Impact and cost-effectiveness of the 6-month BPaLM regimen for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in Moldova: A mathematical modeling analysis.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that shortened, simplified treatment regimens for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (RR-TB) can achieve comparable end-of-treatment (EOT) outcomes to longer regimens. We compared a 6-month regimen containing bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin (BPaLM) to a standard of care strategy using a 9- or 18-month regimen depending on whether fluoroquinolone resistance (FQ-R) was detected on drug susceptibility testing (DST). METHODS AND FINDINGS: The primary objective was to determine whether 6 months of BPaLM is a cost-effective treatment strategy for RR-TB. We used genomic and demographic data to parameterize a mathematical model estimating long-term health outcomes measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime costs in 2022 USD ($) for each treatment strategy for patients 15 years and older diagnosed with pulmonary RR-TB in Moldova, a country with a high burden of TB drug resistance. For each individual, we simulated the natural history of TB and associated treatment outcomes, as well as the process of acquiring resistance to each of 12 anti-TB drugs. Compared to the standard of care, 6 months of BPaLM was cost-effective. This strategy was estimated to reduce lifetime costs by $3,366 (95% UI: [1,465, 5,742] p < 0.001) per individual, with a nonsignificant change in QALYs (-0.06; 95% UI: [-0.49, 0.03] p = 0.790). For those stopping moxifloxacin under the BPaLM regimen, continuing with BPaL plus clofazimine (BPaLC) provided more QALYs at lower cost than continuing with BPaL alone. Strategies based on 6 months of BPaLM had at least a 93% chance of being cost-effective, so long as BPaLC was continued in the event of stopping moxifloxacin. BPaLM for 6 months also reduced the average time spent with TB resistant to amikacin, bedaquiline, clofazimine, cycloserine, moxifloxacin, and pyrazinamide, while it increased the average time spent with TB resistant to delamanid and pretomanid. Sensitivity analyses showed 6 months of BPaLM to be cost-effective across a broad range of values for the relative effectiveness of BPaLM, and the proportion of the cohort with FQ-R. Compared to the standard of care, 6 months of BPaLM would be expected to save Moldova's national TB program budget $7.1 million (95% UI: [1.3 million, 15.4 million] p = 0.002) over the 5-year period from implementation. Our analysis did not account for all possible interactions between specific drugs with regard to treatment outcomes, resistance acquisition, or the consequences of specific types of severe adverse events, nor did we model how the intervention may affect TB transmission dynamics. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to standard of care, longer regimens, the implementation of the 6-month BPaLM regimen could improve the cost-effectiveness of care for individuals diagnosed with RR-TB, particularly in settings with a high burden of drug-resistant TB. Further research may be warranted to explore the impact and cost-effectiveness of shorter RR-TB regimens across settings with varied drug-resistant TB burdens and national income levels.

A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic evaluations on oral diarylquinoline-based treatment for drug-resistant tuberculosis: from high to low burden countries.

Introduction: There is a rising global interest in the pharmacoeconomic evaluations of bedaquiline (BDQ), a novel oral diarylquinoline, for treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB).Areas covered: This article systematically reviewed publications retrieved from Medline, American Psychological Association-Psychology information, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Science direct, Center for Reviews and Dissemination, and CINAHL Complete during 2010-2020 on pharmacoeconomic studies on BDQ for DR-TB treatment. Ten Markov model-based cost-effectiveness analyses identified were conducted in high (n = 4), intermediate (n = 2), and low (n = 4) TB burden countries.Expert opinion: The paucity of model-based health economic analyses on BDQ-containing regimens for DR-TB indicated that further pharmacoeconomic research of BDQ-based regimens, on the aspects of duration of BDQ treatment, types of DR-TB indicated, and settings of regions and health-systems, is highly warranted to inform global cost-effective use of BDQ-based regimens for DR-TB treatment.

Cost comparison of nine-month treatment regimens with 20-month standardized care for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant/multi-drug resistant tuberculosis in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Globally, drug resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) continues to be a public health threat. Nigeria, which accounts for a significant proportion of the global burden of rifampicin/multi-drug resistant-TB (RR/MDR-TB) had a funding gap of $168 million dollars for TB treatment in 2018. Since 2010, Nigeria has utilized five different models of care for RR/MDR-TB (Models A-E); Models A, B and C based on a standardized WHO-approved treatment regimen of 20-24 months, were phased out between 2015 and 2019 and replaced by Models D and E. Model D is a fully ambulatory model of 9-12 months during which a shorter treatment regimen including a second-line injectable agent is utilized. Model E is identical to Model D but has patients hospitalized for the first four months of care while Model F which is to be introduced in 2020, is a fully ambulatory, oral bedaquiline-containing shorter treatment regimen of 9-12 months. Treatment models for RR/MDR-TB of 20-24 months duration have had treatment success rates of 52-66% while shorter treatment regimens have reported success rates of 85% and above. In addition, replacing the second-line injectable agent in a shorter treatment regimen with bedaquiline has been found to further improve treatment success in patients with fluoroquinolone-susceptible RR/MDR-TB. Reliable cost data for RR/MDR-TB care are limited, specifically costs of models that utilize shorter treatment regimens and which are vital to guide Nigeria through the provision of RR/MDR-TB care at scale. We therefore conducted a cost analysis of shorter treatment regimens in use and to be used in Nigeria (Models D, E and F) and compared them to three models of longer duration utilized previously in Nigeria (Models A, B and C) to identify any changes in cost from transitioning from Models A-C to Models D-F and opportunities for cost savings. METHODS: We obtained costs for TB diagnostic and monitoring tests, in-patient and out-patient care from a previous study, inflated these costs to 2019 NGN and then converted to 2020 USD. We obtained other costs from the average of six health facilities and drug costs from the global drug facility. We modeled treatment on strict adherence to two Nigerian National guidelines for programmatic and clinical management of drug-resistant tuberculosis. RESULTS: We estimated that the total costs of care from the health sector perspective for Models D, E and F were $4,334, $7,705 and $3,420 respectively. This is significantly lower than the costs of Models A, B and C which were $14,781, $12, 113, $7,572 respectively. CONCLUSION: Replacing Models A-C with Models D and E reduced the costs of RR/MDR-TB care in Nigeria by approximately $5,470 (48%) per patient treated and transitioning from Models D and E to Model F would result in further cost savings of $914 to $4,285 (21 to 56%) for every patient placed on Model F. If the improved outcomes of patients managed using bedaquiline-containing shorter treatment regimens in other countries can be attained in Nigeria, Model F would be the recommended model for the scale up of RR/MDR-TB care in Nigeria.

Public investments in the clinical development of bedaquiline.

INTRODUCTION: In 2012, bedaquiline became the first new treatment from a novel class to be approved for tuberculosis in nearly five decades and is now a core component of the standard of care for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. In addition to the originator pharmaceutical company, Janssen, a range of governmental and non-profit entities have contributed to the development of bedaquiline. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified various avenues of public investments in the development of bedaquiline: direct funding of clinical trials and a donation programme, tax credits and deductions, and revenues resulting from the priority review voucher (PRV) awarded to the originator. Data on investments were gathered through contact with study leads and/or funders; for non-responses, published average costs were substituted. The originator company's expenses were estimated by similar methods. Tax credits and deductions were calculated based on estimated originator trial costs and donation expenses. The value of the PRV was estimated by application of a published model. RESULTS: Public contributions through clinical trials funding were estimated at US$109-252 million, tax credits at US$22-36 million, tax deductions at US$8-27 million, administration of a donation programme at US$5 million, PRV revenues at US$300-400 million. Total public investments were US$455-747 million and originator investments were US$90-240 million (if capitalized and risk-adjusted, US$647-1,201 million and US$292-772 million, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Estimating the investments in the development of a medicine can inform discussions regarding fair pricing and future drug development. We estimated that total public investments exceeded the originator's by a factor of 1.6-5.1.

The cost-effectiveness of a bedaquiline-containing short-course regimen for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in South Africa.

Background: Bedaquiline-containing regimens have demonstrated improved outcomes over injectable-containing regimens in the long-term treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended replacing injectables in the standard short-course regimen (SCR) with a bedaquiline-containing regimen. The South African national TB program similarly recommends a bedaquiline-containing regimen. Here, we investigated the cost-effectiveness of a bedaquiline-containing SCR versus an injectable-containing SCR for the treatment of MDR-TB in South Africa.Methods: A Markov model was adapted to simulate the incidence of active patients with MDR-TB. Patients could transition through eight health states: active MDR-TB, culture conversion, cure, follow-up loss, secondary MDR-TB, extensively DR-TB, end-of-life care, and death. A 5% discount was assumed on costs and outcomes. Health outcomes were expressed as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).Results: Over a 10-year time horizon, a bedaquiline-containing SCR dominated an injectable-containing SCR, with an incremental saving of US $982 per DALY averted. A bedaquiline-containing SCR was associated with lower total costs versus an injectable-containing SCR (US $597 versus $657 million), of which US $3.2 versus $21.9 million was attributed to adverse event management.Conclusions: Replacing an injectable-containing SCR with a bedaquiline-containing SCR is cost-effective, offering a cost-saving alternative with improved patient outcomes for MDR-TB.

Cost-effectiveness of bedaquiline or delamanid plus background regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in a high-income intermediate burden city of China.

OBJECTIVE: Hong Kong is a high-income city of China with an intermediate tuberculosis (TB) burden, and 1% of TB cases are multidrug-resistant (MDR-TB). The aim of this study was to examine the potential cost-effectiveness of adding bedaquiline or delamanid to the background regimen (BR) for the treatment of MDR-TB in Hong Kong. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was designed to simulate outcomes over a 10-year time horizon for MDR-TB patients treated with bedaquiline plus BR (B-BR), delamanid plus BR (D-BR), or BR alone. Outcome measures included direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, BR was the least costly regimen (USD 47396) with the lowest QALYs gained (6.347). Compared to BR, B-BR gained an additional 0.731 QALYs with incremental cost of USD 9. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of B-BR was USD 12/QALY. D-BR was more costly than BR by USD 20 164 and gained an additional 0.012 QALYs. The ICER of D-BR was USD 1 680333/QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 10000 Monte Carlo simulations, B-BR and D-BR were cost-effective 99.98% and 5.13% of the time, respectively, using 1× gross domestic product per capita (USD 46 182) as the willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Bedaquiline is more likely than delamanid to be cost-effective when added to BR for the treatment of MDR-TB in Hong Kong.

Bedaquiline- versus injectable-containing drug-resistant tuberculosis regimens: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) continues to be a major public health challenge with suboptimal treatment outcomes including well-documented treatment-related toxicities. We compared the cost-effectiveness of bedaquiline (BDQ) containing regimens with injectable containing regimens (short-course regimen [SCR] and long-course regiman [LCR]) in India, Russia, and South Africa. METHODS: The analysis evaluated the direct costs of DR-TB treatment which included drugs, hospitalization, injectable-related adverse event costs, and other costs. Scenarios altered regimen costs, SCR/LCR ratio, and substitution rate between regimens (whether BDQ or injectable containing). RESULTS: BDQ containing regimens are more cost effective based on cost per treatment success compared with injectable containing regimens, reducing these in SCR by 18-20% and in LCR by 49-54%. Average cost effectiveness ratios (ACERs) of BDQ containing regimens are lower. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) is negative. Exclusive use of BDQ containing regimens results in approximately 61,000 more patients treated successfully over 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Across all countries, BDQ containing regimens are dominant compared to injectable containing regimens, entailing lower treatment costs to achieve better clinical outcomes. This analysis can provide insight and support to local and global decision-makers and public health organizations to allocate efficiently resources improving patient and public health outcomes.

Impact of adverse drug reactions on the incremental cost-effectiveness of bedaquiline for drug-resistant tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are common during standard, long-course treatment for multidrug-resistant and rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-/RR-TB). In particular, second-line injectables (SLIs) are associated with permanent hearing loss, acute renal injury and electrolyte imbalance. We adapted an established Markov model for ambulatory treatment to estimate the impact of the toxicity profile on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a proposed MDR-/RR-TB regimen replacing the SLI with bedaquiline (BDQ). METHODS: Treatment effectiveness was evaluated in disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Clinical outcomes and ingredient costs from a provider perspective were derived from the South African public-sector treatment program or extracted from the literature. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3% per year over 10 years. RESULTS: A BDQ-based MDR-/RR-TB regimen compared with the SLI regimen had a mean ICER of US$516 per DALY averted using the standard Markov model. Costs for both regimens increased and effectiveness decreased for the SLI regimen once adjusted for toxicity. The resulting ICER for the BDQ-based regimen was cost saving (US$96/patient) and more effective (0.96 DALYs averted) after adjusting for ADRs. CONCLUSION: Decision-analysis models of treatment for MDR-/RR-TB, including new drug regimens, should consider the costs of managing ADRs and their sequelae.

Incremental Cost Effectiveness of Bedaquiline for the Treatment of Rifampicin-Resistant Tuberculosis in South Africa: Model-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 20,000 people were diagnosed with multi-drug and rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB) in South Africa in 2015, yet only one-half of the patients who start treatment are expected to have a successful outcome. There is increasing evidence of the effectiveness and safety of new drug regimens containing bedaquiline for MDR/RR-TB; however, whether they are affordable for high-burden, limited-resource settings is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the incremental cost effectiveness of a bedaquiline-based regimen for MDR/RR-TB treatment in South Africa compared with the standard kanamycin-based regimen. METHODS: We established a Markov model for ambulatory treatment of MDR/RR-TB in a high-HIV prevalence setting, parameterized using clinical outcomes from the South African National TB Programme (SA NTP) before (2012-2014) and after (2015-2016) bedaquiline roll-out. The effectiveness of treatment was evaluated in disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Ingredient costs from the provider's perspective were collected in 2016 South African Rand and converted to $US, including bedaquiline at $US675.23 per 6-month treatment course. Culture conversion rates were derived from the phase IIb trial of bedaquiline, and disability adjustments were adapted from published literature. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3%. RESULTS: For non-bedaquiline regimens, the total expected cost over the 10-year time horizon for a patient with MDR/RR-TB was $US4439 with disability-adjusted survival of 5.1 years. Replacing capreomycin with bedaquiline in patients who failed MDR/RR-TB treatment and required treatment for extensively drug-resistant (XDR-TB) resulted in cost savings ($US4356; 1.8% less) and similar effectiveness (0.02 DALYs averted). As a result, the standard regimen (no bedaquiline) was dominated. Replacing kanamycin with bedaquiline to provide all patients with MDR/RR-TB access to bedaquiline cost $US4647 (4.3% more) and averted 0.17 DALYs compared with the no bedaquiline regimen. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $US1242/DALY averted. CONCLUSION: Markov modelling indicates providing bedaquiline for all patients with MDR/RR-TB could increase the 24-month treatment success rate in South Africa from 56.3% using the current regimen to 60.6%, at a cost $US2.6 million over a 10-year horizon, less than 1% of the estimated $US425 million SA NTP annual budget.

Incorporating social justice and stigma in cost-effectiveness analysis: drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment.

Novel therapies for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) are likely to be expensive. The cost of novel drugs (e.g., bedaquiline, delamanid) may be so prohibitively high that a traditional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) would rate regimens containing these drugs as not cost-effective. Traditional CEA may not appropriately account for considerations of social justice, and may put the most disadvantaged populations at greater risk. Using the example of novel drug regimens for MDR-TB, we propose a novel methodology, 'justice-enhanced CEA', and demonstrate how such an approach can simultaneously assess social justice impacts alongside traditional cost-effectiveness ratios. Justice-enhanced CEA, as we envision it, is performed in three steps: 1) systematic data collection about patients' lived experiences, 2) use of empirical findings to inform social justice assessments, and 3) incorporation of data-informed social justice assessments into a decision analytic framework that includes traditional CEA. These components are organized around a core framework of social justice developed by Bailey et al. to compare impacts on disadvantage not otherwise captured by CEA. Formal social justice assessments can produce three composite levels: 'expected not to worsen…', 'may worsen…', and 'expected to worsen clustering of disadvantage'. Levels of social justice impact would be assessed for each major type of outcome under each policy scenario compared. Social justice assessments are then overlaid side-by-side with cost-effectiveness assessments corresponding to each branch pathway on the decision tree. In conclusion, we present a 'justice-enhanced' framework that enables the incorporation of social justice concerns into traditional CEA for the evaluation of new regimens for MDR-TB.

Cost-effectiveness of adding novel or group 5 interventions to a background regimen for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) is complex, lengthy, and involves a minimum of four drugs termed a background regimen (BR), that have not previously been prescribed or that have proven susceptible to patient sputum culture isolates. In recent years, promising new treatment options have emerged as add-on therapies to a BR. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term costs and effectiveness of adding the novel or group 5 interventions bedaquiline, delamanid, and linezolid to a background regimen (BR) of drugs for the treatment of adult patients with pulmonary multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), within their marketing authorisations, from a German healthcare cost-effectiveness perspective. METHODS: A cohort-based Markov model was developed to simulate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of bedaquiline plus BR, delamanid plus BR, or linezolid plus BR versus BR alone in the treatment of MDR-TB, over a 10-year time horizon. Effectiveness of treatment was evaluated in Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) and Life-Years Gained (LYG), using inputs from clinical trials for bedaquiline and delamanid and from a German observational study for linezolid. Cost data were obtained from German Drug Directory costs (€/2015), published literature, and expert opinion. A 3% yearly discount rate was applied. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The total discounted costs per-patient were €85,575 for bedaquiline plus BR, €81,079 for delamanid plus BR, and €80,460 for linezolid plus BR, compared with a cost of €60,962 for BR alone. The total discounted QALYs per-patient were 5.95 for bedaquiline plus BR, 5.36 for delamanid plus BR, and 3.91 for linezolid plus BR, compared with 3.68 for BR alone. All interventions were therefore associated with higher QALYs and higher costs than BR alone, with incremental costs per QALY gained of €22,238 for bedaquiline, €38,703 for delamanid, and €87,484 for linezolid, versus BR alone. In a fully incremental analysis, bedaquiline plus BR was the most cost-effective treatment option at thresholds greater than €22,000 per QALY gained. In probabilistic analyses, the probability that bedaquiline plus BR was the most cost-effective treatment strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 was 54.5%, compared with 22.9% for BR alone, 18.2% for delamanid plus BR, and 4.4% for linezolid. CONCLUSIONS: In Germany, the addition of bedaquiline, delamanid, or linezolid to a BR would result in QALY gains over BR alone. Based on this analysis, bedaquiline is likely to be the most cost-effective intervention for the treatment of MDR-TB, when added to a BR regimen at thresholds greater than €22,000 per QALY.

Health outcomes of bedaquiline in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in selected high burden countries.

BACKGROUND: Less than one-third of patients who are estimated to be infected with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) receive MDR-TB treatment regimens, and only 48% of those who received treatment have successful outcomes. Despite current regimens, newer, more effective and cost-effective approaches to treatment are needed. The aim of the study was to project health outcomes and impact on healthcare resources of adding bedaquiline to the treatment regimen of MDR-TB in selected high burden countries: Estonia, Russia, South Africa, Peru, China, the Philippines, and India. METHODS: This study adapted an existing Markov model to estimate the health outcomes and impact on total healthcare costs of adding bedaquiline to current MDR-TB treatment regimens. A price threshold analysis was conducted to determine the price range at which bedaquiline would be cost-effective. RESULTS: Adding bedaquiline to the background regimen (BR) resulted in increased disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, and reduced total healthcare costs (excluding treatment acquisition costs) compared with BR alone in all countries analyzed. Addition of bedaquiline to BR resulted in savings to healthcare costs compared with BR alone in all countries analyzed, with the highest impact expected in Russia (US$194 million) and South Africa (US$43 million). The price per regimen at which bedaquiline would be cost-effective ranged between US$23,904-US$203,492 in Estonia, Russia, Peru, South Africa, and China (high and upper middle-income countries) and between US$6,996-US$20,323 in the Philippines and India (lower middle-income countries); however, these cost-effective prices do not necessarily address concerns about affordability. CONCLUSIONS: Adding bedaquiline to BR provides improvements in health outcomes and reductions in healthcare costs in high MDR-TB burden countries. The range of prices per regimen for which bedaquiline would be cost-effective varied between countries.

Estimated generic prices for novel treatments for drug-resistant tuberculosis.

Background: The estimated worldwide annual incidence of MDR-TB is 480 000, representing 5% of TB incidence, but 20% of mortality. Multiple drugs have recently been developed or repurposed for the treatment of MDR-TB. Currently, treatment for MDR-TB costs thousands of dollars per course. Objectives: To estimate generic prices for novel TB drugs that would be achievable given large-scale competitive manufacture. Methods: Prices for linezolid, moxifloxacin and clofazimine were estimated based on per-kilogram prices of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API). Other costs were added, including formulation, packaging and a profit margin. The projected costs for sutezolid were estimated to be equivalent to those for linezolid, based on chemical similarity. Generic prices for bedaquiline, delamanid and pretomanid were estimated by assessing routes of synthesis, costs/kg of chemical reagents, routes of synthesis and per-step yields. Costing algorithms reflected variable regulatory requirements and efficiency of scale based on demand, and were validated by testing predictive ability against widely available TB medicines. Results: Estimated generic prices were US$8-$17/month for bedaquiline, $5-$16/month for delamanid, $11-$34/month for pretomanid, $4-$9/month for linezolid, $4-$9/month for sutezolid, $4-$11/month for clofazimine and $4-$8/month for moxifloxacin. The estimated generic prices were 87%-94% lower than the current lowest available prices for bedaquiline, 95%-98% for delamanid and 94%-97% for linezolid. Estimated generic prices were $168-$395 per course for the STREAM trial modified Bangladesh regimens (current costs $734-$1799), $53-$276 for pretomanid-based three-drug regimens and $238-$507 for a delamanid-based four-drug regimen. Conclusions: Competitive large-scale generic manufacture could allow supplies of treatment for 5-10 times more MDR-TB cases within current procurement budgets.

Cost-effectiveness of Bedaquiline for the Treatment of Multidrug-resistant Tuberculosis in the Republic of Korea.

PURPOSE: Bedaquiline is a new drug used for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding bedaquiline to a standard regimen (SR) for treating patients with MDR-TB, including extensively drug-resistant (XDR)-TB, in the Republic of Korea. METHODS: A cohort-based decision-analytic model developed in a previously published study from the United Kingdom was used, with a 20-year time horizon and a 5% discount rate for cost and effectiveness, to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of bedaquiline + SR and SR only. The key parameters regarding the clinical data were available via the published Phase II trial of bedaquiline. Additional parameters for recurrence, cure status, loss to follow-up, surgery, death, cost, and health utility were based on Korean data if available; otherwise the international literature data were applied. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. FINDINGS: Based on the analysis, a patient on bedaquiline + SR would gain 1.20 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at 13,961,659 Korean won (KRW) (1100 KRW = US $1) of additional cost compared with a patient administered SR only, with an incremental cost/utility ratio of 11,638,656 KRW/QALY. Bedaquiline + SR had an 80% probability of being cost-effective, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 26 million KRW, compared with SR only. IMPLICATIONS: The results of this study suggest that, in the Republic of Korea, bedaquiline, as a part of combination therapy with SR, is a cost-effective option for the treatment of MDR-TB (including XDR-TB) compared with SR only.

Cost-effectiveness of adding bedaquiline to drug regimens for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding bedaquiline to a background regimen (BR) of drugs for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: A cohort-based Markov model was developed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of bedaquiline plus BR (BBR) versus BR alone (BR) in the treatment of MDR-TB, over a 10-year time horizon. A National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective was considered. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). Data were sourced from a phase II, placebo-controlled trial, NHS reference costs, and the literature; the US list price of bedaquiline was used and converted to pounds (£18,800). Costs and effectiveness were discounted at a rate of 3.5% per annum. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The total discounted cost per patient (pp) on BBR was £106,487, compared with £117,922 for BR. The total discounted QALYs pp were 5.16 for BBR and 4.01 for BR. The addition of bedaquiline to a BR resulted in a cost-saving of £11,434 and an additional 1.14 QALYs pp over a 10-year period, and is therefore considered to be the dominant (less costly and more effective) strategy over BR. BBR remained dominant in the majority of sensitivity analyses, with a 81% probability of being dominant versus BR in the probabilistic analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In the UK, bedaquiline is likely to be cost-effective and cost-saving, compared with the current MDR-TB standard of care under a range of scenarios. Cost-savings over a 10-year period were realized from reductions in length of hospitalization, which offset the bedaquiline drug costs. The cost-benefit conclusions held after several sensitivity analyses, thus validating assumptions made, and suggesting that the results would hold even if the actual price of bedaquiline in the UK were higher than in the US.