Treatment Strategy for Rifampin-Susceptible Tuberculosis.

Tuberculosis is usually treated with a 6-month rifampin-based regimen. Whether a strategy involving shorter initial treatment may lead to similar outcomes is unclear. In this adaptive, open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned participants with rifampin-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis to undergo either standard treatment (rifampin and isoniazid for 24 weeks with pyrazinamide and ethambutol for the first 8 weeks) or a strategy involving initial treatment with an 8-week regimen, extended treatment for persistent clinical disease, monitoring after treatment, and retreatment for relapse. There were four strategy groups with different initial regimens; noninferiority was assessed in the two strategy groups with complete enrollment, which had initial regimens of high-dose rifampin-linezolid and bedaquiline-linezolid (each with isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol). The primary outcome was a composite of death, ongoing treatment, or active disease at week 96. The noninferiority margin was 12 percentage points. Of the 674 participants in the intention-to-treat population, 4 (0.6%) withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up. A primary-outcome event occurred in 7 of the 181 participants (3.9%) in the standard-treatment group, as compared with 21 of the 184 participants (11.4%) in the strategy group with an initial rifampin-linezolid regimen (adjusted difference, 7.4 percentage points; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 13.2; noninferiority not met) and 11 of the 189 participants (5.8%) in the strategy group with an initial bedaquiline-linezolid regimen (adjusted difference, 0.8 percentage points; 97.5% CI, -3.4 to 5.1; noninferiority met). The mean total duration of treatment was 180 days in the standard-treatment group, 106 days in the rifampin-linezolid strategy group, and 85 days in the bedaquiline-linezolid strategy group. The incidences of grade 3 or 4 adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the three groups. A strategy involving initial treatment with an 8-week bedaquiline-linezolid regimen was noninferior to standard treatment for tuberculosis with respect to clinical outcomes. The strategy was associated with a shorter total duration of treatment and with no evident safety concerns. (Funded by the Singapore National Medical Research Council and others; TRUNCATE-TB ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03474198.).

Paton NI ，Cousins C ，Suresh C ，Burhan E ，Chew KL ，Dalay VB ，Lu Q ，Kusmiati T ，Balanag VM ，Lee SL ，Ruslami R ，Pokharkar Y ，Djaharuddin I ，Sugiri JJR ，Veto RS ，Sekaggya-Wiltshire C ，Avihingsanon A ，Sarin R ，Papineni P ，Nunn AJ ，Crook AM ，TRUNCATE-TB Trial Team ... -  《-》

Nine months of bedaquiline, linezolid, levofloxacin, clofazimine, and cycloserine chemotherapy for rifampicin/multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a multicenter, randomized, open-label non-inferiority trial in China.

Song Y ，Shu W ，Pei Y ，Du J ，Wu G ，Wang H ，Mi F ，Liu F ，Ma L ，Xie L ，Kong Z ，Wu X ，Liu R ，Chen H ，Li H ，Ge Q ，Nie L ，Lv Z ，Huang X ，Li M ，Jiang M ，Chen X ，Cai Q ，Chen W ，Liu Y ，Miao Y ，Tang Y ，Chen Y ，Geng S ，Zhou Q ，Liu Y ，Pang Y ，Gao M ... -  《BMC Medicine》

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and early bactericidal activity of quabodepistat in combination with delamanid, bedaquiline, or both in adults with pulmonary tuberculosis: a randomised, active-controlled, open-label trial.

Quabodepistat (formerly OPC-167832) showed potent activity in preclinical studies and in the first stage of an early bactericidal activity study in adults with smear-positive, drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis. Stage 2 of this study was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and early bactericidal activity of quabodepistat in combination with delamanid, bedaquiline, or both versus rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide combination therapy for 14 days. Stage 2 of this open-label, active-controlled, randomised, parallel-group study was conducted at two research sites in South Africa in adults (aged 18-64 years) with drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis. Eligible participants had a BMI of 16-32 kg/m2 and the ability to produce an adequate volume of sputum (≥10 mL overnight) and were excluded if they had drug-resistant tuberculosis or previous treatment for Mycobacterium tuberculosis within the past 3 years. Participants were centrally randomly assigned via interactive web response technology system, with no stratification, into four treatment groups in a ratio of 14:14:14:4 (quabodepistat 30 mg plus delamanid 300 mg, quabodepistat 30 mg plus bedaquiline 400 mg, or quabodepistat 30 mg plus delamanid 300 mg plus bedaquiline 400 mg orally once daily for 14 days, or rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide combination therapy [control] according to local standard of care for 20 days). The primary outcomes were safety and tolerability during and after 14 days of treatment in all participants who received any study medication and pharmacokinetics at day 1 and day 14 in participants in the quabodepistat groups with adequate data for deriving pharmacokinetics parameters. The main secondary outcome was bactericidal activity from baseline to day 14 in all eligible participants who were quantitatively culture-positive at baseline. The study was not powered for formal statistical hypothesis testing; therefore, data were summarised by treatment group with descriptive statistics. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03678688) and is closed to new participants. 98 participants were screened for entry into stage 2 of the trial between Feb 1, 2021, and Jan 27, 2022, of whom 46 were randomly assigned (14 to each quabodepistat group, 4 to the control group) and 44 received at least one dose of study medication (one patient excluded from the quabodepistat plus delamanid and quabodepistat plus bedaquiline groups). 32 (73%) of 44 participants had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. Most events (30/32 [94%]) were mild or moderate; the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥2 participants; not related to study drugs) were headache (4/44 [9%]), dizziness (3/44 [7%]), abdominal pain (2/44 [5%]), pruritus (2/44 [5%]), and nausea (2/44 [5%]). Two serious adverse events were reported in two participants in the quabodepistat and bedaquiline cohort (anal abscess [n=1], pneumothorax [n=1]); both were deemed not related to study drug. Quabodepistat exposure was minimally affected by coadministration of delamanid or bedaquiline, with lower exposure in the quabodepistat and bedaquiline cohorts (maximum plasma concentration for quabodepistat plus delamanid 208 ng/mL [SD 61; n=11]; quabodepistat plus bedaquiline 175 ng/mL [31; n=10]; quabodepistat plus delamanid plus bedaquiline 183 ng/mL [52; n=11]). Maximum quabodepistat concentrations were achieved approximately 3 h after administration in all combinations. Mean elimination half-life was shorter in combinations with bedaquiline than without bedaquiline (12·3-14·5 h vs 15·2 h). Mean changes from baseline to day 14 of sputum log10 colony-forming units per mL were -2·73 (SD 1·51) for quabodepistat plus delamanid plus bedaquiline (n=12) and -2·71 (SD 0·92) for control (n=19); mean change was -2·17 (SD 1·83) in the quabodepistat plus delamanid cohort (n=11) and -1·97 (SD 1·29) in the quabodepistat plus bedaquiline cohort (n=11). In this 14-day trial, quabodepistat plus delamanid plus bedaquiline, a novel three-drug combination, appeared to be safe, well tolerated, and provided robust early bactericidal activity in adults with drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis. Further evaluation is warranted. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dawson R ，Diacon AH ，De Jager V ，Narunsky K ，Moodley VM ，Stinson KW ，Liu Y ，Zheng B ，Hafkin J ... -  《-》

Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.

About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences). We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes. A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education. To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually. Not registered.

Pillay J ，Gaudet LA ，Saba S ，Vandermeer B ，Ashiq AR ，Wingert A ，Hartling L ... -  《Systematic Reviews》

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of LBP-EC01, a CRISPR-Cas3-enhanced bacteriophage cocktail, in uncomplicated urinary tract infections due to Escherichia coli (ELIMINATE): the randomised, open-label, first part of a two-part phase 2 trial.

The rate of antibiotic resistance continues to grow, outpacing small-molecule-drug development efforts. Novel therapies are needed to combat this growing threat, particularly for the treatment of urinary tract infections (UTIs), which are one of the largest contributors to antibiotic use and associated antibiotic resistance. LBP-EC01 is a novel, genetically enhanced, six-bacteriophage cocktail developed by Locus Biosciences (Morrisville, NC, USA) to address UTIs caused by Escherichia coli, regardless of antibiotic resistance status. In this first part of the two-part phase 2 ELIMINATE trial, we aimed to define a dosing regimen of LBP-EC01 for the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs that could advance to the second, randomised, controlled, double-blinded portion of the study. This first part of ELIMINATE is a randomised, uncontrolled, open-label, phase 2 trial that took place in six private clinical sites in the USA. Eligible participants were female by self-identification, aged between 18 years and 70 years, and had an uncomplicated UTI at the time of enrolment, as well as a history of at least one drug-resistant UTI caused by E coli within the 12 months before enrolment. Participants were initially randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio into three treatment groups, but this part of the trial was terminated on the recommendation of the safety review committee after a non-serious tolerability signal was observed based on systemic drug exposure. A protocol update was then implemented, comprised of three new treatment groups. Groups A to C were dosed with intraurethral 2 × 1012 plaque-forming units (PFU) of LBP-EC01 on days 1 and 2 by catheter, plus one of three intravenous doses daily on days 1-3 of LBP-EC01 (1 mL of 1 × 1010 PFU intravenous bolus in group A, 1 mL of 1 × 109 PFU intravenous bolus in group B, and a 2 h 1 × 1011 PFU intravenous infusion in 100 mL of sodium lactate solution in group C). In all groups, oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX; 160 mg and 800 mg) was given twice daily on days 1-3. The primary outcome was the level of LBP-EC01 in urine and blood across the treatment period and over 48 h after the last dose and was assessed in patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who received at least one dose of LBP-EC01 and had concentration-time data available throughout the days 1-3 dosing period (pharmacokinetic population). Safety, a secondary endpoint, was assessed in enrolled patients who received at least one dose of study drug (safety population). As exploratory pharmacodynamic endpoints, we assessed E coli levels in urine and clinical symptoms of UTI in patients with at least 1·0 × 105 colony-forming units per mL E coli in urine at baseline who took at least one dose of study drug and completed their day 10 test-of-cure assessment (pharmacodynamic-evaluable population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05488340, and is ongoing. Between Aug 22, 2022, and Aug 28, 2023, 44 patients were screened for eligibility, and 39 were randomly assigned (ITT population). Initially, eight participants were assigned to the first three groups. After the protocol was updated, 31 participants were allocated into groups A (11 patients), B (ten patients), and C (ten patients). One patient in group C withdrew consent on day 2 for personal reasons, but as she had received the first dose of the study drug was included in the modified ITT population. Maximum urine drug concentrations were consistent across intraurethral dosing, with a maximum mean concentration of 6·3 × 108 PFU per mL (geometric mean 8·8 log10 PFU per mL and geometric SD [gSD] 0·3). Blood plasma level of bacteriophages was intravenous dose-dependent, with maximum mean concentrations of 4·0 × 103 (geometric mean 3·6 log10 PFU per mL [gSD 1·5]) in group A, 2·5 × 103 (3·4 log10 PFU per mL [1·7]) in group B, and 8·0 × 105 (5·9 log10 PFU per mL [1·4]) in group C. No serious adverse events were observed. 44 adverse events were reported across 18 (46%) of the 39 participants in the safety population, with more adverse events seen with higher intravenous doses. Three patients in groups 1 to 3 and one patient in group C, all of whom received 1 × 1011 LBP-EC01 intravenously, had non-serious tachycardia and afebrile chills after the second intravenous dose. A rapid reduction of E coli in urine was observed by 4 h after the first treatment and maintained at day 10 in all 16 evaluable patients; these individuals had complete resolution of UTI symptoms by day 10. A regimen consisting of 2 days of intraurethral LBP-EC01 and 3 days of concurrent intravenous LBP-EC01 (1 × 1010 PFU) and oral TMP-SMX twice a day was well tolerated, with consistent pharmacokinetic profiles in urine and blood. LBP-EC01 and TMP-SMX dosing resulted in a rapid and durable reduction of E coli, with corresponding elimination of clinical symptoms in evaluable patients. LBP-EC01 holds promise in providing an alternative therapy for uncomplicated UTIs, with further testing of the group A dosing regimen planned in the controlled, double-blind, second part of ELIMINATE. Federal funds from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA).

Kim P ，Sanchez AM ，Penke TJR ，Tuson HH ，Kime JC ，McKee RW ，Slone WL ，Conley NR ，McMillan LJ ，Prybol CJ ，Garofolo PM ... -  《-》