Estimating the impact of a novel drug regimen for treatment of tuberculosis: a modeling analysis of projected patient outcomes and epidemiological considerations.
Adult
Antitubercular Agents
/ therapeutic use
Diarylquinolines
/ therapeutic use
Humans
Markov Chains
Nitroimidazoles
/ therapeutic use
Prevalence
Pyrazinamide
/ therapeutic use
Rifampin
/ therapeutic use
South Africa
/ epidemiology
Treatment Outcome
Tuberculosis
/ drug therapy
Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant
/ drug therapy
Clinical outcomes
Drug resistance
Modeling
Novel regimens
Regimen selection
Treatment
Tuberculosis
Journal
BMC infectious diseases
ISSN: 1471-2334
Titre abrégé: BMC Infect Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968551
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Sep 2019
09 Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
09
07
2019
accepted:
30
08
2019
entrez:
11
9
2019
pubmed:
11
9
2019
medline:
20
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Regimens that could treat both rifampin-resistant (RR) and rifampin-susceptible tuberculosis (TB) while shortening the treatment duration have reached late-stage clinical trials. Decisions about whether and how to implement such regimens will require an understanding of their likely clinical impact and how this impact depends on local epidemiology and implementation strategy. A Markov state-transition model of 100,000 representative South African adults with TB was used to simulate implementation of the regimen BPaMZ (bedaquiline, pretomanid, moxifloxacin, and pyrazinamide), either for RR-TB only or universally for all patients. Patient outcomes, including cure rates, time with active TB, and time on treatment, were compared to outcomes under current care. Sensitivity analyses varied the drug-resistance epidemiology, rifampin susceptibility testing practices, and regimen efficacy. Using BPaMZ exclusively for RR-TB increased the proportion of all RR-TB that was cured by initial treatment from 60 ± 1% to 67 ± 1%. Expanding use of BPaMZ to all patients increased cure of RR-TB to 89 ± 1% and cure of all TB from 87.3 ± 0.1% to 89.5 ± 0.1%, while shortening treatment by 1.9 months/person. In sensitivity analyses, reducing the coverage of rifampin susceptibility testing resulted in lower projected proportions of patients cured under all regimen scenarios (current care, RR-only BPaMZ, and universal BPaMZ), compared to the proportions projected using South Africa's high coverage; however, this reduced coverage resulted in greater expected incremental benefits of universal BPaMZ implementation, both when compared to RR-only BPaMZ implementation and when compared to to current care under the same low rifampin susceptibility testing coverage. In settings with higher RR-TB prevalence, the benefits of BPaMZ were magnified both for RR-specific and universal BPaMZ implementation. Novel regimens such as BPaMZ could improve RR-TB outcomes and shorten treatment for all patients, particularly with universal use. Decision-makers weighing early options for implementing such regimens at scale will want to consider the expected impact on patient outcomes and on the burden of treatment in their local context.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Regimens that could treat both rifampin-resistant (RR) and rifampin-susceptible tuberculosis (TB) while shortening the treatment duration have reached late-stage clinical trials. Decisions about whether and how to implement such regimens will require an understanding of their likely clinical impact and how this impact depends on local epidemiology and implementation strategy.
METHODS
METHODS
A Markov state-transition model of 100,000 representative South African adults with TB was used to simulate implementation of the regimen BPaMZ (bedaquiline, pretomanid, moxifloxacin, and pyrazinamide), either for RR-TB only or universally for all patients. Patient outcomes, including cure rates, time with active TB, and time on treatment, were compared to outcomes under current care. Sensitivity analyses varied the drug-resistance epidemiology, rifampin susceptibility testing practices, and regimen efficacy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Using BPaMZ exclusively for RR-TB increased the proportion of all RR-TB that was cured by initial treatment from 60 ± 1% to 67 ± 1%. Expanding use of BPaMZ to all patients increased cure of RR-TB to 89 ± 1% and cure of all TB from 87.3 ± 0.1% to 89.5 ± 0.1%, while shortening treatment by 1.9 months/person. In sensitivity analyses, reducing the coverage of rifampin susceptibility testing resulted in lower projected proportions of patients cured under all regimen scenarios (current care, RR-only BPaMZ, and universal BPaMZ), compared to the proportions projected using South Africa's high coverage; however, this reduced coverage resulted in greater expected incremental benefits of universal BPaMZ implementation, both when compared to RR-only BPaMZ implementation and when compared to to current care under the same low rifampin susceptibility testing coverage. In settings with higher RR-TB prevalence, the benefits of BPaMZ were magnified both for RR-specific and universal BPaMZ implementation.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Novel regimens such as BPaMZ could improve RR-TB outcomes and shorten treatment for all patients, particularly with universal use. Decision-makers weighing early options for implementing such regimens at scale will want to consider the expected impact on patient outcomes and on the burden of treatment in their local context.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31500572
doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-4429-x
pii: 10.1186/s12879-019-4429-x
pmc: PMC6734288
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antitubercular Agents
0
Diarylquinolines
0
Nitroimidazoles
0
pretomanid
0
Pyrazinamide
2KNI5N06TI
bedaquiline
78846I289Y
Rifampin
VJT6J7R4TR
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
794Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : K08 AI127908
Pays : United States
Organisme : National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
ID : K08AI127908
Références
PLoS Med. 2016 Oct 25;13(10):e1002149
pubmed: 27780217
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017 Aug 24;61(9):
pubmed: 28630203
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2014 Aug 30;1(2):ofu073
pubmed: 25734143
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017 Mar 1;72(3):684-690
pubmed: 28031270
Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 Oct;16(10):1185-1192
pubmed: 27397590
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014 May;58(5):2979-81
pubmed: 24590481
N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28;380(13):1201-1213
pubmed: 30865791
N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 23;371(17):1577-87
pubmed: 25196020
Eur Respir J. 2018 Dec 20;52(6):
pubmed: 30361246
Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Jul;6(7):486-488
pubmed: 29859919
PLoS One. 2011 Apr 04;6(4):e17601
pubmed: 21483732
Thorax. 2019 Mar;74(3):291-297
pubmed: 30420407
N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 23;371(17):1599-608
pubmed: 25337749
PLoS Med. 2016 Oct 11;13(10):e1002142
pubmed: 27727274
N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 23;371(17):1588-98
pubmed: 25337748
Lancet. 2015 May 2;385(9979):1738-1747
pubmed: 25795076
Lancet. 2018 Sep 8;392(10150):821-834
pubmed: 30215381
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2020 Dec 16;65(1):
pubmed: 33077652
Trop Med Int Health. 2008 May;13(5):703-12
pubmed: 18266783
PLoS Med. 2009 Sep;6(9):e1000146
pubmed: 19753109
PLoS Med. 2012;9(8):e1001300
pubmed: 22952439
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Feb 15;62(4):418-430
pubmed: 26508515
Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 Dec;17(12):e429-e433
pubmed: 28533094
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 29;10(4):e0125403
pubmed: 25923700
Eur Respir J. 2017 Jan 25;49(1):
pubmed: 28122858