Low minimal inhibitory concentrations of linezolid against multidrug-resistant tuberculosis strains

Evaluation and application of population pharmacokinetic models for optimising linezolid treatment in non-adherence multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients

BACKGROUND

Population pharmacokinetic (popPK) models can optimise linezolid dosage regimens in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB); however, unknown cross-centre precision and poor adherence remain problematic. This study aimed to assess the predictive ability of published models and use the most suitable model to optimise dosage regimens and manage compliance.

METHODS

One hundred fifty-eight linezolid plasma concentrations from 27 patients with MDR-TB were used to assess the predictive performance of published models. Prediction-based metrics and simulation-based visual predictive checks were conducted to evaluate predictive ability. Individualised remedial dosing regimens for various delayed scenarios were optimised using the most suitable model and Monte Carlo simulations. The influence of covariates, scheduled dosing intervals, and patient compliance were assessed.

RESULTS

Seven popPK models were identified. Body weight and creatinine clearance were the most frequently identified covariates influencing linezolid clearance. The model with the best performance had a median prediction error (PE%) of -1.62 %, median absolute PE of 29.50 %, and percentages of PE within 20 % (F20, 36.97 %) and 30 % (F30, 51.26 %). Monte Carlo simulations indicated that a twice-daily 300 mg linezolid dose may be more efficient than 600 mg once daily. For the 'typical' patient treated with 300 mg twice daily, half the dosage should be taken after a delay of ≥ 3 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Monte Carlo simulations based on popPK models can propose remedial regimens for delayed doses of linezolid in patients with MDR-TB. Model-based compliance management patterns are useful for balancing efficacy, adverse reactions, and resistance suppression.

Population pharmacokinetics and dose evaluations of linezolid in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis

Background: The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) target derived from the hollow-fiber system model for linezolid for treatment of the multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) requires clinical validation. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a population PK model for linezolid when administered as part of a standardized treatment regimen, to identify the PK/PD threshold associated with successful treatment outcomes and to evaluate currently recommended linezolid doses. Method: This prospective multi-center cohort study of participants with laboratory-confirmed MDR-TB was conducted in five TB designated hospitals. The population PK model for linezolid was built using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling using data from 168 participants. Boosted classification and regression tree analyses (CART) were used to identify the ratio of 0- to 24-h area under the concentration-time curve (AUC_0-24h) to the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) threshold using the BACTEC MGIT 960 method associated with successful treatment outcome and validated in multivariate analysis using data from a different and prospective cohort of 159 participants with MDR-TB. Furthermore, based on the identified thresholds, the recommended doses were evaluated by the probability of target attainment (PTA) analysis. Result: Linezolid plasma concentrations (1008 samples) from 168 subjects treated with linezolid, were best described by a 2-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination. An AUC_0-24h/MIC > 125 was identified as a threshold for successful treatment outcome. Median time to sputum culture conversion between the group with AUC_0-24h/MIC above and below 125 was 2 versus 24 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 21.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), (6.4, 72.8). The boosted CART-derived threshold and its relevance to the final treatment outcome was comparable to the previously suggested target of AUC_0-24h/MIC (119) using MGIT MICs in a hollow fiber infection model. Based on the threshold from the present study, at a standard linezolid dose of 600 mg daily, PTA was simulated to achieve 100% at MGIT MICs of ≤ .25 mg which included the majority (81.1%) of isolates in the study. Conclusion: We validated an AUC_0-24h/MIC threshold which may serve as a target for dose adjustment to improve efficacy of linezolid in a bedaquiline-containing treatment. Linezolid exposures with the WHO-recommended dose (600 mg daily) was sufficient for all the M. tb isolates with MIC ≤ .25 mg/L.

Bone penetration of linezolid in osteoarticular tuberculosis patients of China

BACKGROUND

Linezolid presents strong antimicrobial activity against multidrug-resistant (MDR) pulmonary tuberculosis (TB), but its application in osteoarticular tuberculosis treatment remains understudied. Our objective was to analyze the bone penetration efficiency of linezolid in osteoarticular TB patients.

METHODS

Osteoarticular TB patients, treated with 600 mg q 24 h linezolid-containing regimens and undergoing surgery, were prospectively and consecutively enrolled. One dose linezolid was administered before surgery. Blood and bone samples were collected simultaneously during operation, and their linezolid concentrations were then detected using high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Pus samples were subjected to mycobacterial culture and GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay. The minimum inhibition concentrations (MICs) and drug susceptibility testing were performed with the recovered isolates.

RESULTS

A total of 36 eligible osteoarticular TB patients were enrolled, including five MDR/rifampicin-resistant cases. All the 12 recovered isolates had MICs ≤0.5 μg/mL for linezolid. Mean concentrations in plasma, collected 100-510 min after the preoperative dosing, were 10.43 ± 4.83 μg/mL (range 3.29-22.26 μg/mL), and median concentrations in bone were 3.93 μg/mL (range 0.61-16.34 μg/mL). The median bone/plasma penetration ratio was 0.42 (range 0.14-0.95 μg/mL). Linezolid concentration in bone had a linear correlation with the drug concentration in plasma (r = 0.7873, p < 0.0001), while plasma concentration could explain 61.98% of the variation of concentration in bone (R² = 0.6198). Notably, stratification analysis by sampling time demonstrated that samples collected 200-510 min after dosing had very good linear relationships between their bone and plasma concentrations (r = 0.9323).

CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid penetrates from blood to bone efficiently, and the penetration further stabilizes ∼3 h after dosing.

Linezolid for drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis

BACKGROUND

Linezolid was recently re-classified as a Group A drug by the World Health Organization (WHO) for treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB), suggesting that it should be included in the regimen for all patients unless contraindicated. Linezolid use carries a considerable risk of toxicity, with the optimal dose and duration remaining unclear. Current guidelines are mainly based on evidence from observational non-comparative studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of linezolid when used as part of a second-line regimen for treating people with MDR and XDR pulmonary tuberculosis, and to assess the prevalence and severity of adverse events associated with linezolid use in this patient group.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Specialized Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; and LILACS up to 13 July 2018. We also checked article reference lists and contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies in which some participants received linezolid, and others did not. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of linezolid for MDR and XDR pulmonary tuberculosis to evaluate efficacy outcomes. We added non-randomized cohort studies to evaluate adverse events.Primary outcomes were all-cause and tuberculosis-associated death, treatment failure, and cure. Secondary outcomes were treatment interrupted, treatment completed, and time to sputum culture conversion. We recorded frequency of all and serious adverse events, adverse events leading to drug discontinuation or dose reduction, and adverse events attributed to linezolid, particularly neuropathy, anaemia, and thrombocytopenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (BS and DC) independently assessed the search results for eligibility and extracted data from included studies. All review authors assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional data when necessary.We were unable to perform a meta-analysis as one of the RCTs adopted a study design where participants in the study group received linezolid immediately and participants in the control group received linezolid after two months, and therefore there were no comparable data from this trial. We deemed meta-analysis of non-randomized study data inappropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three RCTs for inclusion. One of these studies had serious problems with allocation of the study drug and placebo, so we could not analyse data for intervention effect from it. The remaining two RCTs recruited 104 participants. One randomized 65 participants to receive linezolid or not, in addition to a background regimen; the other randomized 39 participants to addition of linezolid to a background regimen immediately, or after a delay of two months. We included 14 non-randomized cohort studies (two prospective, 12 retrospective), with a total of 1678 participants.Settings varied in terms of income and tuberculosis burden. One RCT and 7 out of 14 non-randomized studies commenced recruitment in or after 2009. All RCT participants and 38.7% of non-randomized participants were reported to have XDR-TB.Dosing and duration of linezolid in studies were variable and reported inconsistently. Daily doses ranged from 300 mg to 1200 mg; some studies had planned dose reduction for all participants after a set time, others had incompletely reported dose reductions for some participants, and most did not report numbers of participants receiving each dose. Mean or median duration of linezolid therapy was longer than 90 days in eight of the 14 non-randomized cohorts that reported this information.Duration of participant follow-up varied between RCTs. Only five out of 14 non-randomized studies reported follow-up duration.Both RCTs were at low risk of reporting bias and unclear risk of selection bias. One RCT was at high risk of performance and detection bias, and low risk for attrition bias, for all outcomes. The other RCT was at low risk of detection and attrition bias for the primary outcome, with unclear risk of detection and attrition bias for non-primary outcomes, and unclear risk of performance bias for all outcomes. Overall risk of bias for the non-randomized studies was critical for three studies, and serious for the remaining 11.One RCT reported higher cure (risk ratio (RR) 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 4.90, very low-certainty evidence), lower failure (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70, very low-certainty evidence), and higher sputum culture conversion at 24 months (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.40, very low-certainty evidence), amongst the linezolid-treated group than controls, with no differences in other primary and secondary outcomes. This study also found more anaemia (17/33 versus 2/32), nausea and vomiting, and neuropathy (14/33 versus 1/32) events amongst linezolid-receiving participants. Linezolid was discontinued early and permanently in two of 33 (6.1%) participants who received it.The other RCT reported higher sputum culture conversion four months after randomization (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.28), amongst the group who received linezolid immediately compared to the group who had linezolid initiation delayed by two months. Linezolid was discontinued early and permanently in seven of 39 (17.9%) participants who received it.Linezolid discontinuation occurred in 22.6% (141/624; 11 studies), of participants in the non-randomized studies. Total, serious, and linezolid-attributed adverse events could not be summarized quantitatively or comparatively, due to incompleteness of data on duration of follow-up and numbers of participants experiencing events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found some evidence of efficacy of linezolid for drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis from RCTs in participants with XDR-TB but adverse events and discontinuation of linezolid were common. Overall, there is a lack of comparative data on efficacy and safety. Serious risk of bias and heterogeneity in conducting and reporting non-randomized studies makes the existing, mostly retrospective, data difficult to interpret. Further prospective cohort studies or RCTs in high tuberculosis burden low-income and lower-middle-income countries would be useful to inform policymakers and clinicians of the efficacy and safety of linezolid as a component of drug-resistant TB treatment regimens.

Tuberculosis elimination: where are we now?

Tuberculosis (TB) still represents a major public health issue in spite of the significant impact of the efforts made by the World Health Organization (WHO) and partners to improve its control. In 2014 WHO launched a new global strategy (End TB) with a vision of a world free of TB, and a 2035 goal of TB elimination (defined as less than one incident case per million). The aim of this article is to summarise the theoretical bases of the End TB Strategy and to analyse progresses and persistent obstacles on the way to TB elimination.The evolution of the WHO recommended strategies of TB control (Directly Observed Therapy, Short Course (DOTS), Stop TB and End TB) are described and the concept of TB elimination is discussed. Furthermore, the eight core activities recently proposed by WHO as the milestones to achieve TB elimination are discussed in detail. Finally, the recently published experiences of Cyprus and Oman on their way towards TB elimination are described, together with the regional experience of Latin America.New prevention, diagnostic and treatment tools are also necessary to increase the speed of the present TB incidence decline.

Delamanid and bedaquiline to treat multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis in children: a systematic review

The new drugs delamanid and bedaquiline are increasingly used to treat multidrug-resistant (MDR-) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB). As evidence is lacking, the World Health Organization recommends their use under specific conditions in adults, delamanid only being recommended in children ≥6 years of age. No systematic review has yet evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of the new drugs in children. A search of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence was performed, to evaluate the efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of delamanid or bedaquiline-containing regimens in children with confirmed M/XDR-TB. We used PubMed and Embase to identify any relevant manuscripts in English until 31 December 2016, excluding editorials and reviews. Three out of 96 manuscripts retrieved satisfied the inclusion criteria, while 93 were excluded because dealing exclusively with adults (12: 4 on delamanid and 8 on bedaquiline), being recommendations or guidelines (8 manuscripts), reviews (17 papers) or other studies (56 papers). One of the studies retrieved reported evidence on 19 M/XDR-TB children, 16 of them treated under compassionate use with delamanid (13 achieving consistent bacteriological conversion) and 3 candidates for the drug. Two studies reported details on the first paediatric case treated (and cured) with a delamanid-containing regimen. Eight trials including children were also retrieved (clinicaltrials.gov). Although the methodology used in the study was rigorous, the results are limited by the paucity of the studies available in the literature on the use of new anti-TB drugs in children. In conclusion, more evidence is needed on the use of delamanid and bedaquiline in paediatric patients.

Effectiveness and safety of bedaquiline-containing regimens in the treatment of MDR- and XDR-TB: a multicentre study

Large studies on bedaquiline used to treat multidrug-resistant (MDR-) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of bedaquiline-containing regimens in a large, retrospective, observational study conducted in 25 centres and 15 countries in five continents.428 culture-confirmed MDR-TB cases were analysed (61.5% male; 22.1% HIV-positive, 45.6% XDR-TB). MDR-TB cases were admitted to hospital for a median (interquartile range (IQR)) 179 (92-280) days and exposed to bedaquiline for 168 (86-180) days. Treatment regimens included, among others, linezolid, moxifloxacin, clofazimine and carbapenems (82.0%, 58.4%, 52.6% and 15.3% of cases, respectively).Sputum smear and culture conversion rates in MDR-TB cases were 63.6% and 30.1%, respectively at 30 days, 81.1% and 56.7%, respectively at 60 days; 85.5% and 80.5%, respectively at 90 days and 88.7% and 91.2%, respectively at the end of treatment. The median (IQR) time to smear and culture conversion was 34 (30-60) days and 60 (33-90) days. Out of 247 culture-confirmed MDR-TB cases completing treatment, 71.3% achieved success (62.4% cured; 8.9% completed treatment), 13.4% died, 7.3% defaulted and 7.7% failed. Bedaquiline was interrupted due to adverse events in 5.8% of cases. A single case died, having electrocardiographic abnormalities that were probably non-bedaquiline related.Bedaquiline-containing regimens achieved high conversion and success rates under different nonexperimental conditions.

Combined Use of Delamanid and Bedaquiline to Treat Multidrug-Resistant and Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review

The new drugs delamanid and bedaquiline are increasingly being used to treat multidrug-resistant (MDR-) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB). The World Health Organization, based on lack of evidence, recommends their use under specific conditions and not in combination. No systematic review has yet evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of delamanid and bedaquiline used in combination. A search of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence was carried out, aimed at evaluating the efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of delamanid and bedaquiline-containing regimens in individuals with pulmonary/extrapulmonary disease, which were bacteriologically confirmed as M/XDR-TB. We used PubMed to identify any relevant manuscripts in English up to the 23 December 2016, excluding editorials and reviews. Three out of 75 manuscripts retrieved satisfied the inclusion criteria, whilst 72 were excluded for dealing with only one drug (three studies), being recommendations (one study) or identifying need for their use (one study), focusing on drug resistance aspects (six studies) or being generic reviews/other studies (61 papers). The studies retrieved reported two XDR-TB cases observed for six months and achieving consistent sputum smear and culture conversion. Case 2 experienced a short break of bedaquiline, which was re-started after introducing verapamil. After a transient and symptom-free increase of the QT interval from week 5 to 17, it then decreased below the 500 ms threshold.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of imipenem/clavulanate-versusmeropenem/clavulanate-containing regimens in the treatment of MDR- and XDR-TB

No large study to date has ever evaluated the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of imipenem/clavulanateversusmeropenem/clavulanate to treat multidrug- and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR- and XDR-TB). The aim of this observational study was to compare the therapeutic contribution of imipenem/clavulanateversusmeropenem/clavulanate added to background regimens to treat MDR- and XDR-TB cases.

84 patients treated with imipenem/clavulanate-containing regimens showed a similar median number of antibiotic resistances (8versus8) but more fluoroquinolone resistance (79.0%versus48.9%, p<0.0001) and higher XDR-TB prevalence (67.9%versus49.0%, p=0.01) in comparison with 96 patients exposed to meropenem/clavulanate-containing regimens. Patients were treated with imipenem/clavulanate- and meropenem/clavulanate-containing regimens for a median (interquartile range) of 187 (60–428)versus85 (49–156) days, respectively.

Statistically significant differences were observed on sputum smear and culture conversion rates (79.7%versus94.8%, p=0.02 and 71.9%versus94.8%, p<0.0001, respectively) and on success rates (59.7%versus77.5%, p=0.03). Adverse events to imipenem/clavulanate and meropenem/clavulanate were reported in 5.4% and 6.5% of cases only.

Our study suggests that meropenem/clavulanate is more effective than imipenem/clavulanate in treating MDR/XDR-TB patients.

Carbapenems to Treat Multidrug and Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Carbapenems (ertapenem, imipenem, meropenem) are used to treat multidrug-resistant (MDR-) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB), even if the published evidence is limited, particularly when it is otherwise difficult to identify the recommended four active drugs to be included in the regimen. No systematic review to date has ever evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of carbapenems.

METHODS

A search of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence was carried out, aimed at evaluating the efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of carbapenem-containing regimens in individuals with pulmonary/extra-pulmonary disease which was bacteriologically confirmed as M/XDR-TB. We used PubMed to identify relevant full-text, English manuscripts up to the 20 December 2015, excluding editorials and reviews.

RESULTS

Seven out of 160 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria: two on ertapenem, one on imipenem, and four on meropenem, all published between 2005 and 2016. Of seven studies, six were retrospective, four were performed in a single center, two enrolled children, two had a control group, and six reported a proportion of XDR-TB cases higher than 20%. Treatment success was higher than 57% in five studies with culture conversion rates between 60% and 94.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and tolerability is very good, with the proportion of adverse events attributable to carbapenems below 15%.

Effectiveness and safety of meropenem/clavulanate-containing regimens in the treatment of MDR- and XDR-TB

No large study has ever evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of meropenem/clavulanate to treat multidrug- and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR- and XDR-TB). The aim of this observational study was to evaluate the therapeutic contribution, effectiveness, safety and tolerability profile of meropenem/clavulanate added to a background regimen when treating MDR- and XDR-TB cases.

Patients treated with a meropenem/clavulanate-containing regimen (n=96) showed a greater drug resistance profile than those exposed to a meropenem/clavulanate-sparing regimen (n=168): in the former group XDR-TB was more frequent (49% versus 6.0%, p<0.0001) and the median (interquartile range (IQR)) number of antibiotic resistances was higher (8 (6–9) versus 5 (4–6)). Patients were treated with a meropenem/clavulanate-containing regimen for a median (IQR) of 85 (49–156) days.

No statistically significant differences were observed in the overall MDR-TB cohort and in the subgroups with and without the XDR-TB patients; in particular, sputum smear and culture conversion rates were similar in XDR-TB patients exposed to meropenem/clavulanate-containing regimens (88.0% versus 100.0%, p=1.00 and 88.0% versus 100.0%, p=1.00, respectively). Only six cases reported adverse events attributable to meropenem/clavulanate (four of them then restarting treatment).

The nondifferent outcomes and bacteriological conversion rate observed in cases who were more severe than controls might imply that meropenem/clavulanate could be active in treating MDR- and XDR-TB cases.

New anti-tuberculosis drugs and regimens: 2015 update

Over 480 000 cases of multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB) occur every year globally, 9% of them being affected by extensively drug-resistant (XDR) strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The treatment of MDR/XDR-TB is unfortunately long, toxic and expensive, and the success rate largely unsatisfactory (<20% among cases with resistance patterns beyond XDR).

The aim of this review is to summarise the available evidence-based updated international recommendations to manage MDR/XDR-TB, and to update the reader on the role of newly developed drugs (delamanid, bedaquiline and pretomanid) as well as repurposed drugs (linezolid and meropenem clavulanate, among others) used to treat these conditions within new regimens.

A nonsystematic review based on historical trials results as well as on recent literature and World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines has been performed, with special focus on the approach to managing MDR/XDR-TB.

The new, innovative global public health interventions, recently approved by WHO and known as the “End TB Strategy”, support the vision of a TB-free world with zero death, disease and suffering due to TB. Adequate, universally accessed treatment is a pre-requisite to reach TB elimination. New shorter, cheap, safe and effective anti-TB regimens are necessary to boost TB elimination.

The new WHO post-2015 End TB Strategy will support the efforts that research on new drugs and regimens requireshttp://ow.ly/LnJER