Evidence Hub

Treatment outcomes of bedaquiline-resistant tuberculosis: a retrospective and matched cohort study

Lindokuhle Mdlenyani, Zahraa Mohamed, Jacob A M Stadler, Nomfuneko Mtwa, Graeme Meintjes, R. Warren, Johanna Kuhlin, S. Wasserman

medRxiv, 2025

63 participants · 14 citations

Abstract

Background: Rising prevalence of bedaquiline resistance undermines benefits from this life-saving drug for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (RR-TB). Despite increasing awareness, patient-level outcomes for bedaquiline-resistant TB have not been well-characterised and case management poorly defined. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study with matched controls at a TB referral hospital in South Africa. Cases included patients [≥]13 years with a phenotypic bedaquiline-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolate identified between January 2018 and June 2023. Matched controls (1:1) with bedaquiline-susceptible RR-TB were selected from a prospective observational study conducted at the same facility. Primary outcomes included time to sputum culture conversion (SCC), a modified WHO-defined unfavourable outcome, and TB-free survival (alive, with SCC, and in care or treatment completed) through 18 months. Adjusted analyses used Cox proportional hazards models. Findings: Eighty-two patients with bedaquiline-resistant TB were included; 57 (70%) were HIV-positive and 17 (21%) had no prior exposure to bedaquiline or clofazimine. Bedaquiline was prescribed for 72 (88%) and meropenem (plus amoxicillin-clavulanate) for 32 (39%) after submission of the sputum sample with the first bedaquiline-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolate. At 18 months, 43 (52%) patients achieved TB-free survival; 17 (20%) failed to achieve sustained SCC, there were 19 (23%) deaths, and 50 (80%)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 63 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free