Peloquin, Charles A

ABSTRACT Beta‐lactam antibiotics (beta‐lactams) are first‐line treatments for most major infectious syndromes in acutely ill patients, with in vitro activity against common pathogens, demonstrated efficacy in trials, and a perceived low risk of adverse effects. The current dosing approach, informed by population‐level data, tends to be simplistically reduced to a “one size fits all” dosing method which only accounts for body weight (i.e., in pediatrics) and end organ function to estimate drug clearance (e.g., estimated glomerular filtration rate); this approach results in substantial variability in observed serum concentrations in acutely ill patients, which can compromise real‐world effectiveness and safety. Beta‐lactam dose individualization, therefore, defined as a dosing regimen for one patient informed by measured concentrations from that patient, has been recommended in international clinical guidelines. Comprehensive guidance on best practices for beta‐lactam dose individualization is lacking. To address this knowledge gap and develop guidance, a multidisciplinary panel of international experts was assembled from the disciplines of infectious diseases, critical care, pharmacometrics, and laboratory medicine, representing both adults and pediatrics. The panel systematically evaluated the literature, using the GRADE approach where feasible, to address broad thematic questions pertaining to whether beta‐lactam dose individualization should be pursued, for what indications beta‐lactam dose individualization is warranted, and the most critical considerations and best practices for implementation of beta‐lactam individualization. The resultant consensus recommendations will equip healthcare professionals caring for acutely ill patients treated with beta‐lactam therapy with the evidence and tools necessary to guide optimal use of beta‐lactam dose individualization.

Abstract Background Bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid with or without moxifloxacin (BPaL/M) are recommended oral 6-month treatment regimens for multidrug- or rifampin-resistant (MDR/RR) tuberculosis (TB). Since the US rollout of these regimens in 2019, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and partners have identified patients who failed or relapsed on these regimens. Methods Here, we report a case series of US patients with TB treated with BPaL/M-containing regimens, who experienced adverse outcomes during the period 2022‒2024, including drug resistance, relapse, and treatment failure. Results Clinical and public health outcomes were significant for US patients reported. There were 8 patients identified (n = 8). 5 (62.5%) were male, with a median age 57 years, 2 (25%) were previously treated for TB, and 8 (100%) presented with cavitary disease. This included a patient who died from infectious TB with acquired resistance after exposing over 100 healthcare workers, a waitress who was found to have highly infectious TB at the time of her relapse, and a son who contracted Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) with reduced activity to bedaquiline from his mother in a household transmission event. Conclusions These patients highlight consequences, both for the individual and public health, of relapse and treatment failure in real-life operational settings that may not be readily evident in well-controlled and well-resourced clinical trials. Despite the advent of shorter and better tolerated bedaquiline-based regimens, US clinicians continue to face challenges in managing drug-resistant TB. These data support the need for expert management of these patients beyond routine TB care, as well as the need for close monitoring and follow-up months after treatment completion.

Abstract Background Rifampin-resistant tuberculosis is a leading cause of morbidity worldwide; only one-third of persons start treatment, and outcomes are often inadequate. Several trials demonstrate 90% efficacy using an all-oral, 6-month regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid (BPaL), but significant toxicity occurred using 1200-mg linezolid. After US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2019, some US clinicians rapidly implemented BPaL using an initial 600-mg linezolid dose adjusted by serum drug concentrations and clinical monitoring. Methods Data from US patients treated with BPaL between 14 October 2019 and 30 April 2022 were compiled and analyzed by the BPaL Implementation Group (BIG), including baseline examination and laboratory, electrocardiographic, and clinical monitoring throughout treatment and follow-up. Linezolid dosing and clinical management was provider driven, and most patients had linezolid adjusted by therapeutic drug monitoring. Results Of 70 patients starting BPaL, 2 changed to rifampin-based therapy, 68 (97.1%) completed BPaL, and 2 of the 68 (2.9%) experienced relapse after completion. Using an initial 600-mg linezolid dose daily adjusted by therapeutic drug monitoring and careful clinical and laboratory monitoring for adverse effects, supportive care, and expert consultation throughout BPaL treatment, 3 patients (4.4%) with hematologic toxicity and 4 (5.9%) with neurotoxicity required a change in linezolid dose or frequency. The median BPaL duration was 6 months. Conclusions BPaL has transformed treatment for rifampin-resistant or intolerant tuberculosis. In this cohort, effective treatment required less than half the duration recommended in 2019 US guidelines for drug-resistant tuberculosis. Use of individualized linezolid dosing and monitoring likely enhanced safety and treatment completion. The BIG cohort demonstrates that early implementation of new tuberculosis treatments in the United States is feasible.

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) is the leading cause of death in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected people worldwide. Currently there are no studies examining the use of Rifabutin (RBN) and Dolutegravir (DTG) in co-infected persons. This is a case series of 4 co-infected patients receiving both agents who underwent Pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis. Methods and Results: This is a retrospective chart review study of four patients diagnosed with both HIV and TB, receiving RBN and DTG and undergoing therapeutic drug monitoring. All 4 cases had lower than expected DTG concentrations at least once, including those on the current recommended dose of DTG with RBN, and even those receiving higher doses. Conclusions: Given the frequency of low DTG and RBN concentrations, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for these drugs is advisable. Prospective clinical studies are needed to further determine the PK interactions between RBN and DTG, and virologic response to treatment.