The coming-of-age of bedaquiline: a tale with an open ending

Bedaquiline: what might the future hold?

Tuberculosis drug development has stagnated for decades, so the recent availability of bedaquiline is welcome. Bedaquiline-containing regimens, now the first-line therapy recommended by WHO, have transformed the treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis, offering safer and more effective oral treatment options. However, key obstacles need to be overcome to ensure global access and prevent the rapid development of resistance against this promising class of drugs. In this Personal View, building on an international workshop held in 2023, we evaluate the current evidence and suggest possible ways forward, recognising the tension between increasing use and slowing the rise of resistance. We also discuss problems in accessing bedaquiline-containing regimens, the potential widening of their use beyond drug-resistant tuberculosis, and lessons for utilising new drugs as they are developed.

Baseline and acquired resistance to bedaquiline, linezolid and pretomanid, and impact on treatment outcomes in four tuberculosis clinical trials containing pretomanid

Bedaquiline (B), pretomanid (Pa) and linezolid (L) are key components of new regimens for treating rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (TB). However, there is limited information on the global prevalence of resistance to these drugs and the impact of resistance on treatment outcomes. Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) phenotypic drug susceptibility and whole-genome sequence (WGS) data, as well as patient profiles from 4 pretomanid-containing trials-STAND, Nix-TB, ZeNix and SimpliciTB-were used to investigate the rates of baseline resistance (BR) and acquired resistance (AR) to BPaL drugs, as well as their genetic basis, risk factors and impact on treatment outcomes. Data from >1,000 TB patients enrolled from 2015 to 2020 in 12 countries was assessed. We identified 2 (0.3%) participants with linezolid BR. Pretomanid BR was also rare, with similar rates across TB drug resistance types (0-2.1%). In contrast, bedaquiline BR was more prevalent among participants with highly resistant TB or longer prior treatment histories than those with newly diagnosed disease (5.2-6.3% vs. 0-0.3%). Bedaquiline BR was a risk factor for bacteriological failure or relapse in Nix-TB/ZeNix; 3/12 (25%, 95% CI 5-57%) participants with vs. 6/185 (3.2%, 1.2-6.9%) without bedaquiline BR. Across trials, we observed no linezolid AR, and only 3 cases of bedaquiline AR, including 2 participants with poor adherence. Overall, pretomanid AR was also rare, except in ZeNix patients with bedaquiline BR. WGS analyses revealed novel mutations in canonical resistant genes and, in 7 MTB isolates, the genetic determinants could not be identified. The overall low rates of BR to linezolid and pretomanid, and to a lesser extent to bedaquiline, observed in the pretomanid trials are in support of the worldwide implementation of BPaL-based regimens. Similarly, the overall low AR rates observed suggest BPaL drugs are better protected in the regimens trialed here than in other regimens combining bedaquiline with more, but less effective drugs.

OUP accepted manuscript

Objectives

To develop a robust phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) method with a correctly set breakpoint for pretomanid (Pa), the most recently approved anti-tuberculosis drug.

Methods

The Becton Dickinson Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube™ (MGIT) system was used at six laboratories to determine the MICs of a phylogenetically diverse collection of 356 Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) strains to establish the epidemiological cut-off value for pretomanid. MICs were correlated with WGS data to study the genetic basis of differences in the susceptibility to pretomanid.

Results

We observed ancient differences in the susceptibility to pretomanid among various members of MTBC. Most notably, lineage 1 of M. tuberculosis, which is estimated to account for 28% of tuberculosis cases globally, was less susceptible than lineages 2, 3, 4 and 7 of M. tuberculosis, resulting in a 99th percentile of 2 mg/L for lineage 1 compared with 0.5 mg/L for the remaining M. tuberculosis lineages. Moreover, we observed that higher MICs (≥8 mg/L), which probably confer resistance, had recently evolved independently in six different M. tuberculosis strains. Unlike the aforementioned ancient differences in susceptibility, these recent differences were likely caused by mutations in the known pretomanid resistance genes.

Conclusions

In light of these findings, the provisional critical concentration of 1 mg/L for MGIT set by EMA must be re-evaluated. More broadly, these findings underline the importance of considering the global diversity of MTBC during clinical development of drugs and when defining breakpoints for AST.