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.

Assessment of epidemiological and genetic characteristics and clinical outcomes of resistance to bedaquiline in patients treated for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Bedaquiline improves outcomes of patients with rifampicin-resistant and multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis; however, emerging resistance threatens this success. We did a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis evaluating the epidemiology, genetic basis, and treatment outcomes associated with bedaquiline resistance, using data from South Africa (2015-19). METHODS: Patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis starting bedaquiline-based treatment had surveillance samples submitted at baseline, month 2, and month 6, along with demographic information. Culture-positive baseline and post-baseline isolates had phenotypic resistance determined. Eligible patients were aged 12 years or older with a positive culture sample at baseline or, if the sample was invalid or negative, a sample within 30 days of the baseline sample submitted for bedaquiline drug susceptibility testing. For the longitudinal study, the first surveillance sample had to be phenotypically susceptible to bedaquiline for inclusion. Whole-genome sequencing was done on bedaquiline-resistant isolates and a subset of bedaquiline-susceptible isolates. The National Institute for Communicable Diseases tuberculosis reference laboratory, and national tuberculosis surveillance databases were matched to the Electronic Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis Register. We assessed baseline resistance prevalence, mutations, transmission, cumulative resistance incidence, and odds ratios (ORs) associating risk factors for resistance with patient outcomes. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2015, and July 31, 2019, 8041 patients had surveillance samples submitted, of whom 2023 were included in the cross-sectional analysis and 695 in the longitudinal analysis. Baseline bedaquiline resistance prevalence was 3·8% (76 of 2023 patients; 95% CI 2·9-4·6), and it was associated with previous exposure to bedaquiline or clofazimine (OR 7·1, 95% CI 2·3-21·9) and with rifampicin-resistant or MDR tuberculosis with additional resistance to either fluoroquinolones or injectable drugs (pre-extensively-drug resistant [XDR] tuberculosis: 4·2, 1·7-10·5) or to both (XDR tuberculosis: 4·8, 2·0-11·7). Rv0678 mutations were the sole genetic basis of phenotypic resistance. Baseline resistance could be attributed to previous bedaquiline or clofazimine exposure in four (5·3%) of 76 patients and to primary transmission in six (7·9%). Odds of successful treatment outcomes were lower in patients with baseline bedaquiline resistance (0·5, 0·3-1). Resistance during treatment developed in 16 (2·3%) of 695 patients, at a median of 90 days (IQR 62-195), with 12 of these 16 having pre-XDR or XDR. INTERPRETATION: Bedaquiline resistance was associated with poorer treatment outcomes. Rapid assessment of bedaquiline resistance, especially when patients were previously exposed to bedaquiline or clofazimine, should be prioritised at baseline or if patients remain culture-positive after 2 months of treatment. Preventing resistance by use of novel combination therapies, current treatment optimisation, and patient support is essential. FUNDING: National Institute for Communicable Diseases of South Africa.

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.

Bedaquilina para pacientes com tuberculose resistentes à rifampicina, multirresistentes e extensivamente resistentes a medicamentos / Bedaquiline for tuberculosis-resistant patients rifampicin, multi-resistant and extensively resistant to medicines

INTRODUÇÃO: A tuberculose (TB), conhecida anteriormente como tísica, é uma doença que pode ser causada por sete espécies do gênero do complexo Mycobacterium sendo a mais importante, do ponto de vista de saúde pública, a M. tuberculosis. Globalmente cerca de 10 milhões de pessoas tiveram TB no ano de 2018. No Brasil, em 2018, foram diagnosticados 72.788 casos novos de TB o que representa uma incidência de 34,8 casos por 100 mil habitantes. A TB pode ser classificada como pulmonar e extrapulmonar, sendo a primeira forma mais prevalente. Além disso, a TB pode ser classificada conforme a resistência à medicamentos, tais como: RR-TB, MDR-TB e XDR-TB. PERGUNTA DE PESQUISA: A bedaquilina (BDQ) associada ao tratamento padrão para pacientes adultos com RR-TB, MDR-TB ou XDR-TB, é mais eficaz, efetiva e segura comparado ao tratamento padrão utilizado pelo SUS (levofloxacino, moxifloxacino, amicacina, capreomicina, etionamida, terizidona, linezolida, clofazimina, pirazinamida, etambutol, isoniazida, rifampicina e paraminossalicílico) ou placebo? TECNOLOGIA: Bedaquilina (Sirturo®). EVIDÊNCIAS CIENTÍFICAS: A revisão sistematizada recuperou nove estudos (uma revisão sistemática [RS] com meta-análise em rede [network meta-analysis - NMA], um ensaio clínico randomizado [ECR] com dois relatos e sete estudos de coorte [seis retrospectivas e uma prospectiva]). A RS, com NMA, avaliou a BDQ em comparação aos medicamentos delamanida, metronidazol, moxifloxacino e levofloxacino. A RS avaliou os desfechos conversão de cultura do escarro e aceitabilidade, e não foram verificados resultados estatisticamente significantes. Os estudos de coorte avaliaram a BDQ em comparação aos mais diversos tratamentos disponíveis para RR-TB, MDR-TB e XDR-TB. As coortes avaliaram os seguintes desfechos: sobrevida sucesso no tratamento, tratamento completo, cura, conversão da cultura do escarro e mortalidade. Os resultados não foram estatisticamente significantes na meta-análise de modelo de efeitos randomizados para todos os desfechos avaliados, porém os resultados dos efeitos fixos demostraram resultados estatisticamente significantes favorecendo o tratamento com BDQ em comparação ao tratamento sem BDQ. Vale salientar que foram realizadas análises de subgrupos com o ECR, TMC207, que avaliou eficácia e segurança da BDQ associado ao tratamento padrão em comparação ao grupo placebo associado ao tratamento padrão em até 120 semanas para os desfechos de conversão da cultura do escarro, cura e segurança (mortalidade), porém não mudaram a direção dos resultados nas duas modelagem da meta-análise. AVALIAÇÃO ECONÔMICA (AE): Os tratamentos com BDQ comparado aos tratamentos do SUS mostraram-se dominados na avaliação de custo-efetividade, para o desfecho paciente curado. Assim, os tratamentos do SUS para RR-TB, MDR-TB e XDR-TB dominaram todos os tratamentos com BDQ, ou seja, todos os tratamentos com BDQ foram menos efetivos e mais caros que os tratamentos do SUS para obter a cura dos indivíduos com RR-TB, MDR-TB e XDR-TB. AVALIAÇÃO DE IMPACTO ORÇAMENTÁRIO (AIO): A AIO, para os pacientes com RR-TB, variou entre um custo incremental R$ 936 mil no caso base a uma economia de -R$ 1 milhão ao final do quinto ano no cenário alternativo; para MDR-TB variou entre uma economia de -R$44 mil no caso base a um gasto de R$ 110 mil ao final do quinto ano no cenário alternativo; e para XDR-TB variou entre um custo incremental de R$ 188 mil no caso base a R$ 4 mil no cenário alternativo ao final do quinto ano. MONITORAMENTO DO HORIZONTE TECNOLÓGICO (MHT): Cinco medicamentos foram detectados no MHT para pacientes com MDR-TB e XDR-TB (canamicina, cicloserina, sutezolida, pretomanide e protionamida). CONSIDERAÇÕES FINAIS: Há resultados conflitantes nas evidências encontradas no relatório. O ECR, analisado como de alto risco de viés (Risk of Bias 2.0) mostrou que a BDQ associada ao tratamento padrão é eficaz em comparação ao grupo de tratamento placebo associado ao tratamento padrão, porém com maior número de mortes e episódios de náusea em comparação ao grupo de tratamento sem a BDQ. Os resultados da RS, com NMA, de qualidade moderada, não demonstraram diferenças estatisticamente significantes entre as tecnologias avaliadas. Os resultados das meta-análises dos estudos de coorte de baixa qualidade metodológica (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), em combinação com o ECR da BDQ, foram demonstrados em efeitos fixos e randomizados. Os desfechos sucesso no tratamento, tratamento completo, cura, conversão da cultura do escarro e mortalidade não foram estatisticamente significantes no modelo de efeito randomizados na meta-análise. No entanto, foram estatisticamente significantes no modelo de efeito fixos da metaanálise, e favoreceram o tratamento com BDQ em comparação aos pacientes não tratados sem BDQ. A AE demonstrou que os tratamentos com BDQ foram dominados em relação aos tratamentos disponibilizados no SUS sem BDQ, para o desfecho paciente tratado, sendo, portanto, mais custosos e menos efetivos. A AIO, para pacientes com RR-TB, variou entre R$ 936 mil no caso base a uma economia de -R$ 1 milhão no cenário alternativo ao final do quinto ano, para MDRTB variou entre uma economia de -R$44 mil no caso base a um custo de R$ 110 mil ao final do quinto ano no cenário alternativo e para XDR-TB variou entre um custo adicional de R$ 188 mil no caso base a um custo adicional de R$ 4 mil ao final do quinto ano no cenário alternativo. RECOMENDAÇÃO PRELIMINAR DA CONITEC: A Conitec, em sua 87ª reunião ordinária, realizada nos dias 03 e 04 de junho de 2020, deliberou que a matéria fosse disponibilizada em consulta pública com recomendação preliminar favorável à incorporação no SUS da bedaquilina para pacientes com tuberculose resistente à rifampicina (RR-TB), a tuberculose multirresistente (MDR-TB) e para tuberculose extensivamente resistente a medicamentos (XDR-TB), condicionada ao monitoramento e apresentação dos dados de vida real, efetividade e segurança, da utilização da bedaquilina pela população brasileira e conforme critérios estabelecidos em protocolo do Ministério da Saúde. CONSULTA PÚBLICA: A Consulta Pública nº 24/2020 foi realizada entre os dias 22/06/2020 a 13/07/2020. Foram recebidas 66 contribuições no total, das quais 19 (29%) foram pelo formulário para contribuições técnico-científicas e 47 (71%) pelo formulário para contribuições sobre experiência ou opinião de pacientes, familiares, amigos ou cuidadores de pacientes, profissionais de saúde ou pessoas interessadas no tema. Das 19 contribuições de cunho técnico-científico, 95% submeteram a contribuição com opinião concordando totalmente com a recomendação preliminar da comissão. Apenas uma contribuição discordou da recomendação preliminar da Conitec, mas foi uma contribuição equivocada e se tratava de outro tema de consulta pública, portanto, foi excluída da análise. Das 47 contribuições recebidas sobre experiência ou opinião, apenas 15 foram analisadas, pois 32 estavam em branco, se tratavam de outro tema ou foram preenchidas inadequadamente. As 15 contribuições remanescentes concordaram 100% com a decisão preliminar da comissão. Após a apreciação das contribuições encaminhadas na consulta pública nº 24/2020, o plenário da Conitec considerou que: I) Foi apresentado um novo preço de USD 340 da bedaquilina pela Johnson & Johnson, sendo proposto um desconto de 15% no preço utilizado no relatório de recomendação preliminar (USD 400); II) Foram enviadas novas estimativas de incidência para pacientes com tuberculose multirresistente, bem como evidência de possíveis limitações na análise de impacto orçamentário; III) A nova análise de impacto orçamentário, utilizando os novos parâmetros enviados na consulta pública, aponta para economia de recursos na população com tuberculose multirresistente e um custo incremental com tuberculose resistente à rifampicina e tuberculose extensivamente resistente no cenário sem taxa de difusão gradual da bedaquilina (100% no primeiro ano de incorporação). No entanto, ao adotarmos o cenário com taxa difusão gradual da bedaquilina, 30% no primeiro ano de incorporação a 70% no quinto ano, os resultados mudam e proporcionam economia de recursos para pacientes com tuberculose resistente à rifampicina e um custo incremental para pacientes com tuberculose multirresistente e tuberculose extensivamente resistente. RECOMENDAÇÃO FINAL DA CONITEC: Os membros da Conitec presentes na 89ª reunião ordinária, no dia 05 de agosto de 2020, deliberaram por unanimidade recomendar a incorporação da bedaquilina para pacientes com tuberculose resistentes à rifampicina, multirresistentes e extensivamente resistente a medicamentos, condicionado a apresentação de dados de vida real e conforme preconizado pelo Ministério da Saúde. Foi assinado o Registro de Deliberação nº 538/2020. DECISÃO: Incorporar a bedaquilina para pacientes com tuberculose resistentes à rifampicina, multirresistentes e extensivamente resistente a medicamentos, condicionado a apresentação de dados de vida real e conforme preconizado pelo Ministério da Saúde, no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS, conforme Portaria nº 36, publicada no Diário Oficial da União nº 168, seção 1, página 77, em 01 de setembro de 2020.

Long-term impact of the adoption of bedaquiline-containing regimens on the burden of drug-resistant tuberculosis in China.

BACKGROUND: Currently available injectable agents are inadequate to address the high drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) burden in China. Regimens including the oral agent bedaquiline have been shown to be efficacious and safe, leading to its incorporation into multiple national TB treatment programs. This analysis evaluated the impact of increased adoption of bedaquiline-containing regimens on the DR-TB burden in China. METHODS: A state-transition model was developed that permits movement and interaction between susceptible, latent, and active TB disease states, while distinguishing between drug-sensitive (DS) and DR-TB. Model inputs were obtained from the published literature or derived such that model metrics approximated those published by the WHO. Expected improvements in infrastructure were built into the model to forecast the epidemiology of DR-TB in China through 2040 in the absence of bedaquiline (baseline forecast). The impact of higher utilization of bedaquiline-containing regimens (85% peak share) was then assessed in two scenarios that differed with regard to treatment success rates of the regimens: 61% (reflecting findings of clinical trials) and 80% (reflecting data from observational studies), versus the 44% success rate associated with standard-of-care treatment. RESULTS: In the baseline scenario, the model predicted increases in annual incidence of DR-TB by 6-8% during each five-year period between 2020 and 2040, with an increase of 30% over the entire study duration. Adoption of bedaquiline-based regimens limits the incidence increases to only 1-3% in each five-year period and to 8% over the study duration in the 61% success rate scenario. Incidence declines by 1-6% during each five-year period and by 12% over the study duration in the 80% success rate scenario. Similar effects on DR-TB prevalence (4-5% increase in baseline, 0-7% decline in scenario 1, and 4-19% decline in scenario 2) and mortality (5-7% increase in baseline, 0-16% decline in scenario 1, and 6-40% decline in scenario 2) were seen following bedaquiline adoption. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of bedaquiline into DR-TB treatment regimens will significantly reduce the DR-TB burden in China, helping to counter the expected increase in burden in the absence of bedaquiline. The study will provide valuable information to public health policy planners.

Estimating the impact of a novel drug regimen for treatment of tuberculosis: a modeling analysis of projected patient outcomes and epidemiological considerations.

BACKGROUND: Regimens that could treat both rifampin-resistant (RR) and rifampin-susceptible tuberculosis (TB) while shortening the treatment duration have reached late-stage clinical trials. Decisions about whether and how to implement such regimens will require an understanding of their likely clinical impact and how this impact depends on local epidemiology and implementation strategy. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model of 100,000 representative South African adults with TB was used to simulate implementation of the regimen BPaMZ (bedaquiline, pretomanid, moxifloxacin, and pyrazinamide), either for RR-TB only or universally for all patients. Patient outcomes, including cure rates, time with active TB, and time on treatment, were compared to outcomes under current care. Sensitivity analyses varied the drug-resistance epidemiology, rifampin susceptibility testing practices, and regimen efficacy. RESULTS: Using BPaMZ exclusively for RR-TB increased the proportion of all RR-TB that was cured by initial treatment from 60 ± 1% to 67 ± 1%. Expanding use of BPaMZ to all patients increased cure of RR-TB to 89 ± 1% and cure of all TB from 87.3 ± 0.1% to 89.5 ± 0.1%, while shortening treatment by 1.9 months/person. In sensitivity analyses, reducing the coverage of rifampin susceptibility testing resulted in lower projected proportions of patients cured under all regimen scenarios (current care, RR-only BPaMZ, and universal BPaMZ), compared to the proportions projected using South Africa's high coverage; however, this reduced coverage resulted in greater expected incremental benefits of universal BPaMZ implementation, both when compared to RR-only BPaMZ implementation and when compared to to current care under the same low rifampin susceptibility testing coverage. In settings with higher RR-TB prevalence, the benefits of BPaMZ were magnified both for RR-specific and universal BPaMZ implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Novel regimens such as BPaMZ could improve RR-TB outcomes and shorten treatment for all patients, particularly with universal use. Decision-makers weighing early options for implementing such regimens at scale will want to consider the expected impact on patient outcomes and on the burden of treatment in their local context.

The Lancet Respiratory Medicine Commission: 2019 update: epidemiology, pathogenesis, transmission, diagnosis, and management of multidrug-resistant and incurable tuberculosis.

The Lancet Respiratory Medicine Commission on drug-resistant tuberculosis was published in 2017, which comprehensively reviewed and provided recommendations on various aspects of the disease. Several key new developments regarding drug-resistant tuberculosis are outlined in this Commission Update. The WHO guidelines on treating drug-resistant tuberculosis were updated in 2019 with a reclassification of second line anti-tuberculosis drugs. An injection-free MDR tuberculosis treatment regimen is now recommended. Over the past 3 years, advances in treatment include the recognition of the safety and mortality benefit of bedaquiline, the finding that the 9-11 month injectable-based 'Bangladesh' regimen was non-inferior to longer regimens, and promising interim results of a novel 6 month 3-drug regimen (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid). Studies of explanted lungs from patients with drug-resistant tuberculosis have shown substantial drug-specific gradients across pulmonary cavities, suggesting that alternative dosing and drug delivery strategies are needed to reduce functional monotherapy at the site of disease. Several controversies are discussed including the optimal route of drug administration, optimal number of drugs constituting a regimen, selection of individual drugs for a regimen, duration of the regimen, and minimal desirable standards of antibiotic stewardship. Newer rapid nucleic acid amplification test platforms, including point-of-care systems that facilitate active case-finding, are discussed. The rapid diagnosis of resistance to other drugs, (notably fluoroquinolones), and detection of resistance by targeted or whole genome sequencing will probably change the diagnostic landscape in the near future.

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.

Quantitative approach for cardiac risk assessment and interpretation in tuberculosis drug development.

Cardiotoxicity is among the top drug safety concerns, and is of specific interest in tuberculosis, where this is a known or potential adverse event of current and emerging treatment regimens. As there is a need for a tool, beyond the QT interval, to quantify cardiotoxicity early in drug development, an empirical decision tree based classifier was developed to predict the risk of Torsades de pointes (TdP). The cardiac risk algorithm was developed using pseudo-electrocardiogram (ECG) outputs derived from cardiac myocyte electromechanical model simulations of increasing concentrations of 96 reference compounds which represented a range of clinical TdP risk. The algorithm correctly classified 89% of reference compounds with moderate sensitivity and high specificity (71 and 96%, respectively) as well as 10 out of 12 external validation compounds and the anti-TB drugs moxifloxacin and bedaquiline. The cardiac risk algorithm is suitable to help inform early drug development decisions in TB and will evolve with the addition of emerging data.

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.

Modeling the impact of bedaquiline treatment strategies on the multidrug-resistant tuberculosis burden in India.

SETTING: Bedaquiline (BDQ) has been approved in India for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), but is currently recommended for MDR-TB patients who have failed initial treatment with standard regimens. While some have argued that such deferred BDQ use allows a second line of defense with a potent drug, this strategy may not be optimal. OBJECTIVE: To compare several distinct scenarios of BDQ access and use, and their potential impact on the MDR-TB disease burden and the associated net economic benefit in India. METHOD: We used a state-transition model to carry out this evaluation. The scenarios differed in the timing and breadth of BDQ access. RESULTS: The simulations showed that a strategy reliant on reserving the use of BDQ for those who have failed other MDR-TB regimens is likely to result in worse treatment outcomes for patients and in inferior public health outcomes for communities, leading to reduced net monetary benefit. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that deferring patient access to new drugs such as BDQ until front-line regimens have failed, in order to 'save' these drugs for later use, could be detrimental to patients and to public health, and could reduce the economic benefit of treating 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.

Examples of bedaquiline introduction for the management of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in five countries.

BACKGROUND: For the first time in almost 50 years, there are new drugs available for the treatment of tuberculosis (TB), including bedaquiline (BDQ) and delamanid (DLM). The rate of introduction, however, has not kept pace with patient needs. It is estimated that as many as 23% of multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) patients have an indication for receiving BDQ. As this is the first time the MDR-TB community is introducing new medications, it is important to understand how implementation can be developed in a variety of settings. METHODS: A qualitative assessment of country TB programs in which more than 5% of MDR-TB patients were started on BDQ under program conditions. RESULTS: National TB programs in Belarus, France, Georgia, South Africa, and Swaziland all started sizeable cohorts of patients on BDQ in 2015. Common factors observed in these programs included experience with compassionate use/expanded access, support from implementing partners, and adequate national or donor-supported budgets. Barriers to introduction included restriction of BDQ to the in-patient setting, lack of access to companion drugs, and the development of systems for pharmacovigilance. CONCLUSION: The five countries in this paper are examples of the introduction of new therapeutic options for the treatment of TB.

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.

Tradeoffs in Introduction Policies for the Anti-Tuberculosis Drug Bedaquiline: A Model-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: New drugs for the treatment of tuberculosis (TB) are becoming available for the first time in over 40 y. Optimal strategies for introducing these drugs have not yet been established. The objective of this study was to compare different strategies for introducing the new TB drug bedaquiline based on patients' resistance patterns. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We created a Markov decision model to follow a hypothetical cohort of multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB patients under different bedaquiline use strategies. The explored strategies included making bedaquiline available to all patients with MDR TB, restricting bedaquiline usage to patients with MDR plus additional resistance and withholding bedaquiline introduction completely. We compared these strategies according to life expectancy, risks of acquired resistance, and the expected number and health outcomes of secondary cases. For our simulated cohort, the mean (2.5th, 97.5th percentile) life expectancy from time of initiation of MDR TB treatment at age 30 was 36.0 y (33.5, 38.7) assuming all patients with MDR TB received bedaquiline, 35.1 y (34.4, 35.8) assuming patients with pre-extensively drug-resistant (PreXDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) TB received bedaquiline, and 34.9 y (34.6, 35.2) assuming only patients with XDR TB received bedaquiline. Although providing bedaquiline to all MDR patients resulted in the highest life expectancy for our initial cohort averaged across all parameter sets, for parameter sets in which bedaquiline conferred high risks of added mortality and only small reductions in median time to culture conversion, the optimal strategy would be to withhold use even from patients with the most extensive resistance. Across all parameter sets, the most liberal bedaquiline use strategies consistently increased the risk of bedaquiline resistance but decreased the risk of resistance to other MDR drugs. In almost all cases, more liberal bedaquiline use strategies reduced the expected number of secondary cases and resulting life years lost. The generalizability of our results is limited by the lack of available data about drug effects among individuals with HIV co-infection, drug interactions, and other sources of heterogeneity, as well as changing recommendations for MDR TB treatment. CONCLUSIONS: If mortality benefits can be empirically verified, our results provide support for expanding bedaquiline access to all patients with MDR TB. Such expansion could improve patients' health, protect background MDR TB drugs, and decrease transmission, but would likely result in greater resistance to bedaquiline.