Table 4 Real-world bedaquiline treatment success rates reported by post-licensure studies
Study | Year of Publication | Study Type | Country | Number of Patients | Study Population | Comparator | Efficacy (Success Rate) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BDQ | SOC | |||||||
WHO [28] | 2017 | Systematic literature review conducted in 2016 | Multi country | 205 | MDR and XDR | Not mentioned | 61.0% | – |
France | 45 | Not mentioned | 75.5% | – | ||||
South Africa | 195 | Not mentioned | 63.4% | – | ||||
Borisov et al. [12] | 2017 | Large retrospective, observational study conducted in 25 centers in 15 countries on 5 continents | Africa | 113 | MDR and XDR | Not mentioned | 64.6% | – |
Eastern Europe | 85 | Not mentioned | 63.5% | – | ||||
Other settings | 49 | Not mentioned | 55.1% | – | ||||
Skrahina et al. [11] | 2018 | Study on 192 MDR-TB patients treated with bedaquiline | Belarus | 192 | MDR | Not mentioned | 92.7% | – |
Diacon et al. [10] | 2014 | Phase 2b trial | Brazil, India, Latvia, Peru, the Philippines, and Russia | 132 (66 each) | MDR | Standard-of-care drugs | 62.0% | 44.0% |
58.0% | 32.0% | |||||||
Guglielmetti et al. [14] | 2017 | Retrospective study of multicenter observational cohort | France | 45 | MDR and XDR | Not mentioned | 80% | – |
Ndjeka et al. [15] | 2018 | Retrospective study | South Africa | 200 | MDR and XDR | Only bedaquiline | 69.5% | – |