Chen, Lisa

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.

Abstract With only 9105 new US tuberculosis (TB) cases reported in 2017, expert consultation is essential for TB care. Data were captured 2013–2017 from consultations by 5 CDC-funded centers, now the TB Centers of Excellence (COEs). 14 586 consultations were provided to TB providers, most related to TB disease and treatment regimens.

Purpose We evaluated the combination of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma in a phase II study. To our knowledge, this was the first randomized trial to evaluate addition of an oncolytic virus to a checkpoint inhibitor. Methods Patients with unresectable stages IIIB to IV melanoma, with no more than one prior therapy if BRAF wild-type, no more than two prior therapies if BRAF mutant, measurable/injectable disease, and without symptomatic autoimmunity or clinically significant immunosuppression were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab or ipilimumab alone. Talimogene laherparepvec treatment began in week 1 (first dose, ≤ 4 mL × 10 6 plaque-forming units/mL; after 3 weeks, ≤ 4 mL × 10 8 plaque-forming units/mL every 2 weeks). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks; up to four doses) began week 1 in the ipilimumab alone arm and week 6 in the combination arm. The primary end point was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria. Results One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned to talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab (n = 98), or ipilimumab alone (n = 100). Thirty-eight patients (39%) in the combination arm and 18 patients (18%) in the ipilimumab arm had an objective response (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 5.5; P = .002). Responses were not limited to injected lesions; visceral lesion decreases were observed in 52% of patients in the combination arm and 23% of patients in the ipilimumab arm. Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included fatigue (combination, 59%; ipilimumab alone, 42%), chills (combination, 53%; ipilimumab alone, 3%), and diarrhea (combination, 42%; ipilimumab alone, 35%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was 45% and 35%, respectively. Three patients in the combination arm had fatal AEs; none were treatment related. Conclusion The study met its primary end point; the objective response rate was significantly higher with talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone. These data indicate that the combination has greater antitumor activity without additional safety concerns versus ipilimumab.