Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 4:51 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-26 @ 3:52 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT05671718
Status:
RECRUITING
Last Update Posted:
2025-10-17
First Post:
2022-12-20
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Bring BPaL2Me Trial Comparing Nurse-Led RR-TB Treatment to Physician-Led RR-TB Treatment
Sponsor:
Johns Hopkins University
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Bring BPaL2Me Trial Comparing Nurse-Led RR-TB Treatment in Primary Care to Physician-Led, Hospital-Based Outpatient RR-TB Treatment: A Cluster Randomized, Non-Inferiority Trial
Status:
RECRUITING
Status Verified Date:
2025-10
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
The goal of the BringBPaL2Me Trial, a multi-principal investigator, multi-site, cluster randomized, non-inferiority trial is to compare nurse-led RR-TB treatment in primary care clinics to standard of care physician-led RR-TB treatment at district hospitals in the provinces of KwaZulu-Natal, Gauteng, and Eastern Cape.
The main aim is to conduct a 5-year, analyst and clinical safety review committee blinded, multi-site, cluster randomized trial to evaluate 1) treatment outcome; 2) safety; 3) patient associated catastrophic costs with the following hypotheses:
1. Outpatient nurse-led treatment in PCCs will be non-inferior to outpatient physician-led treatment at hospital-based outpatient sites among RR-TB patients, regardless of HIV co-infection, as determined by a successful treatment outcome \[H1\].
2. The proportion of SAEs identified will not significantly differ by blinded, independent review \[H2\].
3. Patient associated catastrophic costs (i.e., costs 20% or more of household income) will be lower in nurse-led treatment \[H3\].
The main aim is to conduct a 5-year, analyst and clinical safety review committee blinded, multi-site, cluster randomized trial to evaluate 1) treatment outcome; 2) safety; 3) patient associated catastrophic costs with the following hypotheses:
1. Outpatient nurse-led treatment in PCCs will be non-inferior to outpatient physician-led treatment at hospital-based outpatient sites among RR-TB patients, regardless of HIV co-infection, as determined by a successful treatment outcome \[H1\].
2. The proportion of SAEs identified will not significantly differ by blinded, independent review \[H2\].
3. Patient associated catastrophic costs (i.e., costs 20% or more of household income) will be lower in nurse-led treatment \[H3\].
Detailed Description:
In South Africa (SA), nurses manage drug-susceptible Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) and TB/HIV coinfection within primary care clinics (PCCs); the TB treatment outcomes in this care model rival the best in the world. A primary care management strategy offers a convenient, patient-centered, model of care that integrates TB and HIV treatment within the same setting. However, a diagnosis of rifampicin-resistant TB (RR-TB), upends this model, requiring referral to a hospital-based, physician-led outpatient treatment center.
Hospital-based models add significant costs to patients, with estimates suggesting more than 80% of RR-TB patients experience catastrophic costs. Such added costs may decrease access to care, delay treatment receipt and contribute to loss to follow-up. One testable solution to this problem, however, is to move RR-TB care to primary care clinics led by nurses. The World Health Organization (WHO) released recommendations for RR-TB treatment earlier this year endorsing 6-month regimens and calling for decentralized, patient-centered models of care closer to the patient's home.
Although SA has long been a leading implementer of nurse-led models of care for TB and HIV due to large physician shortages and the National Department of Health's (NDoH) RR-TB Treatment Guidelines recommend integration of RR-TB within PCCs supporting both physician- and nurse-led models, utilization has been limited. While the team has spent the last decade building observational evidence around outcomes and safety, no randomized controlled trial evaluates nurse-led RR-TB treatment.
Secondary Aims: To evaluate clinical and cost-associated differentiators by arm:
1. Time to event analysis for a) RR-TB treatment initiation; b) smear/culture conversion; and, as applicable, c) HIV treatment initiation; d) HIV viral suppression; and e) AE and SAE symptom resolution.
2. Characterization of provider adherence to guidelines for: a) dosing requirements; b) RR-TB dosing changes based on AE and SAE events; and c) AE and SAE adjuvant medication management strategy.
3. Programmatic cost-effectiveness evaluation.
Hospital-based models add significant costs to patients, with estimates suggesting more than 80% of RR-TB patients experience catastrophic costs. Such added costs may decrease access to care, delay treatment receipt and contribute to loss to follow-up. One testable solution to this problem, however, is to move RR-TB care to primary care clinics led by nurses. The World Health Organization (WHO) released recommendations for RR-TB treatment earlier this year endorsing 6-month regimens and calling for decentralized, patient-centered models of care closer to the patient's home.
Although SA has long been a leading implementer of nurse-led models of care for TB and HIV due to large physician shortages and the National Department of Health's (NDoH) RR-TB Treatment Guidelines recommend integration of RR-TB within PCCs supporting both physician- and nurse-led models, utilization has been limited. While the team has spent the last decade building observational evidence around outcomes and safety, no randomized controlled trial evaluates nurse-led RR-TB treatment.
Secondary Aims: To evaluate clinical and cost-associated differentiators by arm:
1. Time to event analysis for a) RR-TB treatment initiation; b) smear/culture conversion; and, as applicable, c) HIV treatment initiation; d) HIV viral suppression; and e) AE and SAE symptom resolution.
2. Characterization of provider adherence to guidelines for: a) dosing requirements; b) RR-TB dosing changes based on AE and SAE events; and c) AE and SAE adjuvant medication management strategy.
3. Programmatic cost-effectiveness evaluation.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
Secondary ID Infos
| Secondary ID | Type | Domain | Link | View |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R01AI177135-01 | NIH | None | https://reporter.nih.gov/quic… | View |