Bedaquiline safety, efficacy, utilization and emergence of resistance following treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients in South Africa: a retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective cohort study assessed benefits and risks of bedaquiline treatment in multidrug-resistant-tuberculosis (MDR-TB) combination therapy by evaluating safety, effectiveness, drug utilization and emergence of resistance to bedaquiline. METHODS: Data were extracted from a register of South African drug-resistant-tuberculosis (DR-TB) patients (Electronic DR-TB Register [EDRWeb]) for newly diagnosed patients with MDR-TB (including pre-extensively drug-resistant [XDR]-TB and XDR-TB and excluding rifampicin-mono-resistant [RR]-TB, as these patients are by definition not multidrug-resistant), receiving either a bedaquiline-containing or non-bedaquiline-containing regimen, at 14 sites in South Africa. Total duration of treatment and follow-up was up to 30 months, including 6 months' bedaquiline treatment. WHO treatment outcomes within 6 months after end-of-treatment were assessed in both patient groups. Longer term mortality (up to 30 months from treatment start) was evaluated through matching to the South African National Vital Statistics Register. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to predict association between receiving a bedaquiline-containing regimen and treatment outcome. RESULTS: Data were extracted from EDRWeb for 5981 MDR-TB patients (N = 3747 bedaquiline-treated; N = 2234 non-bedaquiline-treated) who initiated treatment between 2015 and 2017, of whom 40.7% versus 80.6% had MDR-TB. More bedaquiline-treated than non-bedaquiline-treated patients had pre-XDR-TB (27.7% versus 9.5%) and XDR-TB (31.5% versus 9.9%) per pre-2021 WHO definitions. Most patients with treatment duration data (94.3%) received bedaquiline for 6 months. Treatment success (per pre-2021 WHO definitions) was achieved in 66.9% of bedaquiline-treated and 49.4% of non-bedaquiline-treated patients. Death was reported in fewer bedaquiline-treated (15.4%) than non-bedaquiline-treated (25.6%) patients. Bedaquiline-treated patients had increased likelihood of treatment success and decreased risk of mortality versus non-bedaquiline-treated patients. In patients with evaluable drug susceptibility testing data, 3.5% of bedaquiline-susceptible isolates at baseline acquired phenotypic resistance. Few patients reported bedaquiline-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (1.8%), TEAE-related bedaquiline discontinuations (1.4%) and QTcF values > 500 ms (2.5%) during treatment. CONCLUSION: Data from this large cohort of South African patients with MDR-TB showed treatment with bedaquiline-containing regimens was associated with survival and effectiveness benefit compared with non-bedaquiline-containing regimens. No new safety signals were detected. These data are consistent with the positive risk-benefit profile of bedaquiline and warrant continued implementation in combination therapy for MDR-TB treatment.

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.

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 regulatory requirements on medicine registration in African countries - perceptions and experiences of pharmaceutical companies in South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: Access to medicines has long been and remains a challenge in African countries. The impact of medicines registration policies in these countries poses a challenge for pharmaceutical companies wanting to register medicines in these countries. The recent AMRHI (African Medicines Registration Harmonisation Initiative) has increased the focus on the need for harmonisation. Medicines registration regulations differ across African countries. Anecdotal evidence, based on the experience of pharmaceutical companies on progress towards harmonisation is somewhat different, i.e. that country specific requirements were a barrier to the registration of medicines. The objective of this study was therefore to determine the nature and extent of regulatory hurdles experienced by pharmaceutical companies who wish to register and supply medicines to African countries. METHODS: This cross-sectional descriptive pilot study was conducted across pharmaceutical companies, both local and multinational. These companies were based in South Africa and were also members of Pharmaceutical Industry Association of South Africa (PIASA). The pharmaceutical companies supply both the private and public sectors. An online survey was developed using Survey Monkey. Survey questions focused on the following strands: nature and level of current supply of medicines to African countries by companies, general regulatory requirements, region specific questions and country specific questions across four regional economic communities in Africa, namely; Southern African Development Community (SADC), East African Community (EAC), Economic Community of the West African States (ECOWAS) and Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS). RESULTS: A total of 33 responses were received to the questionnaire of which 26 respondents were from the PIASA Regulatory working group and 7 were from the PIASA Export working group.It was noted that since most of the regulatory authorities in Africa are resource-constrained, harmonisation of medicine registration policies will contribute positively to ensuring the safety, quality and efficacy of medicines. The experience of pharmaceutical companies indicated that country specific regulatory requirements are a barrier to registering and supplying medicines to African countries. In particular, GMP inspections, GMP inspection fees and country specific labeling were cited as key problems. CONCLUSION: Pharmaceutical companies operating in African markets are experiencing difficulties in complying with the technical requirements of individual African countries. Further research is required to provide a balanced perspective on the country specific regulatory requirements vs. the African Regulatory Harmonisation Initiative (AMRHI).