English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Bedaquiline and delamanid are new and much-needed treatment options for drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB); however, there are limited data guiding their use and no direct comparison of the two drugs. We thus sought to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis receiving either a bedaquiline- or delamanid-based treatment regimen. Methods This is a prospective observational study among patients with drug-resistant pulmonary TB in the country of Georgia from 2015 to 2017. Patients receiving bedaquiline or delamanid were eligible to be enrolled. Monthly sputum cultures and MIC testing on Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates were performed. Clinical outcomes included time to culture conversion, rate of acquired drug resistance and treatment outcomes. Results Among 156 patients with MDR-TB who were approached, 100 were enrolled, and 95 were receiving a bedaquiline (n = 64) or delamanid (n = 31) based regimen and included in the study. Patients receiving bedaquiline or delamanid were similar with regards to age, BMI, substance use, comorbidities, rate of cavitary disease, and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) TB. Rates of additional Class A drug use including linezolid (78 vs. 81%) and a fluoroquinolone (39 vs. 36%) were similar and the mean effective drugs received per group was 4 (IQR 3–4, P = 0.33). Median drug duration was 171 days for bedaquiline and 182 days for delamanid; no patient discontinued due to QTC prolongation. Adjusted cumulative culture conversion rates at 60 days (64% vs. 48%, P = 0.14) and 180 days (95% vs. 77%, P = 0.02) were higher in patients receiving bedaquiline compared with delamanid (see figure). Rates of acquired drug resistance were higher in patients receiving delamanid compared with bedaquiline (35 vs. 12%, P < 0.01). Lastly, patients receiving a bedaquiline-based regimen had higher rates of favorable outcomes as compared with patients receiving delamanid (94% vs. 67%, P < 0.01). Conclusion Patients receiving bedaquiline- and delamanid-based treatment regimens for drug-resistant TB had similar characteristics and those receiving bedaquiline had better clinical outcomes. Our results provide an important first comparison of bedaquiline vs. delamanid containing regimens. Disclosures All Authors: No reported Disclosures.

1884. Clinical Outcomes Among Patients with Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis Receiving Bedaquiline or Delamanid Containing Regimens