Early bactericidal activity studies for pulmonary tuberculosis: A systematic review of methodological aspects

• Published in: International journal of antimicrobial agents 2023-05, Vol.61 (5), p.106775-106775, Article 106775
• Main Authors: Koele, Simon E., Phillips, Patrick P.J., Upton, Caryn M., van Ingen, Jakko, Simonsson, Ulrika S.H., Diacon, Andreas H., Aarnoutse, Rob E., Svensson, Elin M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analysis methods; antibacterial properties; Antitubercular Agents - pharmacology; Antitubercular Agents - therapeutic use; biomarkers; clinical trials; Early bactericidal activity; Humans; liquids; microbial load; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Reporting; Sputum - microbiology; systematic review; Time Factors; Tuberculosis; Tuberculosis - drug therapy; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary - drug therapy; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary - microbiology
• ISSN: 0924-8579; 1872-7913; 1872-7913
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2023.106775

A milestone in the development of novel antituberculosis drugs is the demonstration of early bactericidal activity (EBA) in a phase IIa clinical trial. The significant variability in measurements of bacterial load complicates data analysis in these trials. A systematic review and evaluation of methods for determination of EBA in pulmonary tuberculosis studies was undertaken. Bacterial load quantification biomarkers, reporting intervals, calculation methods, statistical testing, and handling of negative culture results were extracted. In total, 79 studies were identified in which EBA was determined. Colony-forming units on solid culture media and/or time-to-positivity in liquid media were the biomarkers used most often, reported in 72 (91%) and 34 (43%) studies, respectively. Twenty-two different reporting intervals were presented, and 12 different calculation methods for EBA were identified. Statistical testing for a significant EBA compared with no change was performed in 54 (68%) studies, and between-group testing was performed in 32 (41%) studies. Negative culture result handling was discussed in 34 (43%) studies. Notable variation was found in the analysis methods and reporting of EBA studies. A standardized and clearly reported analysis method, accounting for different levels of variability in the data, could aid the generalization of study results and facilitate comparison between drugs/regimens.