People living with HIV (PLHIV) have an increased risk of tuberculosis (TB) and severe COVID-19. TB and COVID-19 present with overlapping symptoms and co-infection can lead to poor outcomes. We assessed the frequency of SARS-CoV-2 positive serology and SARS-CoV-2 infection and the risk of mortality at 6 months in PLHIV with TB disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection. This multi-country, prospective, observational study, conducted between 7^th September 2020 and 7^th April 2022, included ambulatory adult PLHIV investigated for TB (with symptoms of TB or advanced HIV disease) in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa. Testing included CD4 cell count, Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay (sputum), Determine TB LAM Ag assay (urine), chest X-ray, blood SARS-CoV-2 serology test and SARS-CoV-2 PCR (only if TB or COVID-19 symptoms). Individuals were followed for 6 months. Among 1254 participants, 1204 participants had SARS-CoV-2 serology (54% women, median CD4 344 cells/µL [IQR 132–673]), and 487 had SARS-CoV-2 PCR. SARS-CoV-2 serology positivity was 27.0% (325/1204), lower in PLHIV with CD4 counts <200 cells/µL (19.9%, 99/497) than in those with CD4 counts ≥200 cells/µL (31.6%, 222/703), p<0.001. SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity was 8.6% (42/487) and 27.7% (135/487) had probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among PLHIV with symptoms of TB or of COVID-19, 6.6% (32/487) had SARS-CoV-2 infection and TB disease. In multivariable analyses, the risk of death was higher in PLHIV with both SARS-CoV-2 infection and TB compared to those with only SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 8.90, 95%CI 1.47-53.96, p=0.017), with only TB (aHR 3.70, 95%CI 1.00-13.72, p=0.050) or with none of them (aHR 6.83, 95%CI 1.75-26.72, p=0.006). These findings support SARS-CoV-2 testing in PLHIV with symptoms of TB, and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, especially for those with severe immunosuppression. PLHIV with COVID-19 and TB have an increased risk of mortality and would benefit from comprehensive management and close monitoring.

Tuberculosis (TB) among hospitalized patients is underdiagnosed. This study assessed systematic TB-screening, followed by an enhanced TB-diagnostic package for hospitalized patients implemented by trained lay health workers in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. In this before-and-after study we included patients ≥ 18 years. The intervention consisted of systematic clinical screening for TB, HIV and diabetes mellitus by lay health workers and provision of an enhanced TB-diagnostic package including sputum Xpert MTB/Rif Ultra, urine lateral-flow lipoarabinomannan assay (LF-LAM), chest x-ray, and sputum culture. We compared TB case findings with people hospitalized one year preceding the intervention. In the pre-intervention phase, 5217 people were hospitalized. Among 4913 (94.2%) people not on TB treatment, 367 (7.5%) were diagnosed with TB. In the intervention phase, 4015 eligible people were hospitalized. Among 3734 (93.0%) people not on TB treatment, 560 (15.0%) were diagnosed with TB. The proportion of patients diagnosed with TB was higher in the intervention phase (15.0% vs. 7.5%, p < 0.001). Overall in-hospital mortality was lower in the intervention phase [166/3734(4.5%) vs. 336/4913(6.8%), p < 0.001]. Lay health worker-led implementation of systematic TB-screening, coupled with provision of an enhanced TB-diagnostic package significantly improved TB case detection and mortality among hospitalized adults.

BACKGROUND

New 6-month rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis treatment regimens containing bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid (BPaL) with or without moxifloxacin or clofazimine, could improve treatment efficacy, safety, and tolerability, and free up resources within the health system. Following a change to WHO rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis treatment guidelines, countries are facing difficult decisions about when and how to incorporate new drug regimens into national guidelines. We aimed to assess the probability of BPaL-based regimens being cost-saving using data collected in the TB-PRACTECAL trial.

METHODS

This economic evaluation using a cost-utility analysis was embedded in five TB-PRACTECAL trial sites in Belarus, Uzbekistan, and South Africa. Between Nov 19, 2020, and Sept 27, 2022, we collected detailed primary unit cost data in six hospitals and four ambulatory health facilities and collected data on patient-incurred costs from 73 trial participants. The primary efficacy endpoint of the main trial, a composite of unfavourable outcomes (death, disease recurrence, treatment failure, early discontinuation of therapy, withdrawal, or loss to follow-up) and clinically important safety outcomes by 72 weeks of follow-up were incorporated into the analysis. Societal perspective cost data and effect outcome data were input into a Markov model to estimate the cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted by BPaL-based regimens compared with the standard of care over a 20-year time horizon. We conducted a range of univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to test our findings.

FINDINGS

BPaL-based regimens averted a mean of 1·28 DALYs and saved a mean of US$14 868 (SD 291) per person from the provider perspective compared with standard-of-care regimens over 20 years. Patient-incurred costs were reduced by a mean of $172 (SD 0·84) in BPaL-based regimen groups compared with standard of care. The main cost drivers for both providers and patients were inpatient bed-days; the duration of the inpatient period varied across countries. Varying a range of model parameters affected the degree of cost savings but did not change the finding that BPaL-based regimens are cost-saving compared with standard of care.

INTERPRETATION

This trial-based evidence adds to consistent indications from modelling studies that BPaL-based regimens are cost-saving for both the patient and health system. Urgent implementation of BPaL-based regimens in countries with a high burden of tuberculosis could improve treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, reduce pill burden, and free up desperately needed resources within the health system.

BACKGROUND

For decades, poor treatment options and low-quality evidence plagued care for patients with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. The advent of new drugs to treat tuberculosis and enhanced funding now permit randomized, controlled trials of shortened-duration, all-oral treatments for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.

METHODS

We conducted a phase 3, multinational, open-label, randomized, controlled noninferiority trial to compare standard therapy for treatment of fluoroquinolone-susceptible, rifampin-resistant tuberculosis with five 9-month oral regimens that included various combinations of bedaquiline (B), delamanid (D), linezolid (L), levofloxacin (Lfx) or moxifloxacin (M), clofazimine (C), and pyrazinamide (Z). Participants were randomly assigned (with the use of Bayesian response-adaptive randomization) to receive one of five combinations or standard therapy. The primary end point was a favorable outcome at week 73, defined by two negative sputum culture results or favorable bacteriologic, clinical, and radiologic evolution. The noninferiority margin was -12 percentage points.

RESULTS

 Among the 754 participants who underwent randomization, 699 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, and 562 in the per-protocol analysis. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 80.7% of the patients in the standard-therapy group had favorable outcomes. The risk difference between standard therapy and each of the four new regimens that were found to be noninferior in the modified intention-to-treat population was as follows: BCLLfxZ, 9.8 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 18.7); BLMZ, 8.3 percentage points (95% CI, -0.8 to 17.4); BDLLfxZ, 4.6 percentage points (95% CI, -4.9 to 14.1); and DCMZ, 2.5 percentage points (95% CI, -7.5 to 12.5). Differences were similar in the per-protocol population, with the exception of DCMZ, which was not noninferior in that population. The proportion of participants with grade 3 or higher adverse events was similar across the regimens. Grade 3 or higher hepatotoxic events occurred in 11.7% of participants overall and in 7.1% of those receiving standard therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent results across all the analyses support the noninferior efficacy of three all-oral shortened regimens for the treatment of rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. (Funded by Unitaid and others; endTB ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02754765.).

INTRODUCTION

Migrant populations (asylum seekers, permit holders, refugees, and undocumented migrants) living in South Africa face various individual, social, and physical circumstances that underpin their decisions, motivation, and ability to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. We conducted a qualitative study to explore the experiences and perceptions of migrant populations in South Africa on COVID-19 vaccines to inform recommendations for improved COVID-19 immunization.

METHODS

We conducted an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) with 20 asylum seekers, permit holders, refugees, and undocumented migrants living in South Africa. We applied a maximum variation purposive sampling approach to capture all three categories of migrants in South Africa. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and recorded electronically with consent and permission from the study participants. The recordings were transcribed and analyzed thematically following the IPA using Atlas.ti version 9.

RESULTS

Four major reflective themes emanated from the data analysis. (1) While some migrants perceived being excluded from the South African national immunization program at the level of advertisement and felt discriminated against at the immunization centers, others felt included in the program at all levels. (2) Skepticism, myths, and conspiracy theories around the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 vaccine are pervasive among migrant populations in South Africa. (3) There is a continuum of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance/hesitancy ranging from being vaccinated through waiting for the chance to be vaccinated to refusal. (4) Accepting the vaccine or being hesitant follows the beliefs of the participant, knowledge of the vaccine’s benefits, and lessons learned from others already vaccinated.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 vaccine inclusiveness, awareness, and uptake should be enhanced through migrant-aware policies and actions such as community mobilization, healthcare professional training, and mass media campaigns.