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.

Economic implications of novel regimens for tuberculosis treatment in three high-burden countries: a modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: With numerous trials investigating novel drug combinations to treat tuberculosis, we aimed to evaluate the extent to which future improvements in tuberculosis treatment regimens could offset potential increases in drug costs. METHODS: In this modelling analysis, we used an ingredients-based approach to estimate prices at which novel regimens for rifampin-susceptible and rifampin-resistant tuberculosis treatment would be cost-neutral or cost-effective compared with standards of care in India, the Philippines, and South Africa. We modelled regimens meeting targets set in the WHO's 2023 Target Regimen Profiles (TRPs). Our decision-analytical model tracked cohorts of adults initiating rifampin-susceptible or rifampin-resistant tuberculosis treatment, simulating their health outcomes and costs accumulated during and following treatment under standard-of-care and novel regimen scenarios. Price thresholds included short-term cost-neutrality (considering only savings accrued during treatment), medium-term cost-neutrality (additionally considering savings from averted retreatments and secondary cases), and cost-effectiveness (incorporating willingness-to-pay for improved health outcomes). FINDINGS: Total medium-term costs per person treated using standard-of-care regimens were estimated at US$450 (95% uncertainty interval 310-630) in India, $560 (350-860) in the Philippines, and $730 (530-1090) in South Africa for rifampin-susceptible tuberculosis (current drug costs $46) and $2100 (1590-2810) in India, $2610 (2090-3280) in the Philippines, and $3790 (3090-4630) in South Africa for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (current drug costs $432). A rifampin-susceptible tuberculosis regimen meeting the optimal targets defined in the TRPs could be cost-neutral in the short term at drug costs of $140 (90-210) per full course in India, $230 (130-380) in the Philippines, and $280 (180-460) in South Africa. For rifampin-resistant tuberculosis, short-term cost-neutral thresholds were higher with $930 (720-1230) in India, $1180 (980-1430) in the Philippines, and $1480 (1230-1780) in South Africa. Medium-term cost-neutral prices were approximately $50-100 higher than short-term cost-neutral prices for rifampin-susceptible tuberculosis and $250-550 higher for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. Health system cost-neutral prices that excluded patient-borne costs were 45-70% lower (rifampin-susceptible regimens) and 15-50% lower (rifampin-resistant regimens) than the cost-neutral prices that included patient costs. Cost-effective prices were substantially higher. Shorter duration was the most important driver of medium-term savings with novel regimens, followed by ease of adherence. INTERPRETATION: Improved tuberculosis regimens, particularly shorter regimens or those that facilitate better adherence, could reduce overall costs, potentially offsetting higher prices. FUNDING: WHO.

Effectiveness, cost, and safety of four regimens recommended by WHO for RR/MDR-TB treatment: a cohort study in Eastern China.

BACKGROUND: To compare the effectiveness, cost, and safety of four regimens recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for rifampicin resistance/multidrug-resistance tuberculosis (RR/MDR-TB) Treatment in Eastern China. METHODS: We performed a cohort study among patients with RR/MDR between 2020 and 2022 in Jiangsu Province. The treatment success rate, cost, and drug adverse reaction rate were compared. RESULTS: Between 2020 and 2022, 253 RR/MDR-TB patients were enrolled in the study. 37 (14.62%), 76 (30.04%), 74 (29.25%), and 66 (26.09%) patients had the short-term regimens, the new long-term oral regimens, the new long-term injectable regimens, and the traditional long-term regimens, respectively. The treatment success rate was the highest among patients treated with the short-term regimen (75.68%) and was the lowest among patients treated with the traditional long-term regimens (60.61%). The estimated mean cost per favorable outcome was 142.61 thousand Chinese Yuan (CNY), and the short-term regimens showed the lowest cost in the four regimes (88.51 thousand CNY vs. 174.24 thousand CNY, 144.00 thousand CNY, and 134.98 thousand CNY). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the short-term regimens, the new long-term oral regimen, and the new long-term injectable regimens were -3083.04, 6040.09, and 819.68 CNY compared to the traditional long-term regimens. CONCLUSIONS: For RR/MDR-TB patients in China who meet the criteria for short-term regimens, the short-term regimens were proven to be the most cost-effective of the four regimens recommended by WHO. For RR/MDR-TB patients in China who don't meet the criteria for short-term regimens, the new long-term injectable regimens are more cost-effective than the remaining two regimens.

This is the first study to evaluate the effectiveness, cost, and safety of four regimens recommended by the WHO for RR/MDR-TB treatment in China.For RR/MDR-TB patients in China who meet the criteria for the short-term regimens, the short-term regimens were proven to be the most cost-effective of the four regimens recommended by WHO.

Cost-effectiveness of latent tuberculosis infection testing and treatment with 6-week regimen among key population in rural communities in China: a decision analysis study.

PURPOSE: Several model studies suggested the implementation of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) testing and treatment could greatly reduce the incidence of tuberculosis (TB) and achieve the 2035 target of the "End TB" Strategy in China. The present study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LTBI testing and TB preventive treatment among key population (≥ 50 years old) susceptible to TB at community level in China. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of LTBI testing using interferon gamma release assay (IGRA) and subsequent treatment with 6-month daily isoniazid regimen (6H) (as a standard regimen for comparison) or 6-week twice-weekly rifapentine and isoniazid regimen (6-week H2P2) in a cohort of 10,000 adults with an average initial age of 50 years. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, LTBI testing and treatment with 6H was dominated (i.e., more expensive with a lower quality-adjusted life year (QALY)) by LTBI testing and treatment with 6-week H2P2. LTBI testing and treatment with 6-week H2P2 was more effective than no intervention at a cost of $20,943.81 per QALY gained, which was below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $24,211.84 per QALY gained in China. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed the change of LTBI prevalence was the parameter that most influenced the results of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). CONCLUSION: As estimated by a Markov model, LTBI testing and treatment with 6-week H2P2 was cost-saving compared with LTBI testing and treatment with 6H, and it was considered to be a cost-effective option for TB control in rural China.

Leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis in the Indian health system: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

India has the highest burden of leprosy in the world. Following a recent WHO guideline, the Indian National Leprosy Programme is introducing post-exposure prophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (SDR-PEP) in all high-endemic districts of the country. The aim of this study is to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of SDR-PEP in different leprosy disability burden situations. We used a stochastic individual-based model (SIMCOLEP) to simulate the leprosy new case detection rate trend and the impact of implementing contact screening and SDR-PEP from 2016 to 2040 (25 years) in the Union Territory of Dadra Nagar Haveli (DNH) in India. Effects of the intervention were expressed as disability adjusted life years (DALY) averted under three assumption of disability prevention: 1) all grade 1 disability (G1D) cases prevented; 2) G1D cases prevented in PB cases only; 3) no disability prevented. Costs were US$ 2.9 per contact. Costs and effects were discounted at 3%. The incremental cost per DALY averted by SDR-PEP was US$ 210, US$ 447, and US$ 5,673 in the 25th year under assumption 1, 2, and 3, respectively. If prevention of G1D was assumed, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 1.0 at the threshold of US$ 2,000, which is equivalent to the GDP per capita of India. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.6, if no disability prevention was assumed. The cost per new leprosy case averted was US$ 2,873. Contact listing, screening and the provision of SDR-PEP is a cost-effective strategy in leprosy control in both the short (5 years) and long term (25 years). The cost-effectiveness depends on the extent to which disability can be prevented. As the intervention becomes increasingly cost-effective in the long term, we recommend a long-term commitment for its implementation.

Health System Costs of Treating Latent Tuberculosis Infection With Four Months of Rifampin Versus Nine Months of Isoniazid in Different Settings.

BACKGROUND: Four months of rifampin treatment for latent tuberculosis infection is safer, has superior treatment completion rates, and is as effective as 9 months of isoniazid. However, daily medication costs are higher for a 4-month rifampin regimen than a 9-month isoniazid regimen. OBJECTIVE: To compare health care use and associated costs of 4 months of rifampin and 9 months of isoniazid. DESIGN: Health system cost comparison using all health care activities recorded during 2 randomized clinical trials. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00931736 and NCT00170209). SETTING: High-income countries (Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea), middle-income countries (Brazil and Indonesia), and African countries (Benin, Ghana, and Guinea). PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children with clinical or epidemiologic factors associated with increased risk for developing tuberculosis that warranted treatment for latent tuberculosis infection. MEASUREMENTS: Health system costs per participant. RESULTS: A total of 6012 adults and 829 children were included. In both adults and children, greater health system use and higher costs were observed with 9 months of isoniazid than with 4 months of rifampin. In adults, the ratios of costs of 4 months of rifampin versus 9 months of isoniazid were 0.76 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.82) in high-income countries, 0.90 (CI, 0.85 to 0.96) in middle-income countries, and 0.80 (CI, 0.78 to 0.81) in African countries. Similar findings were observed in the pediatric population. LIMITATION: Costs may have been overestimated because the trial protocol required a minimum number of follow-up visits, although fewer than recommended by many authoritative guidelines. CONCLUSION: A 4-month rifampin regimen was safer and less expensive than 9 months of isoniazid in all settings. This regimen could be adopted by tuberculosis programs in many countries as first-line therapy for latent tuberculosis infection. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Factors associated with catastrophic total costs due to tuberculosis under a designated hospital service model: a cross-sectional study in China.

BACKGROUND: Certain districts and counties in China designated local general hospital as the designated hospital for tuberculosis (TB) management after the promulgation of the Law of Practicing Physicians in 2009. To our knowledge, there is limited research on catastrophic payments of TB patients under this service model, often with inconsistent conclusions. In addition, there has been no published studies from China using the updated 2018 World Health Organization (WHO) definition of catastrophic total costs due to TB. This study used the latest criterion recommended by the WHO to analyze the incidence of catastrophic total costs for households affected by TB under the designated hospital model and explore its influencing factors. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was carried out in all ten designated hospitals in Ningbo, China. Eligible pulmonary TB cases confirmed by sputum culture of Mycobacterium tuberculosis were recruited and surveyed from September 2018 to October 2018. We evaluated catastrophic total costs using total costs for TB treatment exceeding 20% of the household's annual pre-TB income. A sensitivity analysis was performed while varying the thresholds. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression were applied to select variables, and multiple logistic regression analysis were used to identify the determinants of catastrophic total costs. RESULTS: A total of 672 patients were included, with a median age of 41 years old. The rate of catastrophic total costs of surveyed households was 37.1%, and that of households affected by MDR was 69.6%. Medical cost accounted for more than 60% of the total cost. 57.7% cases were hospitalized. The hospitalization rates of patients with no comorbidities, no severe adverse drug reactions, and rifampin-sensitive TB were 53.9, 54.9, and 55.3%, respectively. Patients in the poorest households had the highest hospitalization rates (Q1:54.8%, Q2:61.4%, Q3:52.2%, Q4:49.5%, Q5:69.7%, P = 0.011) and the highest incidence of severe adverse drug reactions (Q1:29.6%, Q2:19.6%, Q3:28.0%, Q4:33.7%, Q5:35.3%, P = 0.034). Factors such as elderly, minimum living security, unemployed before or after illness, poor economic status, seeking medical care outside the city, hospitalization, absence of local basic medical insurance coverage and MDR were positively associated with catastrophic costs. CONCLUSION: Substantial proportions of patients and households affected by pulmonary TB faced catastrophic economic risks in Ningbo, China. The existing policies that focus on expanding the coverage of basic medical insurance and economic protection measures (such as cash transfers to compensate low-income households for direct non-medical costs and income loss) might be insufficient. Tailored program that mitigate inappropriate healthcare and address equity of care delivery are worthy of attention.

Completion Rates, Adverse Effects, and Costs of a 3-Month and 9-Month Treatment Regimen for Latent Tuberculosis Infection in California Inmates, 2011-2014.

OBJECTIVES: In California, about 80% of tuberculosis disease is caused by untreated latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), and the rate of LTBI is higher among incarcerated persons (16%) than among nonincarcerated persons (6%). We compared 2 regimens to treat LTBI in an adult prison population in California: 9 months of twice-weekly isoniazid (9H; previous standard of care) and 12 once-weekly doses of isoniazid and rifapentine (3HP; introduced in 2011). METHODS: We evaluated the rates of completion and discontinuation caused by hepatotoxicity among randomly selected patients with LTBI prescribed the 9H regimen in 2011 and among patients with LTBI prescribed the 3HP regimen who entered California prisons during September 2013-March 2014. We compared the cost per fully treated patient for the 2 regimens. RESULTS: Of 92 patients treated with the 9H regimen, the treatment completion rate was 42% and discontinuation due to hepatotoxicity was 14%. Of 122 patients who accepted the 3HP regimen, the completion rate was 90% and discontinuation due to hepatotoxicity was 2%. The cost per fully treated patient for the 9H regimen was $981 and for 3HP was $652. CONCLUSIONS: In an incarcerated population, the 3HP regimen had a higher completion rate, lower hepatotoxicity, and lower cost per fully treated patient than the 9H regimen. If coupled with a high treatment initiation rate, the high rate of LTBI treatment completion with 3HP may contribute to reducing tuberculosis morbidity in California.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Rifampicin in Human Tuberculosis.

The introduction of rifampicin (rifampin) into tuberculosis (TB) treatment five decades ago was critical for shortening the treatment duration for patients with pulmonary TB to 6 months when combined with pyrazinamide in the first 2 months. Resistance or hypersensitivity to rifampicin effectively condemns a patient to prolonged, less effective, more toxic, and expensive regimens. Because of cost and fears of toxicity, rifampicin was introduced at an oral daily dose of 600 mg (8-12 mg/kg body weight). At this dose, clinical trials in 1970s found cure rates of ≥ 95% and relapse rates of < 5%. However, recent papers report lower cure rates that might be the consequence of increased emergence of resistance. Several lines of evidence suggest that higher rifampicin doses, if tolerated and safe, could shorten treatment duration even further. We conducted a narrative review of rifampicin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in adults across a range of doses and highlight variables that influence its pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. Rifampicin exposure has considerable inter- and intra-individual variability that could be reduced by administration during fasting. Several factors including malnutrition, HIV infection, diabetes mellitus, dose size, pharmacogenetic polymorphisms, hepatic cirrhosis, and substandard medicinal products alter rifampicin exposure and/or efficacy. Renal impairment has no influence on rifampicin pharmacokinetics when dosed at 600 mg. Rifampicin maximum (peak) concentration (Cmax) > 8.2 µg/mL is an independent predictor of sterilizing activity and therapeutic drug monitoring at 2, 4, and 6 h post-dose may aid in optimizing dosing to achieve the recommended rifampicin concentration of ≥ 8 µg/mL. A higher rifampicin Cmax is required for severe forms TB such as TB meningitis, with Cmax ≥ 22 µg/mL and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to 6 h (AUC6) ≥ 70 µg·h/mL associated with reduced mortality. More studies are needed to confirm whether doses achieving exposures higher than the current standard dosage could translate into faster sputum conversion, higher cure rates, lower relapse rates, and less mortality. It is encouraging that daily rifampicin doses up to 35 mg/kg were found to be safe and well-tolerated over a period of 12 weeks. High-dose rifampicin should thus be considered in future studies when constructing potentially shorter regimens. The studies should be adequately powered to determine treatment outcomes and should include surrogate markers of efficacy such as Cmax/MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration) and AUC/MIC.

Cost-effectiveness of 3 months of weekly rifapentine and isoniazid compared with other standard treatment regimens for latent tuberculosis infection: a decision analysis study.

Background: Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is a critical driver of the global burden of active TB, and therefore LTBI treatment is key for TB elimination. Treatment regimens for LTBI include self-administered daily isoniazid for 6 (6H) or 9 (9H) months, self-administered daily rifampicin plus isoniazid for 3 months (3RH), self-administered daily rifampicin for 4 months (4R) and weekly rifapentine plus isoniazid for 3 months self-administered (3HP-SAT) or administered by a healthcare worker as directly observed therapy (3HP-DOT). Data on the relative cost-effectiveness of these regimens are needed to assist policymakers and clinicians in selecting an LTBI regimen. Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of all regimens for treating LTBI. Methods: We developed a Markov model to investigate the cost-effectiveness of 3HP-DOT, 3HP-SAT, 4R, 3RH, 9H and 6H for LTBI treatment in a cohort of 10000 adults with LTBI. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a health system perspective over a 20 year time horizon. Results: Compared with no preventive treatment, 3HP-DOT, 3HP-SAT, 4R, 3RH, 9H and 6H prevented 496, 470, 442, 418, 370 and 276 additional cases of active TB per 10000 patients, respectively. All regimens reduced costs and increased QALYs compared with no preventive treatment. 3HP was more cost-effective under DOT than under SAT at a cost of US$27948 per QALY gained. Conclusions: Three months of weekly rifapentine plus isoniazid is more cost-effective than other regimens. Greater recognition of the benefits of short-course regimens can contribute to the scale-up of prevention and achieving the 'End TB' targets.

Adjunctive rifampicin to reduce early mortality from Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: the ARREST RCT.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common and frequently fatal infection. Adjunctive rifampicin may enhance early S. aureus killing, sterilise infected foci and blood faster, and thereby reduce the risk of dissemination, metastatic infection and death. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not adjunctive rifampicin reduces bacteriological (microbiologically confirmed) failure/recurrence or death through 12 weeks from randomisation. Secondary objectives included evaluating the impact of rifampicin on all-cause mortality, clinically defined failure/recurrence or death, toxicity, resistance emergence, and duration of bacteraemia; and assessing the cost-effectiveness of rifampicin. DESIGN: Parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1), blinded, placebo-controlled multicentre trial. SETTING: UK NHS trust hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adult inpatients (≥ 18 years) with meticillin-resistant or susceptible S. aureus grown from one or more blood cultures, who had received < 96 hours of antibiotic therapy for the current infection, and without contraindications to rifampicin. INTERVENTIONS: Adjunctive rifampicin (600-900 mg/day, oral or intravenous) or placebo for 14 days in addition to standard antibiotic therapy. Investigators and patients were blinded to trial treatment. Follow-up was for 12 weeks (assessments at 3, 7, 10 and 14 days, weekly until discharge and final assessment at 12 weeks post randomisation). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was all-cause bacteriological (microbiologically confirmed) failure/recurrence or death through 12 weeks from randomisation. RESULTS: Between December 2012 and October 2016, 758 eligible participants from 29 UK hospitals were randomised: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. The median age was 65 years [interquartile range (IQR) 50-76 years]. A total of 485 (64.0%) infections were community acquired and 132 (17.4%) were nosocomial; 47 (6.2%) were caused by meticillin-resistant S. aureus. A total of 301 (39.7%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for a median of 29 days (IQR 18-45 days) and 619 (81.7%) participants received flucloxacillin. By 12 weeks, 62 out of 370 (16.8%) patients taking rifampicin versus 71 out of 388 (18.3%) participants taking the placebo experienced bacteriological (microbiologically confirmed) failure/recurrence or died [absolute risk difference -1.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.0% to 4.3%; hazard ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; p = 0.81]. There were 4 (1.1%) and 5 (1.3%) bacteriological failures (p = 0.82) in the rifampicin and placebo groups, respectively. There were 3 (0.8%) versus 16 (4.1%) bacteriological recurrences (p = 0.01), and 55 (14.9%) versus 50 (12.9%) deaths without bacteriological failure/recurrence (p = 0.30) in the rifampicin and placebo groups, respectively. Over 12 weeks, there was no evidence of differences in clinically defined failure/recurrence/death (p = 0.84), all-cause mortality (p = 0.60), serious (p = 0.17) or grade 3/4 (p = 0.36) adverse events (AEs). However, 63 (17.0%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10.1%) participants in the placebo group experienced antibiotic or trial drug-modifying AEs (p = 0.004), and 24 (6.5%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 6 (1.5%) participants in the placebo group experienced drug-interactions (p = 0.0005). Evaluation of the costs and health-related quality-of-life impacts revealed that an episode of S. aureus bacteraemia costs an average of £12,197 over 12 weeks. Rifampicin was estimated to save 10% of episode costs (p = 0.14). After adjustment, the effect of rifampicin on total quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was positive (0.004 QALYs), but not statistically significant (standard error 0.004 QALYs). CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S. aureus bacteraemia. FUTURE WORK: Given the substantial mortality, other antibiotic combinations or improved source management should be investigated. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37666216, EudraCT 2012-000344-10 and Clinical Trials Authorisation 00316/0243/001. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness of Preventive Therapy for Tuberculosis With Isoniazid and Rifapentine Versus Isoniazid Alone in High-Burden Settings.

Background: A short-course regimen of 3 months of weekly rifapentine and isoniazid (3HP) has recently been recommended by the World Health Organization as an alternative to at least 6 months of daily isoniazid (isoniazid preventive therapy [IPT]) for prevention of tuberculosis (TB). The contexts in which 3HP may be cost-effective compared to IPT among people living with human immunodeficiency virus are unknown. Methods: We used a Markov state transition model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of 3HP relative to IPT in high-burden settings, using a cohort of 1000 patients in a Ugandan HIV clinic as an emblematic scenario. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as 2017 US dollars per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted from a healthcare perspective over a 20-year time horizon. We explored the conditions under which 3HP would be considered cost-effective relative to IPT. Results: Per 1000 individuals on antiretroviral therapy in the reference scenario, treatment with 3HP rather than IPT was estimated to avert 9 cases of TB and 1 death, costing $9402 per DALY averted relative to IPT. Cost-effectiveness depended strongly on the price of rifapentine, completion of 3HP, and prevalence of latent TB. At a willingness to pay of $1000 per DALY averted, 3HP is likely to be cost-effective relative to IPT only if the price of rifapentine can be greatly reduced (to approximately $20 per course) and high treatment completion (85%) can be achieved. Conclusions: 3HP may be a cost-effective alternative to IPT in high-burden settings, but cost-effectiveness depends on the price of rifapentine, achievable completion rates, and local willingness to pay.

SIRCLE: a randomised controlled cost comparison of self-administered short-course isoniazid and rifapentine for cost-effective latent tuberculosis eradication.

BACKGROUND: Currently, treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in Australia consists most commonly of a 9-month course of isoniazid (9H). A 3-month course of weekly isoniazid and rifapentine (3HP) has been shown to be as effective as 9 months of daily isoniazid, and associated with less hepatotoxicity; however, rifapentine is not currently available in Australia. Introduction of this regimen would have apparent advantages for people with LTBI in Victoria by safely shortening duration of LTBI therapy. However, the cost benefit of this new therapeutic approach is uncertain. AIM: Cost-analysis of standard and short-course therapy for LTBI in an Australian context. METHODS: Single-centre randomised controlled trial conducted between December 2013-March 2016. Participants underwent 1:1 randomisation to either a 9-month course of daily isoniazid or a 12-week course of weekly isoniazid and rifapentine. The primary outcome measure was total healthcare system costs (in Australian dollars; AUD) per completed course of LTBI therapy. Secondary cost analyses were performed to consider varying assumptions regarding commercial cost of rifapentine. RESULTS: Overall, 34 of 40 (85%) participants in the 9H group and 36/40 (90%) in the 3HR group completed therapy. One patient in the 3HP group was hospitalised for a febrile illness; no hospitalisations were recorded in the 9H group. The cost per completed course of 9H was 601 AUD, while that of 3HP was significantly lower at 511 AUD (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides cost analysis evidence to support the use of 3HP for the treatment of LTBI in Australia.

Cost-effectiveness of Testing and Treatment for Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Residents Born Outside the United States With and Without Medical Comorbidities in a Simulation Model.

Importance: Testing for and treating latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is among the main strategies to achieve TB elimination in the United States. The best approach to testing among non-US born residents, particularly those with comorbid conditions, is uncertain. Objective: To estimate health outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of LTBI testing and treatment among non-US born residents with and without medical comorbidities. Design, Setting, and Participants: Decision analytic tree and Markov cohort simulation model among non-US born residents with no comorbidities, with diabetes, with HIV infection, or with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) using a health care sector perspective with 3% annual discounting. Strategies compared included no testing, tuberculin skin test (TST), interferon gamma release assay (IGRA), confirm positive (initial TST, IGRA only for TST-positive results; both tests positive indicates LTBI), and confirm negative (initial IGRA, then TST for IGRA-negative; any test positive indicates LTBI). All strategies were coupled to treatment with 3 months of self-administered rifapentine and isoniazid. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number needed to test and treat to prevent 1 case of TB reactivation, discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted lifetime medical costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: Improving health outcomes increased costs, with choice of test dependent on willingness to pay. Strategies ranked by ascending costs and benefits: no testing, confirm positive, TST, IGRA, and confirm negative. The ICERs varied by non-US born patient risk group: patients with no comorbidities, IGRA was likely cost-effective at $83 000/QALY; patients with diabetes, both confirm positive ($53 000/QALY) and IGRA ($120 000/QALY) were likely cost-effective; patients with HIV, confirm negative was clearly preferred ($63 000/QALY); and patients with ESRD, no testing was cost-effective. Increased LTBI prevalence and reduced return for TST reading improved IGRA's relative performance. In 10 000 probabilistic simulations among non-US born patients with no comorbidities, with diabetes, and with HIV, some form of testing was virtually always cost-effective. These simulations highlight the uncertainty of test choice for non-US born patients with no comorbidities and non-US born patients with diabetes, but strategies including IGRA were preferred in over 60% of simulations for all non-US born populations except those with ESRD. Conclusions and Relevance: Testing for and treating LTBI among non-US born residents with and without selected comorbidities is likely cost-effective except among those with ESRD in whom competing risks of death limit benefits. Strategies including IGRA fell below a $100 000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold for non-US born patients with no comorbidities, patients with diabetes, and patients with HIV.

Comparing the cost-effectiveness of linezolid to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: a healthcare system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Few industry-independent studies have been conducted to compare the relative costs and benefits of drugs to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. We performed a stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis comparing two treatment strategies-linezolid versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin-for the treatment of MRSA infection. METHODS: We used cost and effectiveness data from a previously conducted clinical trial, complementing with other data from published literature, to compare the two regimens from a healthcare system perspective. Effectiveness was expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Several sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation, to measure the effect of potential parameter changes on the base-case model results, including potential differences related to type of infection and drug toxicity. RESULTS: Treatment of MRSA infection with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin and linezolid were found to cost on average €146 and €2536, and lead to a gain of 0.916 and 0.881 QALYs, respectively. Treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin was found to be more cost-effective than linezolid in the base case and remained dominant over linezolid in most alternative scenarios, including different types of MRSA infection and potential disadvantages in terms of toxicity. With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0, €50 000 and €200 000 per QALY gained, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin was dominant in 100%, 96% and 85% of model iterations. A 95% discount on the current purchasing price of linezolid would be needed when it goes off-patent for it to represent better value for money compared with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin. CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin is more cost-effective than linezolid in the treatment of MRSA infection.

Second line drug susceptibility testing to inform the treatment of rifampin-resistant tuberculosis: a quantitative perspective.

Treatment failure and resistance amplification are common among patients with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis (TB). Drug susceptibility testing (DST) for second-line drugs is recommended for these patients, but logistical difficulties have impeded widespread implementation of second-line DST in many settings. To provide a quantitative perspective on the decision to scale up second-line DST, we synthesize literature on the prevalence of second-line drug resistance, the expected clinical and epidemiologic benefits of using second-line DST to ensure that patients with rifampin-resistant TB receive effective regimens, and the costs of implementing (or not implementing) second-line DST for all individuals diagnosed with rifampin-resistant TB. We conclude that, in most settings, second-line DST could substantially improve treatment outcomes for patients with rifampin-resistant TB, reduce transmission of drug-resistant TB, prevent amplification of drug resistance, and be affordable or even cost-saving. Given the large investment made in each patient treated for rifampin-resistant TB, these payoffs would come at relatively small incremental cost. These anticipated benefits likely justify addressing the real challenges faced in implementing second-line DST in most high-burden settings.

Impacts of 12-dose regimen for latent tuberculosis infection: Treatment completion rate and cost-effectiveness in Taiwan.

Treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is essential for eradicating tuberculosis (TB). Moreover, the patient adherence is crucial in determining the effectiveness of TB control. Isoniazid given by DOTS daily for 9 months (9H) is the standard treatment for LTBI in Taiwan. However, the completion rate is low due to the long treatment period and its side effects. The combined regimen using a high dose of rifapentine/isoniazid once weekly for 12 weeks (3HP) has been used as an alternative treatment option for LTBI in the United States. This may result in a higher completion rate. In this pilot study, patient adherence and cost of these 2 treatment regimens were investigated. Thus, we aimed to assess the treatment completion rate and costs of 3HP and compare to those with 9H.Data from 691 cases of LTBI treatments including 590 cases using the conventional regimen and 101 cases with rifapentine/Isoniazid were collected. The cost was the sum of the cost of treatment with Isoniazid for 9 months or with rifapentin/Isoniazid for 3 months of all contacts. The effectiveness was the cost of cases of tuberculosis avoided.In this study, the treatment completion rate for patients prescribed with the 3 months rifapentine/isoniazid regimen (97.03%) was higher than those given the conventional 9-month isoniazid regimen (87.29%) (P <0.001). The cost of 3HP and 9H was US$261.24 and US$717.3, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratio with isoniazid for 9 months was US$ 15392/avoided 1 case of tuberculosis and US$ 5225/avoided 1 case of tuberculosis with 3HP. In addition, when compared with the conventional regimen, there were fewer patients discontinued with rifapentine/isoniazid regimen due to undesirable side effects.This was the first study to compare the 2 treatment regimens in Taiwan, and it showed that a short-term high-dosage rifapentine/isoniazid treatment regimen reduced costs and resulted in higher treatment completion than the standard LTBI isoniazid treatment.