• Ruth L Goodall, Sarah K Meredith, Andrew J Nunn, Adamu Bayissa, Anuj K Bhatnagar, Gay Bronson, Chen-Yuan Chiang, Francesca Conradie, Meera Gurumurthy, Bruce Kirenga, Nana Kiria, Daniel Meressa, Ronelle Moodliar, Gopalan Narendran, Nosipho Ngubane, Mohammed Rassool, Karen Sanders, Rajesh Solanki, SquireS BertelSBDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK., Gabriela Torrea, Bazarragchaa Tsogt, Elena Tudor, Armand Van Deun, I D Rusen, and STREAM study collaborators.
• Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: r.goodall@ucl.ac.uk.
• Lancet. 2022 Nov 26; 400 (10366): 185818681858-1868.

BackgroundThe STREAM stage 1 trial showed that a 9-month regimen for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis was non-inferior to the 20-month 2011 WHO-recommended regimen. In STREAM stage 2, we aimed to compare two bedaquiline-containing regimens with the 9-month STREAM stage 1 regimen.MethodsWe did a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in 13 hospital clinics in seven countries, in individuals aged 15 years or older with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis without fluoroquinolone or aminoglycoside resistance. Participants were randomly assigned 1:2:2:2 to the 2011 WHO regimen (terminated early), a 9-month control regimen, a 9-month oral regimen with bedaquiline (primary comparison), or a 6-month regimen with bedaquiline and 8 weeks of second-line injectable. Randomisations were stratified by site, HIV status, and CD4 count. Participants and clinicians were aware of treatment-group assignments, but laboratory staff were masked. The primary outcome was favourable status (negative cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis without a preceding unfavourable outcome) at 76 weeks; any death, bacteriological failure or recurrence, and major treatment change were considered unfavourable outcomes. All comparisons used groups of participants randomly assigned concurrently. For non-inferiority to be shown, the upper boundary of the 95% CI should be less than 10% in both modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol analyses, with prespecified tests for superiority done if non-inferiority was shown. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN18148631.FindingsBetween March 28, 2016, and Jan 28, 2020, 1436 participants were screened and 588 were randomly assigned. Of 517 participants in the mITT population, 133 (71%) of 187 on the control regimen and 162 (83%) of 196 on the oral regimen had a favourable outcome: a difference of 11·0% (95% CI 2·9-19·0), adjusted for HIV status and randomisation protocol (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). By 76 weeks, 108 (53%) of 202 participants on the control regimen and 106 (50%) of 211 allocated to the oral regimen had an adverse event of grade 3 or 4; five (2%) participants on the control regimen and seven (3%) on the oral regimen had died. Hearing loss (Brock grade 3 or 4) was more frequent in participants on the control regimen than in those on the oral regimen (18 [9%] vs four [2%], p=0·0015). Of 134 participants in the mITT population who were allocated to the 6-month regimen, 122 (91%) had a favourable outcome compared with 87 (69%) of 127 participants randomly assigned concurrently to the control regimen (adjusted difference 22·2%, 95% CI 13·1-31·2); six (4%) of 143 participants on the 6-month regimen had grade 3 or 4 hearing loss.InterpretationBoth bedaquiline-containing regimens, a 9-month oral regimen and a 6-month regimen with 8 weeks of second-line injectable, had superior efficacy compared with a 9-month injectable-containing regimen, with fewer cases of hearing loss.FundingUSAID and Janssen Research & Development.Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

14 keywords...

hide…