Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 333

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bedaquiline in the treatment of multidrug- and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis

Open access
Pym, Alexander S., Diacon, Andreas H., Tang, Shen-Jie, Conradie, Francesca, Danilovits, Manfred, Chuchottaworn, Charoen, Vasilyeva, Irina, Andries, Koen, Bakare, Nyasha, De Marez, Tine, Haxaire-Theeuwes, Myriam, Lounis, Nacer, Meyvisch, Paul, Van Baelen, Ben, van Heeswijk, Rolf P.G., Dannemann, Brian·2016·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

Bedaquiline, a diarylquinoline, improved cure rates when added to a multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment regimen in a previous placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial (TMC207-C208;NCT00449644). The current phase 2, multicenter, open-label, single-arm trial (TMC207-C209;NCT00910871) reported here was conducted to confirm the safety and efficacy of bedaquiline. Newly diagnosed or previously treated patients with MDR-TB (including pre-extensively drug-resistant (pre-XDR)-TB or extensively drug-resistant (XDR)-TB) received bedaquiline for 24 weeks with a background regimen of anti-TB drugs continued according to National TB Programme treatment guidelines. Patients were assessed during and up to 120 weeks after starting bedaquiline. Of 233 enrolled patients, 63.5% had MDR-TB, 18.9% had pre-XDR-TB and 16.3% had XDR-TB, with 87.1% having taken second-line drugs prior to enrolment. 16 patients (6.9%) died. 20 patients (8.6%) discontinued before week 24, most commonly due to adverse events or MDR-TB-related events. Adverse events were generally those commonly associated with MDR-TB treatment. In the efficacy population (n=205), culture conversion (missing outcome classified as failure) was 72.2% at 120 weeks, and 73.1%, 70.5% and 62.2% in MDR-TB, pre-XDR-TB and XDR-TB patients, respectively. Addition of bedaquiline to a background regimen was well tolerated and led to good outcomes in this clinically relevant patient cohort with MDR-TB.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1183/13993003.00724-2015

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 333

Metadata

Authors
Pym, A. S., Diacon, A. H., Tang, S.-J., Conradie, F., Danilovits, M., Chuchottaworn, C., Vasilyeva, I., Andries, K., Bakare, N., De Marez, T., Haxaire-Theeuwes, M., Lounis, N., Meyvisch, P., Van Baelen, B., van Heeswijk, R. P. G., & Dannemann, B.
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2015-12-02
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
564-574
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2262666571
Cited by
333
References
1
FWCI
21.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bedaquiline in the treatment of multidrug- and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/13993003.00724-2015
The paper
Pym, A. S., Diacon, A. H., Tang, S.-J., Conradie, F., Danilovits, M., Chuchottaworn, C., Vasilyeva, I., Andries, K., Bakare, N., De Marez, T., Haxaire-Theeuwes, M., Lounis, N., Meyvisch, P., Van Baelen, B., van Heeswijk, R. P. G., & Dannemann, B. (2016). Bedaquiline in the treatment of multidrug- and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00724-2015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.