Long term outcomes of patients with tuberculous meningitis: The impact of drug resistance.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of drug-resistance on clinical outcomes among patients with tuberculosis meningitis (TBM).
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study among patients treated for TBM in Tbilisi, Georgia. We performed medical chart abstraction to collect patient data. Long-term vital status was assessed using the Georgia National Death Registry. We utilized a Cox proportional-hazards model to evaluate the association of drug-resistance and mortality.
RESULTS: Among 343 TBM suspects, 237 had a presentation consistent with TBM. Drug resistance was suspected (n = 5) or confirmed (n = 31) in 36 patients including 30 with multidrug- or rifampin-resistance and 6 with isoniazid-resistance. Thirty-four patients had HIV. The median follow-up time was 1331 days (IQR, 852-1767). Overall, 73 of 237 (30%) people died with 50 deaths occurring during and 23 after treatment. The proportion of death was higher among patients with drug-resistant vs. drug-susceptible disease (67% vs. 24%, p<0.001) and with HIV versus no HIV (59% vs 27%, p<0.001). Mortality was significantly higher in patients with drug-resistant TBM after 90 days of treatment (aHR = 7.2, CI95% [3.6-14.3], p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Mortality was high among patients with drug-resistant TBM with many deaths occurring post treatment. More effective treatment options are urgently needed for drug-resistant TBM.

Introduction

Tuberculosis meningitis (TBM) is the most lethal manifestation of TB disease [1]. Among patients treated for drug susceptible TBM, overall hospital mortality rates are up to 50% and long-term five-year mortality rates of 58% [2,3]. Persons with TBM also suffer from high rates of long-term neurological sequelae due to disease complications including infarction, vasculitis, and hydrocephalus [4-6]. High rates of morbidity and mortality among patients with TBM are due in part to delays in diagnosis and hence prompt initiation of anti-TB treatment, as well as poor CSF penetration of many anti-TB drugs such as rifampin [7].

The emergence of drug–resistant (DR) TB including multidrug-resistant (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) disease have presented major challenges to worldwide TB control [8]. Historically, clinical outcomes among patients with pulmonary MDR- or XDR-TB have been much worse compared to patients with drug-susceptible disease [9-11]. However, there are only limited data on the impact of drug-resistance on clinical outcomes among patients with TBM. To date there have been only a few studies of patients with drug-resistant TBM from a small number of geographic areas and none from Eastern European countries [12]. These limited data show mortality rates among patients treated for drug-resistant TBM ranges from 69–100% [5,13,14]. The advent of sensitive molecular diagnostics such as Xpert MTB/RIF, as well as implementation of new and repurposed drugs (i.e. bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid) to treat MDR-TB present a tremendous opportunity to improve diagnosis and treatment outcomes in drug-resistant TBM. Thus, it is critical to establish a more accurate measure of current treatment outcomes in drug-resistant TBM against which future diagnostic and treatment interventions can be measured.

To address this question, we conducted a retrospective cohort study at a TBM referral hospital in the country of Georgia, which has a high burden of MDR-TB and a centralized system for collecting data on long-term mortality [15]. Our goal was to characterize long-term mortality in patients with TBM and determine the impact of drug resistance on morbidity and mortality.

Methods

Study setting

We utilized a retrospective observational cohort study design. Patients receiving treatment for TBM at the National Center for Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NCTLD) in Tbilisi, Georgia were included. The NCTLD campus contains the National Reference Laboratory, three inpatient hospitals and outpatient DOT clinics. There are twenty inpatient beds on the TBM ward and all patients with suspected TBM throughout the country are recommended to be referred to the NCTLD for initial evaluation and inpatient management. Patients admitted for TBM work up between January 1, 2013 and January 31, 2018 were eligible to be included. We excluded patients with an alternative diagnosis as determined by chart review from two U.S. based infectious diseases physicians not involved in patient care. Patients who did not meet the case definition of TBM by scoring criteria also had a detailed chart review and those without alternative diagnoses and a clinical presentation compatible with TBM were included. Standard treatment for drug-susceptible TBM during the study period consisted of 12 months of therapy including an intensive 2 month phase of rifampicin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, an injectable agent (amikacin, kanamycin or streptomycin), and a fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin, moxifloxacin or ofloxacin) as well as dexamethasone and mannitol for management of intracranial hypertension. Drugs included in the continuation phase were determined by initial treatment response and included isoniazid, rifampin and ethambutol if there was a favorable initial clinical and laboratory response and a more extensive regimen if otherwise. All inpatient care was provided by two dedicated TBM physicians, each with ≥ 30 years of experience. Treatment decisions for drug-resistant TBM were made by treating physicians and based on phenotypic or molecular drug-suscetibility testing (DST) results when available and/or clinical course. Patients were recommended to be hospitalized for initial TBM treatment until 1) they were no longer receiving an injectable agent and 2) they demonstrated substantial clinical improvement at which point care was transitioned to outpatient care in TB dispensaries. All treatment was provided by directly observed therapy (DOT). Regarding treatment for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), patients receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) at the time of TBM diagnsosis were continued on ART, while those not receiving ART were recommended to start ART 2–8 weeks after TBM treatment commenced. HIV treatment decisions were guided by consultant HIV physicians from the Georgia Infectious Diseases, AIDS, and Clinical Immunology Research Center (IDACIRC).

Laboratory

All patients had a diagnostic lumbar puncture performed to obtain cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for microbiological and molecular testing at the time of admission to the NCTLD. Microbiologic testing of CSF included Ziehl-Neelsen microscopy and mycobacterial culture on both Löwenstein-Jensen (LJ) solid and Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) liquid media. In cases with a positive culture for Mycobacterium tuberculosis, isolates underwent testing with the MTBDRplus line probe assay (Hain Lifescience, Nehren, Germany) and phenotypic DST as previously described [16]. Starting in April 2015, testing with the Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) was implemented for all baseline CSF samples. Approximately 1–4 ml of non-centrifuged CSF was used and the test was performed according to standard procedures. General testing including CSF bacterial cultures, complete blood count and chemistry evaluations were carried out per Georgia NTP guidelines.

Data collection

Patient medical information was abstracted from inpatient medical charts, the National Reference Laboratory database and the NCTLD electronic database. Additional HIV treatment information was obtained from the Infectious Diseases, AIDS, and Clinical Immuniology Research Center, (IDACIRC) which oversees the National HIV program. All patients treated for TBM without a proven or probable alternative etiology were included in the study, and patients were categorized as either 1) not TBM, 2) possible TBM, 3) probable TBM or 4) definite TBM according to the uniform TBM research case definition. In brief, this case definition uses clinical, CSF, and imaging criteria to provide a score that categorizes patients into possible, probable, or definite TBM [17]. TBM grade was defined as 1, normal mental status with no focal neurological deficits; 2, either normal mental status with focal neurological deficits or mildly altered mental status and 3, severe altered mental status. Patients were categorized as either drug susceptible or drug-resistant TBM with drug-resistance defined as having INH monoresistance (without rifampin), rifampin mono-resistance, MDR, pre-XDR or XDRbased on NCTLD and WHO guidance from 2020. MDR was defined as resistance to rifampin and isoniazid; pre-XDR as additional resistance to a fluoroquinolone or injectable second-line agent; XDR as resistance to both a flouroquinolone and an injectable second-line agent[18]. Drug resistance was defined End of treatment or initial outcomes were defined as completed, not evaluated, lost to follow-up (LTFU), failure, and death. An outcome of not evaluated occurred when patient care was transferred outside of the NCTLD, and the final outcome was unknown. LTFU was defined as a treatment interruption of ≥2 months. Data on long term mortality including date of death if applicable was obtained from the Georgia National Office of Statistics with the last date of checking being August 29, 2019. Data collection forms were developed in accordance with standardized methods put forth by the Tuberculosis International Research Consortium [19]. All data was collected on paper forms and then entered into an online REDCap database [20]. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board both at the NCTLD and Emory University.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary NC), and R version 3.6.0. For comparisons of baseline characteristics among patients treated for drug-susceptible versus drug-resistant disease, a chi-square test was used for categorical variables and a two-sided independent T-test was used for continuous variables. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated for the entire cohort and among patients categorized as “probable” and “definite” TBM to compare time to death among patients treated for drug-resistant and drug-susceptible TBM.

We calculated survival for drug-resistant and drug susceptible TBM according to the Kaplan–Meier method and used a Cox proportional-hazards model to adjust for between-group differences in baseline characteristics [21,22].We created a model using both the entire cohort and a model limited to cases identified as either “definite” or “probable” TBM. The main predictor variable was treatment for drug-resistant disease. Other factors with clinical significance in univariate analysis, with biological plausibility, or previously found to be associated with mortality among patients with TBM were considered in the model. The initial Cox model violated the proportional hazards assumption due to a differential effect of drug-resistant TBM on short-term mortality (≤ 90 days after treatment start) and long-term mortality (>90 days after treatment start). Thus, the hazard ratio of drug-resistant TBM versus drug-susceptible TBM was calculated for both short-term and long-term mortality. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Among 343 admissions for suspected TBM, 237 persons met eligibility criteria for study inclusion. The most common reasons for exclusion were pulmonary TB without clear evidence of central nervous system (CNS) involvement and the presence of an alternative diagnosis (). There were 90 patients (38%) with either a CNS or non-CNS sample positive for M. tuberculosis by Xpert TB/RIF or culture testing. Among the 47 patients (20%) with a positive CNS sample for M.tb, 29 (12%) had a positive CSF Xpert MTB/RIF, 38 (16%) had a positive CSF culture and 1 (0.4%) was diagnosed by brain biopsy. Forty-eight (20%) TBM cases were classified as definite TBM, 31 (13%) as probable TBM, 153 (65%) as possible TBM and 5 (2%) as unlikely TBM. There were 36 TBM cases treated for drug-resistant disease including 31 with confirmed resistance (). Among confirmed drug-resistant cases, 6 were INH resistant, 2 were rifampicin mono-resistant, 7 were MDR, 9 were pre-XDR and 7 were XDR. The five unconfirmed cases were treated for MDR TBM given either prior TB treatment failure or a known contact with confirmed MDR TB.

Among the 237 patients with TBM, 143 (60%) were men and the mean age was 44 years. There were 34 patients (14%) co-infected with HIV with a median (IQR) CD4+ T-cell count of 40 (20, 110) cells/ul. For most patients (83%), this was the first episode of TB. Notably, patients treated for drug-resistant versus drug-susceptible TBM were more likely to have HIV (50% vs. 8%, p < .01) and to have had prior TB (56% vs. 10%, p < .01). The most common presenting manifestations were headache, nuchal rigidity, fever, and altered mental status. The median CSF WBC at baseline was 213 cell/μl. For baseline characteristics of the cohort and by treatment category see Table 1.

Table 1

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with tuberculosis meningitis by treatment type characteristics.

	Overall n = 237 (%)	Drug Susceptible n = 201 (%)	Drug Resistant n = 36 (%)	p-value*
Mean age, years (SD)	44 (17)	45 (18)	40 (9)	0.28
Male sex	143 (60)	117 (58)	26 (72)	0.16
Weight < 50 kilograms	12 (4)	11 (5)	1 (3)	>0.99
History of imprisonment	24 (10)	15 (7)	9 (25)	<0.01
Contact to active tuberculosis case	25 (11)	22 (11)	3 (8)	0.86
HIV
HIV infected	34 (14)	16 (8)	18 (50)	<0.01
New diagnosis	12 (5)	10 (5)	2 (6)	>0.99
CD4, cells/ul, median (IQR) [n = 34]	40 (20, 110)	63 (30, 173)	31 (18, 54)	0.11
Currently on ART	14 (6)	6 (3)	8 (26)	<0.01
Co-morbidities
Hepatitis C virus antibody positive	31 (13)	14 (7)	17 (47)	<0.01
History of intravenous drug use	17 (7)	6 (3)	11 (31)	<0.01
Alcohol Use Disorder	9 (4)	6 (3)	3 (8)	0.14
Diabetes	12 (5)	10 (5)	2 (6)	>0.99
Case Definition
New Case	197 (83)	181 (90)	16 (44)	<0.01
Relapse	11 (5)	9 (4)	2 (6)
Treatment after LTFU	12 (5)	3 (1)	9 (25)
Treatment after failure	5 (2)	1 (1)	4 (11)
Other	12 (5)	7 (3)	5 (14)
Presentation
Neurological Status				0.01
TBM Grade 1/Normal	33 (14)	32 (16)	1 (3)
TBM grade 2/Mild	142 (60)	123 (62)	19 (54)
TBM grade 3/Severe	60 (26)	45 (23)	15 (43)
Unknown	2	1	1
Days since first neurologic symptom, median (IQR)	10 (7, 15)	10 (7, 15)	10 (7, 14)	0.95
Altered Mental Status	195 (82)	163 (81)	32 (89)
Fever	214 (90)	183 (91)	31 (86)	0.42
Headache	217 (92)	186 (93)	31 (86)	0.29
Vomiting	147 (62)	132 (66)	15 (42)	0.02
Nuchal rigidity	219 (92)	188 (94)	31 (86)	0.14
Seizures	23 (10)	19 (10)	4 (11)	0.39
Cranial nerve palsy	63 (10)	57 (28)	6 (17)	0.23
Urinary retention	51 (22)	43 (21)	8 (22)	0.62
Hemiplegia	17 (7)	12 (6)	5 (14)	0.22
Paraplegia	18 (8)	16 (8)	2 (6)	>0.99
Site of Disease
Evidence of extra-CNS disease	70 (30)	44 (22)	26 (72)	<0.01
Pulmonary disease	60 (25)	35 (15)	25 (69)	<0.01
Care prior to admission
Received antibiotic therapy prior to admission	88 (41)	79 (41)	9 (35)	0.15
Baseline CSF data
CSF WCC, cells/ul, mean (SD)	213 (263)	226 (280)	144 (116)	0.09
CSF protein, mg/dl, mean (SD)	177 (294)	175 (305)	189 (229)	0.15
CSF glucose, mg/dl, mean (SD)	42 (24)	44 (24)	31 (20)	<0.01
Microbiology
Microbiologic confirmation at any site	90 (38)	59 (29)	31 (86)	<0.01
Microbiologic confirmation in CNSsample	48 (20)	26 (13)	22 (61)	<0.01
CSF Xpert positive	29 (12)	14 (7)	15 (42)	<0.01
CSF culture positive	38 (16)	19 (10)	19 (53)	<0.01
Microbiologic confirmation from non-CNS site only	42 (18)	33 (16)	9 (25)	0.31
Clinical diagnosis	147 (62)	142 (71)	5 (14)	<0.01
Imaging
Either MRI brain or CT head performed	166 (70)	144 (72)	22 (61)	0.28
Any CNS imaging abnormality	135 (57)	114 (57)	21 (58)	>0.99
Mean baseline laboratory data
Hemoglobin (SD)	12.3 (2.0)	12.4 (1.9)	11.5 (2.2)	0.02
Sodium (SD)	131 (8)	132 (8)	129 (8)	0.14
Creatinine (SD)	79 (26)	81 (27)	67 (15)	<0.01
Albumin (SD)	34 (7)	34 (7)	34 (6)	0.53
Case definition 1				<0.01
Definite TBM	48 (20)	26 (13)	22 (61)
Probable	31 (13)	24 (12)	7 (19)
Possible	153 (65)	146 (73)	7 (19)
Unlikely	5 (2)	5 (2)	0
Initial treatment outcome
Cure/Completed	148 (63)	140 (69)	8 (22)	<0.01
Lost to follow up	15 (6)	13 (6)	2 (6)
Treatment failure	4 (2)	4 (2)	0 (0)
Death	50 (21)	29 (14)	21 (58)
Unknown or not evaluated	20 (8)	15 (7)	5 (14)
Long term mortality
Death	73 (31)	49 (24)	24 (67)	<0.01
Alive	161 (68)	150 (75)	11 (31)
Not determined	3 (1)	2 (1)	1 (3)
Died after treatment completion	23 (10)	20 (10)	3 (8)
Follow-up time, days (Median, IQR)	1331 (852–1767)	1390 (952–1779)	503 (70–1642)	0.01

* Statistical tests performed: Wilcoxon rank-sum test; chi-square test of independence; Fisher’s exact test.

Abbreviations used: SD, standard deviation; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; ART, anti-retroviral therapy; TBM, tuberculous meningitis; CNS, central nervous system; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; CT, computed tomography; CXR, chest X-ray; LTFU, lost to follow up; ATT, anti-tuberculosis therapy; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; WCC, white cell count; Mtb, Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

1. Defined by the Uniform Tuberculous Meningitis Research Case Definition Criteria.

Treatment

The anti-TB drugs used throughout treatment are detailed in Table 2. Patients with drug resistant-disease were more likely to receive moxifloxacin, cycloserine, para-aminosalicyclic acid, and capreomycin. There was little use of newly implemented drugs (linezolid, clofazimine, imipenem, bedaquiline, and delaminid) among patients with drug-resistant disease especially as part of initial treatment. Regarding HV treatment, 14 of 34 (41%) of HIV-infected persons were receiving ART at the time of TBM diagnosis and all were continued on treatment; four additional HIV-infected persons started ART during TBM.

Table 2

Drugs included in baseline treatment regimens and ever in treatment, by drug resistance status.

Drug	Baseline regimen, all patients(N = 237)	Ever in regimen, all patients	Initial regimen, DS(N = 201)	Ever in regimen, DS	Initial regimen, DR(N = 36)	Ever in regimen, DR
Any fluoroquinolone	220 (92.8)	229 (96.6)	190 (94.5)	196 (97.5)	30 (83.3)	33 (91.7)
Any injectable agent	216 (91.1)	221 (93.2)	192 (95.5)	194 (96.5)	24 (66.7)	27 (75)
Isoniazid	207 (87.3)	212 (89.5)	191 (95)	196 (97.5)	16 (44.4)	16 (44.4)
Rifampin	199 (84)	205 (86.5)	182 (90.5)	188 (93.5)	17 (47.2)	17 (47.2)
Amikacin	194 (81.9)	202 (85.2)	172 (85.6)	177 (88.1)	22 (61.1)	25 (69.4)
Ofloxacin	190 (80.2)	197 (83.1)	172 (85.6)	176 (87.6)	18 (50)	21 (58.3)
Ethambutol	138 (58.2)	198 (83.5)	120 (59.7)	178 (88.6)	18 (50)	20 (55.6)
Pyrazinamide	138 (58.2)	156 (65.8)	118 (58.7)	133 (66.2)	20 (55.6)	23 (63.9)
Levofloxacin	50 (21.1)	180 (75.9)	40 (19.9)	158 (78.6)	10 (27.8)	22 (61.1)
Kanamycin	39 (16.5)	165 (69.6)	36 (17.9)	155 (77.1)	3 (8.3)	10 (27.8)
Moxifloxacin	26 (11)	39 (16.5)	16 (8)	20 (10)	10 (27.8)	19 (52.8)
Cycloserine	25 (10.5)	41 (17.3)	5 (2.5)	10 (5)	20 (55.6)	31 (86.1)
Para-aminosalicylic acid	17 (7.2)	31 (13.1)	1 (0.5)	2 (1)	16 (44.4)	29 (80.6)
Capreomycin	15 (6.3)	27 (11.4)	0 (0)	0 (0)	15 (41.7)	27 (75)
Prothionamide	14 (5.9)	22 (9.3)	0 (0)	0 (0)	14 (38.9)	22 (61.1)
Linezolid	5 (2.1)	10 (4.2)	1 (0.5)	1 (0.5)	4 (11.1)	9 (25)
Clofazimine	4 (1.7)	10 (4.2)	0 (0)	0 (0)	4 (11.1)	10 (27.8)
Streptomycin	4 (1.7)	14 (5.9)	1 (0.5)	9 (4.5)	3 (8.3)	5 (13.9)
Imipenem	3 (1.3)	7 (3)	2 (1)	2 (1)	1 (2.8)	5 (13.9)
Bedaquiline	0 (0)	3 (1.3)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	3 (8.3)
Delamanid	0 (0)	3 (1.3)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	3 (8.3)
Hydrocephalus management
	In regimen, all patients		In regimen, DS (N = 201)		In regimen, DR (N = 36)
Mannitol	226 (95.4)		191 (95)		35 (97.2)
Furosemide	35 (14.8)		29 (14.4)		6 (16.7)
Ventriculoperitoneal shunt	2 (0.8)		2 (1)		0 (0)
Anti-inflammatory therapies
Dexamethasone	232 (97.9)		197 (98)		35 (97.2)
Prednisone	35 (14.8)		29 (14.4)		6 (16.7)

* Baseline was defined as receiving within 14 days of admission.

Abbreviations: DS, drug susceptible; DR, drug-resistant.

Clinical outcomes

There were 73 deaths (31%) among our entire TBM cohort including 50 persons who died during treatment and 23 who died after treatment completion. There were 15 persons who were LTFU during treatment after a median of 62 days (IQR 39–138), 12 of whom were determined to have died by death records. There was a high death rate among people with drug-resistant TBM (67%), HIV (59%) and Grade 3 TBM disease (58%). Among the 31 cases of confirmed drug-resistant TBM, the death rate was 77% including all 7 patients with XDR disease. Among persons with HIV, the death rate among those on ART at TBM diagnosis was 64% and 55% for those not receiving ART. compares patient characteristics by vital status.

Drug resistance and mortality

The proportion of persons who died was significantly higher in persons treated for drug-resistant TBM versus those with drug-susceptible TBM (67% vs. 24%, p<0.001; and ). The difference in mortality was similar when we limited the analysis to persons with probable or definite TBM (74% vs 26%, p<0.001; and ) and when limited to those with microbiologically confirmed TBM (77% vs. 19%, p<0.001; ). In our multivariate model, there was a non-significant trend towards increased mortality in persons treated for drug-resistant TBM versus drug-susceptible TBM in the first 90 days of treatment (aHR 1.57, 95% CI 0.65–3.77), while beyond 90 days treatment for drug-resistant TBM was associated with a higher rate of death (aHR 7.15, 95% CI 3.58–14.31; ).When limited to “definite” or “probable” TBM cases, we similarly observed a non-significant increase in mortality in persons with drug-resistant TBM before 90 days (aHR 1.24, 95% CI 0.42–3.65) and a significant increase in mortality after 90 days (aHR 9.2, 95% CI 2.86–29.63; ).Other significant risk factors for mortality in multivariate analysis included being HIV positive (aHR 2.89, 95% CI 1.52–5.49), age (aHR 1.06 per year, 95% CI 1.04–1.08), and Grade 3 TBM (aHR 2.26, 95% CI 1.39–3.68). When we limited cases to only definite and probable TBM, HIV status and TBM Grade of 3 were no longer statistically significant (aHR 2.13, 95% CI 0.98–4.67 and aHR 2.05, 95% CI 0.97–4.34, respectively).

Kaplan Meier survival curves for (A) all patients treated for tuberculosis meningitis (TBM; n = 237) over the full period of observation and (B) over first 6 months. (C) Probable and definite TBM cases (n = 79) over the full period of observation and (D) over first 6 months of treatment. Mortality in persons treated for drug susceptible-TBM is depicted by the yellow line and for persons with drug resistant-TBM by the blue line. The shaded region surrounding the line depicts the 95% confidence interval of the mortality estimate.

Discussion

In one of the largest cohorts of patients with drug-resistant TBM published to date, we found drug-resistant TBM was associated with a significantly higher risk of death versus drug-susceptible TBM, with a long-term mortality of 67%. We further found that this significant increase in mortality among patients with drug-resistant TBM occurred >90 days after treatment initiation, with an observed > 7-fold higher risk of death. Additionally, we discovered that >30% of all deaths in TBM patients occurred after treatment completion and that 80% of patients LTFU subsequently died. These findings highlight the marked increase in mortality associated with drug-resistant TBM in patients receiving currently available treatment regimens and simultaneously the urgent to need to develop new treatment regimens. Moreover, our findings demonstrate the critical need for long-term follow up (>1 year) among patients with TBM to determine post treatment death rates and identify areas for possible intervention.

As indicated by our clinical outcomes and those from external reports, the treatment of TBM is suboptimal. A recent meta-analyses of >6,000 patients, found an overall risk of death of 25% at 12 months among patients treated for TBM [23]. Furthermore, the authors found no substantial improvement in outcomes over time, a finding supported by our death rate of 24% during treatment among patients treated for drug-susceptible TBM. The lack of improvement in clinical outcomes is not surprising given the limited progress in developing new treatments for TBM. Treatment regimens for TBM were designed primarily by extrapolating pulmonary TB treatment recommendations; however, this approach has drawbacks [1]. Importantly, two of the first-line anti-TB drugs, rifampicin and ethambutol, have poor penetration into the CSF, thus limiting their potential effectiveness [7]. Due to these pharmacokinetic limitations, recent studies have focused on adding a fluoroquinolone given their high penetration into the CSF. Unfortunately, two recent randomized clinical trials failed to show a benefit when adding a fluoroquinolone to standard first-line drugs [13,24]. In line with these findings, most of our cohort received an intensified regimen, including an injectable agent and a fluoroquinolone; however, our mortality rates remained high. Another key difference in pulmonary TB and TBM, is the role of the host inflammatory response in determining outcomes. Eloquent studies have demonstrated an important role of the eicosanoid inflammatory pathway (including both hyper and hypoinflammatory responses) and tryptophan metabolism in determining outcomes including neurological disability [25,26]. The role of the host inflammatory response in determining outcomes also provides a potential rationale why the impact of drug-resistant TBM on outcomes was not seen until >90 days. Similarily, another study found isoniazid resistance was not associated with death until after 60 days of treatment among patients with TBM [5]. In summary, our results indicate that even when employing rapid diagnostic testing methods (Xpert), intensified treatment regimens and recommended anti-inflammatory agents that TBM mortality rates remain unacceptably high and improved treatments are needed.

A striking finding from our study is the extremely high death rate among TBM patients with HIV (59%) and/or those treated for drug-resistant TBM (67%). Our high rate of death among TBM patients with HIV was similar to the mortality rate among other HIV positive cohorts (48–67%) as reported in the above mentioned meta-analysis, and calls for further efforts at prevention and treatment among this high risk group [23]. Our alarming death rate among patients treated for drug-resistant disease is similar to the few available reports and demonstrates the futility of currently available treatments. Among two separate studies from Vietnam, one found all 10 patients (100%) with MDR-TBM disease died, while the other found 11 of 16 (69%) died [13,14]. In the latter study, a higher dose of rifampin along with levofloxacin was added to standard first-line therapy. Among a long-term follow study of TBM patients in New York City treated from 1992–2001, almost all of the 67 patients with rifampin-resistant or MDR disease died (94%) [5]. Our study provides important modern outcome data; specifically, high rates of poor outcomes despite approximately half of drug-resistant TBM patients diagnosed with a rapid molecular diagnostic test (Xpert MTB/RIF) and most receiving aggressive and intensified drug regimens. Our report also documents the first clinical outcomes of patients with confirmed XDR-TBM and that an intensified treatment regimens had no benefit. Notably, the study period was prior to the programmatic implementation of bedaquiline, delamanid, linezolid and imipenem into treatment regimens for TBM at the NCTLD and thus few patients received.

Among recently implemented anti-TB drugs, linezolid is an attractive option to treat TBM given its high penetration into the CSF and preliminary clinical data finding short term use is associated with improved clinical outcomes [27,28]. Currently, there are two prospective clinical trials assessing the use of linezolid for TBM (NCT03927313, NCT04021121) which will provide much need data to guide use. While bedaquiline has led to a substantial improvements in drug-resistant pulmonary TB outcomes, its utility for TBM is uncertain as a high protein binding may limit its ability to cross the blood brain barrier as demonstrated by a report of unmeasurable CSF concentrations from a patient with TBM [29]. In contrast, data from 6 rabbits and 3 humans CSF on delamanid found free drug concentrations are generally higher in the CSF than plasma and higher than critical concentrations [30]. In addition to the urgent need for clinical trials and pharmacokinetic studies of these recently implemented and novel drugs further investigations into better understanding the host inflammatory response to TBM are needed to guide development of host directed therapies.

Our study was limited by a low rate of microbiologically confirmed TBM cases (38%); however, the majority of patients (86%) with drug-resistant TBM had microbiological confirmation of disease. Given the low sensitivity of current methods utilized to TBM this is a limitation common to TBM studies. When limiting analyses to patients with microbiologically confirmed disease, our findings were similar which strengthen the validity of our main result that patient with drug-resistant TBM experience worse outcomes. As centrifugation of higher CSF volumes has been shown to improve the yield CSF Xpert texting [31], our use of low volume non centrifuged samples may have resulted in missed cases. Given the retrospective nature of our study, we may have not accounted for potential confounders. Lastly, lack of information regarding detailed HIV treatment precluded the ascertainment of impact of effective ART on clinical outcomes, immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome and other ART-associated complications.

In summary, we observed an overall high mortality among patients with TBM and a significantly higher long-term mortality in patients with drug-resistant TBM compared to those with DS-TBM, even when adjusted for well known risk factors. Our findings demonstrate that early diagnosis of drug-resistance and intensified regimens are not enough and consequently the urgent need for improved treatment regimens for TBM, particularly drug-resistant TBM.

Kaplan Meier survival curves for (A) all patients with microbiologically confirmed tuberculosis meningitis (TBM; n = 48) over the full period of observation and (B) over first 6 months. Mortality in persons with drug susceptible-TBM is depicted by the yellow line and in persons with drug resistant-TBM by the blue line. The shaded region surrounding the line depicts the 95% confidence interval of the mortality estimate.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Characteristics of patients with tuberculosis meningitis by vital status.

Abbreviations used: HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; ART, anti-retroviral therapy; TB, tuberculosis; TBM, tuberculous meningitis; CNS, central nervous system; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; CT, computed tomography; CXR, chest X-ray; LTFU, lost to follow up; ATT, anti-tuberculosis therapy; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; WCC, white cell count. Note: Three patients excluded for whom final outcome was not determined. 1. Defined by the Uniform Tuberculous Meningitis Research Case Definition Criteria.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Multivariate analysis of predictors of mortality for patients with probable or definite tuberculosis meningitis.

Abbreviations: DR, drug resistant; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; TBM, tuberculous meningitis.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

7 Mar 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pere-Joan Cardona, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This work was supported in part by IDSA and HIVMA through a G.E.R.M. award (E.E) as well as support from the NIH including the Fogarty International Center (D43 TW007124) and NIAID (R03 AI139871, K23AI103044, and K23 AI144040).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This work was supported in part by IDSA and HIVMA through a G.E.R.M. award (E.E) as well as support from the NIH including the Fogarty International Center (D43 TW007124) and NIAID (R03 AI139871 [RRK], K23AI103044 [RRK], and K23 AI144040[JMC). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall the manuscript has been well written.

In the results the authors have mentioned drug resistant TB is more common among HIV patients and those treated prior for TB. Can you please perform a statistical test to confirm the validity of these findings and mention the p value?

Thank you,

Reviewer #2: Long Term Outcomes of Patients with Tuberculous Meningitis: The Impact of Drug

Resistance.

Evans et al present an interesting retrospective study on the outcome of DR-TBM. The paper is well written, easy to understand for readers and (although many things have changed in DR-TB after ending the follow-up period, 2018) results obtained are interesting in order to better understand outcome of DR-TBM.

I have some suggestions that may improve de quality of the paper:

- Basal characteristics of patients with drug-resistant TB seem to be of worse prognosis than patients with drug-susceptible TB (higher proportion of HIV coinfection, worse neurologic basal status, evidence of extra-CNS disease…) so that may confound for interpreting the outcome. I would suggest the authors to explain in more detail how multivariate analysis was performed, variables included in the multivariate model, and including in table-1 the “p value” on differences of basal characteristics.

- It would be of interesting to include also a few data of the outcome of INH-resistant TBM, as probably mono-INH resistant have better prognosis.

- Line 127 and line 174 seem somehow contradictory. If the 5 patients with “unlikely” TBM correspond to “no TBM”, then the authors should exclude them for analysis.

- The authors should explain with more detail why 5 patients were included as DR-TBM without microbiological confirmed resistance. It seems that if clinical course was unfavourable (line 99) some patients were considered as posing DR-TB. This is probably not entirely correct, as many drug-sensitive TBM may have poor outcome not related to the presence of DR-TB.

- Line 127. Please include in the text a brief description of the TBM Consortium case definitions. I think this could help readers to better understand the paper.

- Line 172. 1 patient who was diagnosed by brain biopsy correspond to 0,4% (not 2%)

- Definitions of MDR-TB and XDR-TB have been recently revised; I would consider including definitions used by the authors in the “Methods” section of the paper.

- Have the authors predefined time of follow-up after ending TB treatment?

- It is presented in the “Discussion” section of the text that over 30% of patients died after hospital discharge, but these is not evident in the results section. The same occurs with “80% of LTFU patients subsequently died” (lines 228-230). Please explain in the “Methods” section the definition of “Initial and “Long term” outcome of table-1.

- I have found some errata and acronyms not explained (DST in line 98 –not later in 116-; NRL line 124; IDACIRC line 126, HIV, line 191…)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Noyal Mariya Joseph

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

30 Mar 2022

Dear PLOS One,

We very much appreciate you reviewing our manuscript entitled, “Long Term Outcomes of Patients with Tuberculous Meningitis: The Impact of Drug Resistance” and for the constructive feedback. We have included our responses below and made the corresponding changes in the manuscript. Thank you for considering our work,

Sincerely,

Russell Kempker on behalf of the study team

Editorial/Journal comments.

1. Comment: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

Response: Thank you for this guidance. We have reformatted the title page, abstract, text, figures and tables and references according to the guidance provided. Please let us know if there are any further revisions needed.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “This work was supported in part by IDSA and HIVMA through a G.E.R.M. award (E.E) as well as support from the NIH including the Fogarty International Center (D43 TW007124) and NIAID (R03 AI139871, K23AI103044, and K23 AI144040).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This work was supported in part by IDSA and HIVMA through a G.E.R.M. award (E.E) as well as support from the NIH including the Fogarty International Center (D43 TW007124) and NIAID (R03 AI139871 [RRK], K23AI103044 [RRK], and K23 AI144040[JMC). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.” Correct text to use for our funding statement.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: Thank you for this guidance. We have removed the funding text from the acknowledgement section of the manuscript. We confirm that the text included above in our Funding Statement is correct and should be used as is.

3. Comment: We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Response: Thank you for this clarification. We have discussed as a team and will provide the data in excel format after removal of patient identifying information.

4. Comment: Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Response: We have removed the ethics statement at the end of the manuscript. It is now only included in the methods section.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1

5. Comment: In the results the authors have mentioned drug resistant TB is more common among HIV patients and those treated prior for TB. Can you please perform a statistical test to confirm the validity of these findings and mention the p value?

Response: We have performed a Chi-Square statistical test to compare the prevalence of HIV and prior treatment among drug-susceptible and drug-resistant TB and have included a column of p-values in Table 1 and in the results text.

Reviewer #2

6. Comment: Baseline characteristics of patients with drug-resistant TB seem to be of worse prognosis than patients with drug-susceptible TB (higher proportion of HIV coinfection, worse neurologic basal status, evidence of extra-CNS disease…) so that may confound for interpreting the outcome. I would suggest the authors to explain in more detail how multivariate analysis was performed, variables included in the multivariate model, and including in table-1 the “p value” on differences of basal characteristics.

Response: Thank you for this comment. We have added p values to table 1 to show whether differences between included characteristics are statistically significant. To describe our model building process we have included the following sentences in the methods, “We calculated survival for drug-resistant and drug susceptible TBM according to the Kaplan–Meier method and used a Cox proportional-hazards model to adjust for between-group differences in baseline characteristics [20, 21].... The main predictor variable was treatment for drug-resistant disease. Other factors with clinical significance in univariate analysis, with biological plausibility, or previously found to be associated with mortality among patients with TBM were considered in the model.

Additionally, we included the additional variables included in the model for mortality in the text and in table 3. Additional variables included HIV and TBM grade (severity of disease) to control for potential confounders.

7. Comment: It would be of interesting to include also a few data of the outcome of INH-resistant TBM, as probably mono-INH resistant have better prognosis.

Response: Thank you for this comment. There were 4 patients with INH resistance (without rifampin resistance) who died including 3 with HIV. Thus, unfortunately the death rate was similar to the overall death among patients treated for drug-resistant TBM. We therefore did not break up the deaths by category of drug resistance.

8. Comment: Line 127 and line 174 seem somehow contradictory. If the 5 patients with “unlikely” TBM correspond to “no TBM”, then the authors should exclude them for analysis.

Response: Thank you for this comment. We have clarified this in the manuscript further. The patients who did not meet the scoring criteria for probable TBM had their charts reviewed by two US Infectious Diseases Physicians (thus not involved in patient clinical care) and were included if there were no alternative diagnoses and their presentation was compatible with at least possible TBM. Most of these cases did not meet scoring criteria given lack of information with the main one being the duration of their symptoms (symptoms must be > 5 days to get 4 points in the clinical scoring section). Given the retrospective nature of the study we were not able to get such clinical details from all cases. We felt it was important to include this group given their presentation was compatible with TBM by our chart review and also by the clinical decision making of experience TBM physicians. We have added in the following sentence to the methods to make this point clearer, “Patients who did not meet the case definition of TBM by scoring criteria also had a detailed chart review and those without alternative diagnoses and a clinical presentation compatible with TBM were included”. Given the uncertainty of unconfirmed TBM cases, we have also included analyses limited to probable or definite cases which show similar results to our overall cohort.

9. Comment: The authors should explain with more detail why 5 patients were included as DR-TBM without microbiological confirmed resistance. It seems that if clinical course was unfavorable (line 99) some patients were considered as posing DR-TB. This is probably not entirely correct, as many drug-sensitive TBM may have poor outcome not related to the presence of DR-TB.

Response: Thank you for this comment and we agree more clarification is needed. In the prior version of the manuscript, we had just included information in the figure 1 legend, mentioning that 5 of the patients were treated for MDR TBM given a known contact with a confirmed MDR TBM case or prior TB treatment failure. We have now added the following sentence in the results to make this clearer, “The five unconfirmed cases were treated for MDR TBM given either prior TB treatment failure or a known contact with confirmed MDR TB.”

10. Comment: Line 127. Please include in the text a brief description of the TBM Consortium case definitions. I think this could help readers to better understand the paper.

Response: We have added the following sentence to highlight the different scoring domains used to classify patients in TBM categories, “In brief, this case definition uses clinical, CSF, and imaging criteria to provide a score that categorizes patients into possible, probable, or definite TBM [17].”

11. Comment: Line 172. 1 patient who was diagnosed by brain biopsy correspond to 0,4% (not 2%).

Response: Thank you for this pick up. We have amended to corrected to indicated 0.4%.

12. Comment: Definitions of MDR-TB and XDR-TB have been recently revised; I would consider including definitions used by the authors in the “Methods” section of the paper.

Response: This is a good point, especially with the updated drug-resistance definitions from WHO released in January 2021. We have used prior definitions and have clarified with this additional information added in the methods, “Patients were categorized as either drug susceptible or drug-resistant TBM with drug-resistance defined as having INH monoresistance (without rifampin), rifampin mono-resistance, MDR, pre-XDR or XDR based on NCTLD and WHO guidance from 2020. MDR was defined as resistance to rifampin and isoniazid; pre-XDR as additional resistance to a fluoroquinolone or injectable second-line agent; XDR as resistance to both a fluoroquinolone and an injectable second-line agent.”

13. Comment: Have the authors predefined time of follow-up after ending TB treatment?

Response: Our length of follow up time was determined by the last date of checking the Georgian national Office of Statistics for the evaluation of death, which was performed on August 29, 2019. We have added this information to the methods under the section entitled, “Data Collection”.

14. Comment: It is presented in the “Discussion” section of the text that over 30% of patients died after hospital discharge, but these is not evident in the results section. The same occurs with “80% of LTFU patients subsequently died” (lines 228-230). Please explain in the “Methods” section the definition of “Initial and “Long term” outcome of table-1.

Response: To make this clearer we have made some amendments to the text in the methods and also Table 1. We have clarified that end of treatment outcomes were our “initial outcomes” and we have changed long term outcomes in table 1 to long term mortality which is defined and explained in the methods section. We changed the discussion text from >30% of patients died after discharge to >30% died after treatment completion to reflect our results accurately. Additionally, we have included the following lines in the result section to make clear how many people died after treatment and LTFU, “ There were 73 deaths (31%) among our entire TBM cohort including 50 persons who died during treatment and 23 who died after treatment completion. There were 15 persons who were LTFU during treatment after a median of 62 days (IQR 39-138), 12 of whom were determined to have died by death records.”

15. Comment: I have found some errata and acronyms not explained (DST in line 98 –not later in 116-; NRL line 124; IDACIRC line 126, HIV, line 191…)

Response: Thank you for pointing these out. We have gone through and spelled out these acronyms the first time they were introduced.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

7 Jun 2022

Long Term Outcomes of Patients with Tuberculous Meningitis: The Impact of Drug Resistance

PONE-D-21-30903R1

Dear Dr. Kempker,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Pere-Joan Cardona, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: In my opinion, the authors have correctly addressed our suggestions.

Please revise some errata (i.e, - Line 137 “Drug resistance was defined”)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

17 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-30903R1

Long Term Outcomes of Patients with Tuberculous Meningitis: The Impact of Drug Resistance

Dear Dr. Kempker:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Pere-Joan Cardona

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 3

Multivariate analysis of predictors of mortality among patients treated for tuberculosis meningitis.

Variables	Adjusted Hazards Ratio	95% CI	p-value
Treated for drug-resistant TBM
< 90 days	1.57	0.65, 3.77	0.32
> 90 days	7.15	3.58, 14.31	<0.001
HIV	2.89	1.52, 5.49	0.001
Male sex	0.94	0.56, 1.57	0.81
Age, per year	1.06	1.04, 1.08	<0.001
Grade 3 TBM*	2.26	1.39, 3.68	0.001

Abbreviations: HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; TBM, tuberculous meningitis

*Grade 1 and 2 TBM were analyzed together.