Outcomes of WHO-conforming, longer, all-oral multidrug-resistant TB regimens and analysis implications

BACKGROUND: Evidence of the effectiveness of the WHO-recommended design of longer individualized regimens for multidrug- or rifampicin-resistant TB (MDR/RR-TB) is limited.OBJECTIVES: To report end-of-treatment outcomes for MDR/RR-TB patients from a 2015-2018 multi-country cohort that received a regimen consistent with current 2022 WHO updated recommendations and describe the complexities of comparing regimens.METHODS: We analyzed a subset of participants from the endTB Observational Study who initiated a longer MDR/RR-TB regimen that was consistent with subsequent 2022 WHO guidance on regimen design for longer treatments. We excluded individuals who received an injectable agent or who received fewer than four likely effective drugs.RESULTS: Of the 759 participants analyzed, 607 (80.0%, 95% CI 77.0-82.7) experienced successful end-of-treatment outcomes. The frequency of success was high across groups, whether stratified on number of Group A drugs or fluoroquinolone resistance, and ranged from 72.1% to 90.0%. Regimens were highly variable regarding composition and the duration of individual drugs.CONCLUSIONS: Longer, all-oral, individualized regimens that were consistent with 2022 WHO guidance on regimen design had high frequencies of treatment success. Heterogeneous regimen compositions and drug durations precluded meaningful comparisons. Future research should examine which combinations of drugs maximize safety/tolerability and effectiveness.

Concordance of three approaches for operationalizing outcome definitions for multidrug-resistant TB

BACKGROUND: The WHO provides standardized outcome definitions for rifampicin-resistant (RR) and multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB. However, operationalizing these definitions can be challenging in some clinical settings, and incorrect classification may generate bias in reporting and research. Outcomes calculated by algorithms can increase standardization and be adapted to suit the research question. We evaluated concordance between clinician-assigned treatment outcomes and outcomes calculated based on one of two standardized algorithms, one which identified failure at its earliest possible recurrence (i.e., failure-dominant algorithm), and one which calculated the outcome based on culture results at the end of treatment, regardless of early occurrence of failure (i.e., success-dominant algorithm).METHODS: Among 2,525 patients enrolled in the multi-country endTB observational study, we calculated the frequencies of concordance using cross-tabulations of clinician-assigned and algorithm-assigned outcomes. We summarized the common discrepancies.RESULTS: Treatment success calculated by algorithms had high concordance with treatment success assigned by clinicians (95.8 and 97.7% for failure-dominant and success-dominant algorithms, respectively). The frequency and pattern of the most common discrepancies varied by country.CONCLUSION: High concordance was found between clinician-assigned and algorithm-assigned outcomes. Heterogeneity in discrepancies across settings suggests that using algorithms to calculate outcomes may minimize bias.