BACKGROUND: We evaluated patient safety within a randomized crossover trial comparing electronic directly observed therapy (eDOT) to in-person DOT (ipDOT) in persons undergoing TB treatment in New York City, NY, USA.METHODS: Participant symptoms, symptom severity, and clinical management were documented. We assessed adverse event reports (AERs) by DOT method during the two-period crossover. Using Cox proportional-hazards mixed-effects models, we estimated the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of participants reporting an adverse event (AE) vs. not reporting an AE.RESULTS: Of 211 participants, 57 (27.0%) reported AEs during the two-period crossover; of these, 54.4% (31/57) were reported while using eDOT vs. 45.6% (26/57) while using ipDOT. Controlling for study group and period, the aHR for eDOT vs. ipDOT was 0.98 (95% CI 0.49-1.93). Although statistically not significant, the wide confidence intervals suggest that a significant association cannot be entirely ruled out. Gastrointestinal symptoms were most frequently reported (42.1%, 24/57). AER types and severity did not differ significantly by DOT method. Days from symptom onset to medical attention was similar across DOT methods (median: 1.0 day, IQR 0.0-2.0). No participants switched DOT methods due to AERs or monitoring concerns.CONCLUSION: Further evaluation to ascertain whether AERs differ when patients use eDOT vs. ipDOT is warranted.

IMPORTANCE: Electronic directly observed therapy (DOT) is used increasingly as an alternative to in-person DOT for monitoring tuberculosis treatment. Evidence supporting its efficacy is limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether electronic DOT can attain a level of treatment observation as favorable as in-person DOT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a 2-period crossover, noninferiority trial with initial randomization to electronic or in-person DOT at the time outpatient tuberculosis treatment began. The trial enrolled 216 participants with physician-suspected or bacteriologically confirmed tuberculosis from July 2017 to October 2019 in 4 clinics operated by the New York City Health Department. Data analysis was conducted between March 2020 and April 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were asked to complete 20 medication doses using 1 DOT method, then switched methods for another 20 doses. With in-person therapy, participants chose clinic or community-based DOT; with electronic DOT, participants chose live video-conferencing or recorded videos. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Difference between the percentage of medication doses participants were observed to completely ingest with in-person DOT and with electronic DOT. Noninferiority was demonstrated if the upper 95% confidence limit of the difference was 10% or less. We estimated the percentage of completed doses using a logistic mixed effects model, run in 4 modes: modified intention-to-treat, per-protocol, per-protocol with 85% or more of doses conforming to the randomization assignment, and empirical. Confidence intervals were estimated by bootstrapping (with 1000 replicates). RESULTS: There were 173 participants in each crossover period (median age, 40 years [range, 16-86 years]; 140 [66%] men; 80 [37%] Asian and Pacific Islander, 43 [20%] Black, and 71 [33%] Hispanic individuals) evaluated with the model in the modified intention-to-treat analytic mode. The percentage of completed doses with in-person DOT was 87.2% (95% CI, 84.6%-89.9%) vs 89.8% (95% CI, 87.5%-92.1%) with electronic DOT. The percentage difference was -2.6% (95% CI, -4.8% to -0.3%), consistent with a conclusion of noninferiority. The 3 other analytic modes yielded equivalent conclusions, with percentage differences ranging from -4.9% to -1.9%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this trial, the percentage of completed doses under electronic DOT was noninferior to that under in-person DOT. This trial provides evidence supporting the efficacy of this digital adherence technology, and for the inclusion of electronic DOT in the standard of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03266003.

BACKGROUND: New York City (NYC) reported a higher pneumonia and influenza death rate than the rest of New York State during 2010-2014. Most NYC pneumonia and influenza deaths are attributed to pneumonia caused by infection acquired in the community, and these deaths typically occur in hospitals. METHODS: We identified hospitalizations of New York State residents aged ≥20 years discharged from New York State hospitals during 2010-2014 with a principal diagnosis of community-setting pneumonia or a secondary diagnosis of community-setting pneumonia if the principal diagnosis was respiratory failure or sepsis. We examined mean annual age-adjusted community-setting pneumonia-associated hospitalization (CSPAH) rates and proportion of CSPAH with in-hospital death, overall and by sociodemographic group, and produced a multivariable negative binomial model to assess hospitalization rate ratios. RESULTS: Compared with non-NYC urban, suburban, and rural areas of New York State, NYC had the highest mean annual age-adjusted CSPAH rate at 475.3 per 100,000 population and the highest percentage of CSPAH with in-hospital death at 13.7%. NYC also had the highest proportion of CSPAH patients residing in higher-poverty-level areas. Adjusting for age, sex, and area-based poverty, NYC residents experienced 1.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-1.4), non-NYC urban residents 1.4 (95% CI, 1.3-1.6), and suburban residents 1.2 (95% CI, 1.1-1.3) times the rate of CSPAH than rural residents. CONCLUSIONS: In New York State, NYC as well as other urban areas and suburban areas had higher rates of CSPAH than rural areas. Further research is needed into drivers of CSPAH deaths, which may be associated with poverty.

RATIONALE: Data are limited regarding the safety of 12-dose once-weekly isoniazid (900 mg) plus rifapentine (900 mg) (3HP) for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) treatment during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: To assess safety and pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women who were inadvertently exposed to study medications in two LTBI trials (PREVENT TB or iAdhere) evaluating 3HP and 9 months of daily isoniazid (300 mg) (9H). METHODS: Data from reproductive age (15-51 years) women who received >/=1 study dose of 3HP or 9H in either trial were analyzed. Drug exposure during pregnancy occurred if the estimated date of conception was on or before the last dose date. RESULTS: Of 126 pregnancies (125 participants) that occurred during treatment or follow-up, 87 were exposed to study drugs. Among these, fetal loss was reported for 4/31 (13%) and 8/56 (14%), 3HP and 9H, respectively (difference 13% - 14% = -1%; 95% CI -17% to +18%); and congenital anomalies in 0/20 and 2/41 (5%) live births, 3HP and 9H, respectively (difference 0 - 5% = -5%; 95% CI -18% to +16%). All fetal losses occurred in pregnancies <20 weeks. Of the total 126 pregnancies, fetal loss was reported in 8/54 (15%) and 9/72 (13%), 3HP and 9H, respectively; and congenital anomalies in 1/37 (3%) and 2/56 (4%) live births, 3HP and 9H, respectively. The overall proportion of fetal loss (17/126 [13%]) and anomalies (3/93 [3%]) were similar to those estimated for the United States, 17% and 3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Among reported pregnancies in these two LTBI trials, there was no unexpected fetal loss or congenital anomalies. These data offer some preliminary reassurance to clinicians and patients in circumstances when these drugs and regimens are the best option in pregnancy or in women of child-bearing potential. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00023452 and NCT01582711).

BACKGROUND: Rifapentine administered 5 days per week has potent activity in mouse models of antituberculosis chemotherapy, but efficacy and safety data are limited in humans. We compared the antimicrobial activity and safety of rifapentine vs rifampin during the first 8 weeks of pulmonary tuberculosis treatment. METHODS: In total, 531 adults with sputum smear-positive pulmonary tuberculosis were randomized to rifapentine 10 mg/kg/dose or rifampin 10 mg/kg/dose, administered 5 days per week for 8 weeks (intensive phase), with isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol. Coprimary outcomes were negative sputum culture on liquid and on solid media at completion of intensive phase. RESULTS: Negative cultures on solid media occurred in 145 of 174 participants (83.3%) in the rifampin group and 171 of 198 participants (86.4%) in the rifapentine group (difference, 3.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 4.3, 10.5); negative cultures in liquid media occurred in 110 of 169 (65.1%) in the rifampin group and 133 of 196 (67.9%) in the rifapentine group (difference, 2.8%; 95% CI: -6.9, 12.4). Among 529 participants who received study therapy, 40 of 254 participants (15.7%) in the rifampin group and 40 of 275 participants (14.5%) in the rifapentine group prematurely discontinued treatment (P = .79). CONCLUSIONS: The rifapentine regimen was safe but not significantly more active than a standard rifampin regimen, by the surrogate endpoint of culture status at completion of intensive phase. Assessment of higher exposures to rifapentine for tuberculosis treatment is warranted. Clinical Trials registration. NCT00694629.