early bactericidal response to antituberculosis treatment. J Clin Microbiol 52:3064–3067. doi:10.1128/JCM.01128-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Tweed CD,
    2. Dawson R,
    3. Burger DA,
    4. Conradie A,
    5. Crook AM,
    6. Mendel CM,
    7. Conradie F,
    8. Diacon AH,
    9. Ntinginya NE,
    10. Everitt DE,
    11. Haraka F,
    12. Li M,
    13. van Niekerk CH,
    14. Okwera A,
    15. Rassool MS,
    16. Reither K,
    17. Sebe MA,
    18. Staples S,
    19. Variava E,
    20. Spigelman M
    . 2019. Bedaquiline, moxifloxacin, pretomanid, and pyrazinamide during the first 8 weeks of treatment of patients with drug-susceptible or drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis: a multicentre, open-label, partially randomised, phase 2b trial. Lancet Respir Med 7:1048–1058. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30366-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.↵
    1. Nguyen TVA,
    2. Cao TBT,
    3. Akkerman OW,
    4. Tiberi S,
    5. Vu DH,
    6. Alffenaar JWC
    . 2016. Bedaquiline as part of combination therapy in adults with pulmonary multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 9:1025–1037. doi:10.1080/17512433.2016.1200462.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    1. Diriba G,
    2. Kebede A,
    3. Yaregal Z,
    4. Getahun M,
    5. Tadesse M,
    6. Meaza A,
    7. Dagne Z,
    8. Moga S,
    9. Dilebo J,
    10. Gudena K,
    11. Hassen M,
    12. Desta K
    . 2017. Performance of Mycobacterium Growth Indicator Tube BACTEC 960 with Lowenstein-Jensen method for diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis at Ethiopian National Tuberculosis Reference Laboratory, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes 10:181. doi:10.1186/s13104-017-2497-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.↵
    1. Krause KM,
    2. Serio AW,
    3. Kane TR,
    4. Connolly LE
    . 2016. Aminoglycosides: an overview. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 6:a027029–18. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a027029.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Motta I,
    2. Calcagno A,
    3. Bonora S
    . 2018. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenetics of anti-tubercular drugs: a tool for treatment optimization? Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 14:59–82. doi:10.1080/17425255.2018.1416093.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    1. Doan TN,
    2. Cao P,
    3. Emeto TI,
    4. McCaw JM,
    5. McBryde ES
    . 2018. Predicting the outcomes of new short-course regimens for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis using intrahost and pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62:1–11. doi:10.1128/AAC.01487-18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    World Health Organization. 2019. Global tuberculosis report 2019. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
  44. 44.↵
    World Health Organization. 2018. Rapid communication: key changes to treatment of multidrug- and rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
  45. 45.↵
    1. Mpagama SG,
    2. Ndusilo N,
    3. Stroup S,
    4. Kumburu H,
    5. Peloquin CA,
    6. Gratz J,
    7. Houpt ER,
    8. Kibiki GS,
    9. Heysell SK
    . 2014. Plasma drug activity in patients on treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:782–788. doi:10.1128/AAC.01549-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Konečný P,
    2. Ehrlich R,
    3. Gulumian M,
    4. Jacobs M
    . 2018. Immunity to the dual threat of silica exposure and mycobacterium tuberculosis. Front Immunol 9:3069. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2018.03069.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. 47.↵
    1. Skowroński M,
    2. Halicka A,
    3. Barinow-Wojewódzki A
    . 2018. Pulmonary tuberculosis in a male with silicosis. Adv Respir Med 86:121–125. doi:10.5603/ARM.2018.0019.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    1. Ahmad N,
    2. Ahuja SD,
    3. Akkerman OW,
    4. Alffenaar J-WC,
    5. Anderson LF,
    6. Baghaei P,
    7. Bang D,
    8. Barry PM,
    9. Bastos ML,
    10. Behera D,
    11. Benedetti A,
    12. Bisson GP,
    13. Boeree MJ,
    14. Bonnet M,
    15. Brode SK,
    16. Brust JCM,
    17. Cai Y,
    18. Caumes E,
    19. Cegielski JP,
    20. Centis R,
    21. Chan P-C,
    22. Chan ED,
    23. Chang K-C,
    24. Charles M,
    25. Cirule A,
    26. Dalcolmo MP,
    27. D'Ambrosio L,
    28. de Vries G,
    29. Dheda K,
    30. Esmail A,
    31. Flood J,
    32. Fox GJ,
    33. Fréchet-Jachym M,
    34. Fregona G,
    35. Gayoso R,
    36. Gegia M,
    37. Gler MT,
    38. Gu S,
    39. Guglielmetti L,
    40. Holtz TH,
    41. Hughes J,
    42. Isaakidis P,
    43. Jarlsberg L,
    44. Kempker RR,
    45. Keshavjee S,
    46. Khan FA,
    47. Kipiani M,
    48. Koenig SP,
    49. Koh W-J,
    50. Kritski A
    , Collaborative Group for the Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data in MDR-TB treatment-2017, et al. 2018. Treatment correlates of successful outcomes in pulmonary multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Lancet 392:821–834. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31644-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Schober P,
    2. Vetter TR
    . 2018. Repeated measures designs and analysis of longitudinal data: if at first you do not succeed-try, try again. Anesth Analg 127:569–575. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000003511.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. 50.↵
    1. Silva DR,
    2. Mello F. C d Q,
    3. Migliori GB
    . 2020. Shortened tuberculosis treatment regimens: what is new? J Bras Pneumol 46:e20200009. doi:10.36416/1806-3756/e20200009.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Print

Alerts
Email

KEYWORDS

Kibong'oto
Tanzania
MDR-TB treatment regimens
molecular bacterial load assay
multidrug-resistant TB
mycobactericidal effects
Mycobacterium tuberculosis
all-oral bedaquiline regimen
injectable aminoglycoside regimen

Related Articles

Cited By...