-
During the study period, 252 patients with pulmonary MDR-TB, pre-XDR-TB, and XDR-TB were treated with BDQ alone or BDQ combined with DLM. The BDQ combined with DLM and BDQ group were 1:2 matched. Finally, 96 patients were included in this analysis based on the following inclusion and exclusion criteria: 64 in the BDQ group and 32 in the BDQ + DLM group.
The patients’ median age was 39.0 years (IQR = 32.8-50.3), median body mass index (BMI) was 19.9 (IQR = 19.1-21.4), and 60 (62.5%) patients were male. The median baseline QTc was 402.0ms (IQR= 387.5-418.0) (P = 0.750). Baseline QTc did not differ between the BDQ and BDQ + DLM groups. Twenty-two (22/96, 22.9%) patients had MDR-TB, 70 (70/96, 72.9%) had pre-XDR-TB, and four (4/96, 4.2%) had XDR-TB. The types of drug resistance, comorbidities, and baseline characteristics of the two groups were not different between the two groups (Table 1). The background regimens consisted of effective anti-TB drugs formulated according to drug susceptibility testing results, including linezolid, clofazimine, cycloserine, amikacin, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, p-aminosalicylic acid, capreomycin, and protionamide. No significant differences were found in the background treatment regimens between the two groups (Table 2).
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients with MDR-TB receiving BDQ- or BDQ combined with DLM-containing regimens in Beijing Chest Hospital, China, 2018-2023 (N = 96).
Total BDQ BDQ+DLM P-value* Number of patients 96 64 32 Male, N (%) 60 (62.5) 43 (67.2) 17 (53.1) 0.263 Age, median (IQR) 39.0 (32.8-50.3) 39.5 (32.0-49.5) 39.0 (33.0-50.3) 0.809 BMI (kg/m2), median (IQR) 19.9 (19.1-21.4) 20.1 (19.1-21.4) 19.6 (18.8-21.3) 0.252 Baseline QTc (ms) (IQR) 402.0 (387.5-418.0) 402.0 (390.0-418.0) 411.5 (384.0-419.0) 0.750 History of TB treatment, N (%) No previous TB treatment 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Previous TB treatment 94 (97.9) 63 (98.4) 31 (96.9) 0.626 Drug resistance, N (%) MDR 22 (22.9) 15 (23.4) 7 (21.9) 0.869 Pre-XDR 70 (72.9) 47 (73.4) 23 (71.9) 0.876 XDR 4 (4.2) 2 (3.1) 2 (6.3) 0.599 Resistance to, N (%) Fluroquinolone 74 (77.1) 49 (76.6) 25 (78.1) 0.865 Ethambutol 48 (50.0) 33 (51.6) 15 (46.9) 0.829 Streptomycin 71 (74.0) 50 (78.1) 21 (65.6) 0.221 Kanamycin 40 (41.7) 29 (45.3) 11 (34.4) 0.382 Amikacin 36 (37.5) 25 (39.1) 11 (34.4) 0.823 Protionamide 26 (27.1) 20 (31.3) 6 (18.6) 0.230 p-aminosalicylic acid 36 (37.5) 25 (39.1) 11 (34.4) 0.823 Linezolid 4 (4.2) 2 (3.1) 2 (6.3) 0.599 Underlying disease, N (%) Thyroid Diseases 4 (4.2) 3 (4.7) 1 (3.1) 0.728 Diabetes 20 (20.8) 14 (21.9) 6 (18.8) 0.796 Hypertension 6 (6.3) 5 (7.8) 1 (3.1) 0.660 Hepatitis 2 (2.1) 2 (3.1) 0 (0) 0.551 Mental disease 1 (1.0) 0 (0) 1 (3.1) 0.333 Otolaryngological disease 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Others 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Note: Data are expressed as median (IQR) or number (%); *Mann-Whitney Test. BDQ, bedaquiline, DLM, delamanid, IQR, interquartile range; BMI: body mass index; MDR, multidrug-resistant; Pre-XDR, pre-extensively drug-resistant; XDR, extensively drug-resistant; N, number. Table 2. Companion drugs used in BDQ- or BDQ combined with DLM regimens for the treatment of patients with MDR-TB in Beijing Chest Hospital, China, 2018-2023 (N = 96).
Total BDQ BDQ+DLM P-value* Number of patients 96 64 32 Anti-TB drugs received at treatment, N (%) Linezolid 91 (94.8) 61 (95.3) 30 (93.8) 0.754 Clofazimine 68 (70.8) 46 (71.9) 22 (68.8) 0.814 Cycloserine 64 (66.7) 43 (67.2) 21 (65.6) 0.883 Amikacin 29 (30.2) 21 (32.8) 8 (25.0) 0.487 Moxifloxacin 16 (16.7) 14(21.9) 2 (6.3) 0.080 Levofloxacin 13 (13.5) 9 (14.1) 4 (12.5) 0.839 p-aminosalicylic acid 37 (38.5) 29 (45.3) 8 (25.0) 0.075 Capreomycin 18 (18.8) 15 (23.4) 3 (9.4) 0.164 Protionamide 31 (32.3) 24 (37.5) 7 (21.9) 0.166 Note: Data are expressed as number (%); *Mann-Whitney Test. BDQ, bedaquiline; DLM, delamanid; N, number. -
Among the 96 patients with positive sputum cultures at the initiation of BDQ and BDQ combined with DLM, 46 patients (76.7%) in the BDQ group and 29 (93.6%) in the BDQ combined with DLM group had negative bacterial sputum cultures during treatment. Among patients who underwent treatment, fourteen patients were not achieved sputum culture conversion with the new drug in the BDQ group. Two patients in the BDQ-DLM group did not achieve conversion to sputum culture. Four patients in the BDQ group and one patient in the BDQ-DLM group discontinued treatment with BDQ- or BDQ-DLM-containing regimens. The percentage of patients experiencing sputum culture conversion was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.078). During treatment, most patients in both groups achieved sputum culture conversion at eight weeks. The median (IQR) time to culture conversion in both groups was 8 (8, 8) weeks, with no significant difference. With the extension of treatment time, the time to sputum culture conversion in the BDQ-DLM group was significantly shorter than that in the BDQ group (P = 0.032) (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Time to sputum culture conversion after starting BDQ- or BDQ combined with DLM-containing regimens among patients with MDR-TB in Beijing Chest Hospital, China, 2018-2023 (N = 96).
In this study, we further analyzed the risk factors associated with the failure to achieve sputum culture conversion. Favorable outcomes (negative sputum culture conversion) were observed in 75 patients (78.1%). Unfavorable outcomes were noted in 21 patients (21.9%), including 5 patients who discontinued treatment (due to QTc interval prolongation) and 16 patients (16.7%) with consecutive positive sputum cultures. Patients with a low body mass index (BMI, < 18.5 kg/m2) (odds ratio [OR], 3.250; 95% CI: 1.055-10.014) had significantly higher odds of experiencing unfavorable outcomes, as determined by multivariate analysis (Table 3).
Table 3. Risk Factors associated with unfavorable outcome among patient with MDR-TB receiving BDQ- or BDQ combined with DLM regimens in Beijing Chest Hospital, China, 2018-2023 (N = 96).
Characteristics Favorable Outcome(N = 75) Unfavorable outcome(N = 21) Crude OR(95% CI) No. % No. % Age (year) < 25 4 5.3 1 4.8 Ref 25-44 41 54.7 12 57.1 1.171 (0.119-11.489) ≥ 45 30 40.0 8 38.1 1.067 (0.104-10.919) BMI (kg/m2) ≥ 18.5 65 86.7 14 66.7 Ref < 18.5 10 13.3 7 33.3 3.250 (1.055-10.014) Sex Female 29 38.7 7 33.3 Ref Male 46 61.3 14 66.7 1.261 (0.455-3.494) Drug resistance MDR 19 25.3 3 14.3 Ref Pre-XDR 53 70.7 17 81.0 2.031 (0.535-7.716) XDR 3 4.0 1 4.7 2.111 (0.162-27.582) Diabetes No 58 77.3 18 85.7 Ref Yes 17 22.7 3 14.3 0.569 (0.149-2.164) Note: Data are expressed as number (%). BDQ, bedaquiline; DLM, delamanid; BMI: body mass index; MDR: multidrug-resistant; Pre-XDR: pre-extensively drug-resistant; XDR: extensively drug-resistant; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; N, number. -
Overall, data analysis revealed that adverse events occurred in 28 (29.2%) of 96 patients. As summarized in Table 4, the most frequent adverse event was QTc prolongation (11/96, 11.5%). QTc interval prolongation and hepatic disorders were the most common adverse events. During treatment, adverse events presumed to be associated with BDQ and BDQ combined with DLM were reported in 20 patients (20.8%). Prolongation of QTc (> 450ms) occurred in 11 patients (11.5%): seven patients (10.9%) in the BDQ group and four patients (12.5%) in the BDQ combined with DLM group (P = 0.827). Four patients (6.3%) discontinued BDQ and one patient (3.1%) discontinued BDQ combined with DLM because of prolonged QTc at 24 weeks of treatment (P = 0.662). Prolongation of the QTc interval was the major reason for discontinuation of BDQ and BDQ combined with DLM. The frequency of adverse events did not differ between the two groups (Table 4).
Table 4. Adverse events in patients with MDR-TB treated with BDQ- or BDQ combined with DLM-containing regimens in Beijing Chest Hospital, China, 2018-2023 (N = 96).
Total BDQ BDQ-DLM P-value* Number of patients 96 64 32 Any adverse events, N (%) 28 (29.2) 18 (28.1) 10 (31.3) 0.814 Adverse events related to treatment, N (%) 27 (28.1) 17 (26.6) 10 (31.3) 0.810 Adverse events presumably due to BDQ/BDQ-DLM, N (%) 20 (20.8) 12 (18.8) 8 (25.0) 0.595 Adverse events with, N (%) QTc interval prolongation 11 (11.5) 7 (10.9) 4 (12.5) 0.827 Hepatic disorder 4 (4.2) 3 (4.7) 1 (3.1) 0.728 Renal disorder 1 (1.0) 1 (1.6) 0 (0) 0.493 Nausea 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Electrolyte disturbance 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Peripheral neuropathy 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Neutropenia 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Optic neuropathy 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Heart failure 2 (2.1) 2 (3.1) 0 (0) 0.551 QTc interval prolongation (ms) 450-499 6 (6.3) 3 (4.7) 3 (9.4) 0.660 ≥ 500 5 (5.2) 4 (6.3) 1 (3.1) 0.662 Note: Data are expressed as number (%); *Mann-Whitney Test. BDQ, bedaquiline, DLM, delamanid; N, number.
doi: 10.3967/bes2024.088
Efficacy and Safety of Combined Bedaquiline and Delamanid Use among Patients with Multidrug-resistant Tuberculosis in Beijing, China
-
Abstract:
Objectives The combined use of bedaquiline and delamanid (BDQ-DLM) is limited by an increased risk of prolonging the QTc interval. We retrospectively evaluated patients who received DLM/BDQ-containing regimens at a TB-specialized hospital. We aimed to present clinical efficacy and safety data for Chinese patients. Methods This case–control study included patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treated with BDQ alone or BDQ plus DLM. Results A total of 96 patients were included in this analysis: 64 in the BDQ group and 32 in the BDQ + DLM group. Among the 96 patients with positive sputum culture at the initiation of BDQ alone or BDQ combined with DLM, 46 patients (71.9%) in the BDQ group and 29 (90.6%) in the BDQ-DLM group achieved sputum culture conversion during treatment. The rate of sputum culture conversion did not differ between the two groups. The time to sputum culture conversion was significantly shorter in the BDQ-DLM group than in the BDQ group. The most frequent adverse event was QTc interval prolongation; however, the frequency of adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion In conclusion, our results demonstrate that the combined use of BDQ and DLM is efficacious and tolerable in Chinese patients infected with MDR-TB. Patients in the BDQ-DLM group achieved sputum culture conversion sooner than those in the BDQ group. -
Key words:
- Multidrug resistant /
- Tuberculosis /
- Bedaquiline /
- Delamanid /
- Efficacy /
- Safety
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
#Correspondence should be addressed to GAO Meng Qiu, Email: gaomqwdm@aliyun.com, Tel: +86 13611009420; PANG Yu, Email: pangyupound@163.com, Tel: +86 13810098209.
Biographical note of the first author: Guo Can, male, born in 1986, PhD Degree, majoring in internal medicine, infectious disease; NIE Li Hui, female, born in 1976, PhD Degree, majoring in internal medicine, infectious disease.
The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board and Ethics Committee of the Beijing Chest Hospital, Capital Medical University.
&These authors contributed equally to this work.
注释:1) AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS: 2) CONFLICT OF INTEREST: 3) CONFLICT OF INTEREST: 4) CONFLICT OF INTEREST: 5) ETHICS APPROVAL: -
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients with MDR-TB receiving BDQ- or BDQ combined with DLM-containing regimens in Beijing Chest Hospital, China, 2018-2023 (N = 96).
Total BDQ BDQ+DLM P-value* Number of patients 96 64 32 Male, N (%) 60 (62.5) 43 (67.2) 17 (53.1) 0.263 Age, median (IQR) 39.0 (32.8-50.3) 39.5 (32.0-49.5) 39.0 (33.0-50.3) 0.809 BMI (kg/m2), median (IQR) 19.9 (19.1-21.4) 20.1 (19.1-21.4) 19.6 (18.8-21.3) 0.252 Baseline QTc (ms) (IQR) 402.0 (387.5-418.0) 402.0 (390.0-418.0) 411.5 (384.0-419.0) 0.750 History of TB treatment, N (%) No previous TB treatment 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Previous TB treatment 94 (97.9) 63 (98.4) 31 (96.9) 0.626 Drug resistance, N (%) MDR 22 (22.9) 15 (23.4) 7 (21.9) 0.869 Pre-XDR 70 (72.9) 47 (73.4) 23 (71.9) 0.876 XDR 4 (4.2) 2 (3.1) 2 (6.3) 0.599 Resistance to, N (%) Fluroquinolone 74 (77.1) 49 (76.6) 25 (78.1) 0.865 Ethambutol 48 (50.0) 33 (51.6) 15 (46.9) 0.829 Streptomycin 71 (74.0) 50 (78.1) 21 (65.6) 0.221 Kanamycin 40 (41.7) 29 (45.3) 11 (34.4) 0.382 Amikacin 36 (37.5) 25 (39.1) 11 (34.4) 0.823 Protionamide 26 (27.1) 20 (31.3) 6 (18.6) 0.230 p-aminosalicylic acid 36 (37.5) 25 (39.1) 11 (34.4) 0.823 Linezolid 4 (4.2) 2 (3.1) 2 (6.3) 0.599 Underlying disease, N (%) Thyroid Diseases 4 (4.2) 3 (4.7) 1 (3.1) 0.728 Diabetes 20 (20.8) 14 (21.9) 6 (18.8) 0.796 Hypertension 6 (6.3) 5 (7.8) 1 (3.1) 0.660 Hepatitis 2 (2.1) 2 (3.1) 0 (0) 0.551 Mental disease 1 (1.0) 0 (0) 1 (3.1) 0.333 Otolaryngological disease 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Others 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Note: Data are expressed as median (IQR) or number (%); *Mann-Whitney Test. BDQ, bedaquiline, DLM, delamanid, IQR, interquartile range; BMI: body mass index; MDR, multidrug-resistant; Pre-XDR, pre-extensively drug-resistant; XDR, extensively drug-resistant; N, number. Table 2. Companion drugs used in BDQ- or BDQ combined with DLM regimens for the treatment of patients with MDR-TB in Beijing Chest Hospital, China, 2018-2023 (N = 96).
Total BDQ BDQ+DLM P-value* Number of patients 96 64 32 Anti-TB drugs received at treatment, N (%) Linezolid 91 (94.8) 61 (95.3) 30 (93.8) 0.754 Clofazimine 68 (70.8) 46 (71.9) 22 (68.8) 0.814 Cycloserine 64 (66.7) 43 (67.2) 21 (65.6) 0.883 Amikacin 29 (30.2) 21 (32.8) 8 (25.0) 0.487 Moxifloxacin 16 (16.7) 14(21.9) 2 (6.3) 0.080 Levofloxacin 13 (13.5) 9 (14.1) 4 (12.5) 0.839 p-aminosalicylic acid 37 (38.5) 29 (45.3) 8 (25.0) 0.075 Capreomycin 18 (18.8) 15 (23.4) 3 (9.4) 0.164 Protionamide 31 (32.3) 24 (37.5) 7 (21.9) 0.166 Note: Data are expressed as number (%); *Mann-Whitney Test. BDQ, bedaquiline; DLM, delamanid; N, number. Table 3. Risk Factors associated with unfavorable outcome among patient with MDR-TB receiving BDQ- or BDQ combined with DLM regimens in Beijing Chest Hospital, China, 2018-2023 (N = 96).
Characteristics Favorable Outcome(N = 75) Unfavorable outcome(N = 21) Crude OR(95% CI) No. % No. % Age (year) < 25 4 5.3 1 4.8 Ref 25-44 41 54.7 12 57.1 1.171 (0.119-11.489) ≥ 45 30 40.0 8 38.1 1.067 (0.104-10.919) BMI (kg/m2) ≥ 18.5 65 86.7 14 66.7 Ref < 18.5 10 13.3 7 33.3 3.250 (1.055-10.014) Sex Female 29 38.7 7 33.3 Ref Male 46 61.3 14 66.7 1.261 (0.455-3.494) Drug resistance MDR 19 25.3 3 14.3 Ref Pre-XDR 53 70.7 17 81.0 2.031 (0.535-7.716) XDR 3 4.0 1 4.7 2.111 (0.162-27.582) Diabetes No 58 77.3 18 85.7 Ref Yes 17 22.7 3 14.3 0.569 (0.149-2.164) Note: Data are expressed as number (%). BDQ, bedaquiline; DLM, delamanid; BMI: body mass index; MDR: multidrug-resistant; Pre-XDR: pre-extensively drug-resistant; XDR: extensively drug-resistant; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; N, number. Table 4. Adverse events in patients with MDR-TB treated with BDQ- or BDQ combined with DLM-containing regimens in Beijing Chest Hospital, China, 2018-2023 (N = 96).
Total BDQ BDQ-DLM P-value* Number of patients 96 64 32 Any adverse events, N (%) 28 (29.2) 18 (28.1) 10 (31.3) 0.814 Adverse events related to treatment, N (%) 27 (28.1) 17 (26.6) 10 (31.3) 0.810 Adverse events presumably due to BDQ/BDQ-DLM, N (%) 20 (20.8) 12 (18.8) 8 (25.0) 0.595 Adverse events with, N (%) QTc interval prolongation 11 (11.5) 7 (10.9) 4 (12.5) 0.827 Hepatic disorder 4 (4.2) 3 (4.7) 1 (3.1) 0.728 Renal disorder 1 (1.0) 1 (1.6) 0 (0) 0.493 Nausea 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Electrolyte disturbance 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Peripheral neuropathy 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Neutropenia 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Optic neuropathy 2 (2.1) 1 (1.6) 1 (3.1) 0.626 Heart failure 2 (2.1) 2 (3.1) 0 (0) 0.551 QTc interval prolongation (ms) 450-499 6 (6.3) 3 (4.7) 3 (9.4) 0.660 ≥ 500 5 (5.2) 4 (6.3) 1 (3.1) 0.662 Note: Data are expressed as number (%); *Mann-Whitney Test. BDQ, bedaquiline, DLM, delamanid; N, number. -
[1] Bagcchi S. WHO's global tuberculosis report 2022. Lancet Microbe, 2023; 4, e20. [2] Singh B. Bedaquiline in drug-resistant tuberculosis: a mini-review. Curr Mol Pharmacol, 2023; 16, 243−53. [3] Espinosa-Pereiro J, Sánchez-Montalvá A, Aznar ML, et al. MDR tuberculosis treatment. Medicina (Kaunas), 2022; 58, 188. [4] Van Crevel R, Critchley JA. The interaction of diabetes and tuberculosis: translating research to policy and practice. Trop Med Infect Dis, 2021; 6, 8. [5] Tiberi S, Utjesanovic N, Galvin J, et al. Drug resistant TB - latest developments in epidemiology, diagnostics and management. Int J Infect Dis, 2022; 124 Suppl 1, S20-5. [6] Chen XH, Hashizume H, Tomishige T, et al. Delamanid kills dormant mycobacteria in vitro and in a guinea pig model of tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2017; 61, e02402−16. [7] Li Y, Sun F, Zhang WH. Bedaquiline and delamanid in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: promising but challenging. Drug Dev Res, 2019; 80, 98−105. [8] Ryan NJ, Lo JH. Delamanid: first global approval. Drugs, 2014; 74, 1041−5. [9] Gler MT, Skripconoka V, Sanchez-Garavito E, et al. Delamanid for multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis. N Engl J Med, 2012; 366, 2151−60. [10] Khoshnood S, Taki E, Sadeghifard N, et al. Mechanism of action, resistance, synergism, and clinical implications of delamanid against multidrug-resistant mycobacterium tuberculosis. Front Microbiol, 2021; 12, 717045. [11] Liu YG, Matsumoto M, Ishida H, et al. Delamanid: from discovery to its use for pulmonary multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). Tuberculosis, 2018; 111, 20−30. [12] Guglielmetti L, Chiesi S, Eimer J, et al. Bedaquiline and delamanid for drug-resistant tuberculosis: a clinician's perspective. Future Microbiol, 2020; 15, 779−99. [13] Huerga H, Khan U, Bastard M, et al. Safety and effectiveness outcomes from a 14-country cohort of patients with multi-drug resistant tuberculosis treated concomitantly with Bedaquiline, Delamanid, and other second-line drugs. Clin Infect Dis, 2022; 75, 1307−14. [14] Liebenberg D, Gordhan BG, Kana BD. Drug resistant tuberculosis: implications for transmission, diagnosis, and disease management. Front Cell Infect Microbiol, 2022; 12, 943545. [15] Olayanju O, Esmail A, Limberis J, et al. A regimen containing bedaquiline and delamanid compared to bedaquiline in patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis. Eur Respir J, 2020; 55, 1901181. [16] Hewison C, Khan U, Bastard M, et al. Safety of treatment regimens containing Bedaquiline and Delamanid in the endTB cohort. Clin Infect Dis, 2022; 75, 1006−13. [17] Dooley KE, Rosenkranz SL, Conradie F, et al. QT effects of bedaquiline, delamanid, or both in patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis: a phase 2, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis, 2021; 21, 975−83. [18] Vambe D, Kay AW, Furin J, et al. Bedaquiline and delamanid result in low rates of unfavourable outcomes among TB patients in Eswatini. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis, 2020; 24, 1095−102. [19] Padmapriyadarsini C, Vohra V, Bhatnagar A, et al. Bedaquiline, delamanid, linezolid, and clofazimine for treatment of pre-extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis, 2022; 76, e938−46. [20] Gupta R, Wells CD, Hittel N, et al. Delamanid in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis, 2016; 20, 33−7. [21] Borah P, Deb PK, Venugopala KN, et al. Tuberculosis: an update on pathophysiology, molecular mechanisms of drug resistance, newer anti-TB drugs, treatment regimens and host- directed therapies. Curr Top Med Chem, 2021; 21, 547−70. [22] Tanneau L, Svensson EM, Rossenu S, et al. Exposure-safety analysis of QTc interval and transaminase levels following bedaquiline administration in patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol, 2021; 10, 1538−49. [23] Putra ON, Yulistiani Y, Soedarsono S. Scoping review: QT interval prolongation in regimen containing bedaquiline and delamanid in patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis. Int J Mycobacteriol, 2022; 11, 349−55. [24] Lönnroth K, Williams BG, Cegielski P, et al. A consistent log-linear relationship between tuberculosis incidence and body mass index. Int J Epidemiol, 2010; 39, 149−55. [25] Guglielmetti L, Le Dû D, Jachym M, et al. Compassionate use of bedaquiline for the treatment of multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: interim analysis of a French cohort. Clin Infect Dis, 2015; 60, 188−94. [26] Zhao Y, Fox T, Manning K, et al. Improved treatment outcomes with Bedaquiline when substituted for second-line injectable agents in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Infect Dis, 2019; 68, 1522−9. [27] Kawai V, Soto G, Gilman RH, et al. Tuberculosis mortality, drug resistance, and infectiousness in patients with and without HIV infection in Peru. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 2006; 75, 1027−33. [28] Yang QL, Han JJ, Shen JJ, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis in adults with HIV. Medicine, 2022; 101, e30405. [29] Khoshnood S, Goudarzi M, Taki E, et al. Bedaquiline: current status and future perspectives. J Glob Antimicrob Resist, 2021; 25, 48−59.