Patients with highly drug-resistant forms of tuberculosis have limited treatment options and historically have had poor outcomes. In an open-label, single-group study in which follow-up is ongoing at three South African sites, we investigated treatment with three oral drugs — bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid — that have bactericidal activity against tuberculosis and to which there is little preexisting resistance. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the drug combination for 26 weeks in patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis and patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis that was not responsive to treatment or for which a second-line regimen had been discontinued because of side effects. The primary end point was the incidence of an unfavorable outcome, defined as treatment failure (bacteriologic or clinical) or relapse during follow-up, which continued until 6 months after the end of treatment. Patients were classified as having a favorable outcome at 6 months if they had resolution of clinical disease, a negative culture status, and had not already been classified as having had an unfavorable outcome. Other efficacy end points and safety were also evaluated. A total of 109 patients were enrolled in the study and were included in the evaluation of efficacy and safety end points. At 6 months after the end of treatment in the intention-to-treat analysis, 11 patients (10%) had an unfavorable outcome and 98 patients (90%; 95% confidence interval, 83 to 95) had a favorable outcome. The 11 unfavorable outcomes were 7 deaths (6 during treatment and 1 from an unknown cause during follow-up), 1 withdrawal of consent during treatment, 2 relapses during follow-up, and 1 loss to follow-up. The expected linezolid toxic effects of peripheral neuropathy (occurring in 81% of patients) and myelosuppression (48%), although common, were manageable, often leading to dose reductions or interruptions in treatment with linezolid. The combination of bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid led to a favorable outcome at 6 months after the end of therapy in a high percentage of patients with highly drug-resistant forms of tuberculosis; some associated toxic effects were observed. (Funded by the TB Alliance and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02333799.)

The October 2020 Global TB report reviews TB control strategies and United Nations (UN) targets set in the political declaration at the September 2018 UN General Assembly high-level meeting on TB held in New York. Progress in TB care and prevention has been very slow. In 2019, TB remained the most common cause of death from a single infectious pathogen. Globally, an estimated 10.0 million people developed TB disease in 2019, and there were an estimated 1.2 million TB deaths among HIV-negative people and an additional 208, 000 deaths among people living with HIV. Adults accounted for 88% and children for 12% of people with TB. The WHO regions of South-East Asia (44%), Africa (25%), and the Western Pacific (18%) had the most people with TB. Eight countries accounted for two thirds of the global total: India (26%), Indonesia (8.5%), China (8.4%), the Philippines (6.0%), Pakistan (5.7%), Nigeria (4.4%), Bangladesh (3.6%) and South Africa (3.6%). Only 30% of the 3.5 million five-year target for children treated for TB was met. Major advances have been development of new all oral regimens for MDRTB and new regimens for preventive therapy. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic dislodged TB from the top infectious disease cause of mortality globally. Notably, global TB control efforts were not on track even before the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many challenges remain to improve sub-optimal TB treatment and prevention services. Tuberculosis screening and diagnostic test services need to be ramped up. The major drivers of TB remain undernutrition, poverty, diabetes, tobacco smoking, and household air pollution and these need be addressed to achieve the WHO 2035 TB care and prevention targets. National programs need to include interventions for post-tuberculosis holistic wellbeing. From first detection of COVID-19 global coordination and political will with huge financial investments have led to the development of effective vaccines against SARS-CoV2 infection. The world now needs to similarly focus on development of new vaccines for TB utilizing new technological methods.

Early-phase and preclinical studies suggest that moxifloxacin-containing regimens could allow for effective 4-month treatment of uncomplicated, smear-positive pulmonary tuberculosis. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial to test the noninferiority of two moxifloxacin-containing regimens as compared with a control regimen. One group of patients received isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol for 8 weeks, followed by 18 weeks of isoniazid and rifampin (control group). In the second group, we replaced ethambutol with moxifloxacin for 17 weeks, followed by 9 weeks of placebo (isoniazid group), and in the third group, we replaced isoniazid with moxifloxacin for 17 weeks, followed by 9 weeks of placebo (ethambutol group). The primary end point was treatment failure or relapse within 18 months after randomization. Of the 1931 patients who underwent randomization, in the per-protocol analysis, a favorable outcome was reported in fewer patients in the isoniazid group (85%) and the ethambutol group (80%) than in the control group (92%), for a difference favoring the control group of 6.1 percentage points (97.5% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 10.5) versus the isoniazid group and 11.4 percentage points (97.5% CI, 6.7 to 16.1) versus the ethambutol group. Results were consistent in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and all sensitivity analyses. The hazard ratios for the time to culture negativity in both solid and liquid mediums for the isoniazid and ethambutol groups, as compared with the control group, ranged from 1.17 to 1.25, indicating a shorter duration, with the lower bounds of the 95% confidence intervals exceeding 1.00 in all cases. There was no significant difference in the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events, with events reported in 127 patients (19%) in the isoniazid group, 111 (17%) in the ethambutol group, and 123 (19%) in the control group. The two moxifloxacin-containing regimens produced a more rapid initial decline in bacterial load, as compared with the control group. However, noninferiority for these regimens was not shown, which indicates that shortening treatment to 4 months was not effective in this setting. (Funded by the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development and others; REMoxTB ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00864383.)

The bedaquiline–pretomanid–linezolid regimen has been reported to have 90% efficacy against highly drug-resistant tuberculosis, but the incidence of adverse events with 1200 mg of linezolid daily has been high. The appropriate dose of linezolid and duration of treatment with this agent to minimize toxic effects while maintaining efficacy against highly drug-resistant tuberculosis are unclear. We enrolled participants with extensively drug-resistant (XDR) tuberculosis (i.e., resistant to rifampin, a fluoroquinolone, and an aminoglycoside), pre-XDR tuberculosis (i.e., resistant to rifampin and to either a fluoroquinolone or an aminoglycoside), or rifampin-resistant tuberculosis that was not responsive to treatment or for which a second-line regimen had been discontinued because of side effects. We randomly assigned the participants to receive bedaquiline for 26 weeks (200 mg daily for 8 weeks, then 100 mg daily for 18 weeks), pretomanid (200 mg daily for 26 weeks), and daily linezolid at a dose of 1200 mg for 26 weeks or 9 weeks or 600 mg for 26 weeks or 9 weeks. The primary end point in the modified intention-to-treat population was the incidence of an unfavorable outcome, defined as treatment failure or disease relapse (clinical or bacteriologic) at 26 weeks after completion of treatment. Safety was also evaluated. A total of 181 participants were enrolled, 88% of whom had XDR or pre-XDR tuberculosis. Among participants who received bedaquiline–pretomanid–linezolid with linezolid at a dose of 1200 mg for 26 weeks or 9 weeks or 600 mg for 26 weeks or 9 weeks, 93%, 89%, 91%, and 84%, respectively, had a favorable outcome; peripheral neuropathy occurred in 38%, 24%, 24%, and 13%, respectively; myelosuppression occurred in 22%, 15%, 2%, and 7%, respectively; and the linezolid dose was modified (i.e., interrupted, reduced, or discontinued) in 51%, 30%, 13%, and 13%, respectively. Optic neuropathy developed in 4 participants (9%) who had received linezolid at a dose of 1200 mg for 26 weeks; all the cases resolved. Six of the seven unfavorable microbiologic outcomes through 78 weeks of follow-up occurred in participants assigned to the 9-week linezolid groups. A total of 84 to 93% of the participants across all four bedaquiline–pretomanid–linezolid treatment groups had a favorable outcome. The overall risk–benefit ratio favored the group that received the three-drug regimen with linezolid at a dose of 600 mg for 26 weeks, with a lower incidence of adverse events reported and fewer linezolid dose modifications. (Funded by the TB Alliance and others; ZeNix ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03086486.)

Tuberculosis regimens that are shorter and simpler than the current 6-month daily regimen are needed. We randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed, smear-positive, drug-sensitive tuberculosis to one of three regimens: a control regimen that included 2 months of ethambutol, isoniazid, rifampicin, and pyrazinamide administered daily followed by 4 months of daily isoniazid and rifampicin; a 4-month regimen in which the isoniazid in the control regimen was replaced by moxifloxacin administered daily for 2 months followed by moxifloxacin and 900 mg of rifapentine administered twice weekly for 2 months; or a 6-month regimen in which isoniazid was replaced by daily moxifloxacin for 2 months followed by one weekly dose of both moxifloxacin and 1200 mg of rifapentine for 4 months. Sputum specimens were examined on microscopy and after culture at regular intervals. The primary end point was a composite treatment failure and relapse, with noninferiority based on a margin of 6 percentage points and 90% confidence intervals. We enrolled a total of 827 patients from South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Zambia; 28% of patients were coinfected with the human immunodefiency virus. In the per-protocol analysis, the proportion of patients with an unfavorable response was 4.9% in the control group, 3.2% in the 6-month group (adjusted difference from control, −1.8 percentage points; 90% confidence interval [CI], −6.1 to 2.4), and 18.2% in the 4-month group (adjusted difference from control, 13.6 percentage points; 90% CI, 8.1 to 19.1). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis these proportions were 14.4% in the control group, 13.7% in the 6-month group (adjusted difference from control, 0.4 percentage points; 90% CI, −4.7 to 5.6), and 26.9% in the 4-month group (adjusted difference from control, 13.1 percentage points; 90% CI, 6.8 to 19.4). The 6-month regimen that included weekly administration of high-dose rifapentine and moxifloxacin was as effective as the control regimen. The 4-month regimen was not noninferior to the control regimen. (Funded by the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership and the Wellcome Trust; RIFAQUIN Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN44153044.)