Economic evaluation of shortened, bedaquiline-containing treatment regimens for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (STREAM stage 2): a within-trial analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The STREAM stage 2 trial assessed two bedaquiline-containing regimens for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis: a 9-month all-oral regimen and a 6-month regimen containing an injectable drug for the first 2 months. We did a within-trial economic evaluation of these regimens. METHODS: STREAM stage 2 was an international, phase 3, non-inferiority randomised trial in which participants with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis were randomly assigned (1:2:2:2) to the 2011 WHO regimen (terminated early), a 9-month injectable-containing regimen (control regimen), a 9-month all-oral regimen with bedaquiline (oral regimen), or a 6-month regimen with bedaquiline and an injectable for the first 2 months (6-month regimen). We prospectively collected direct and indirect costs and health-related quality of life data from trial participants until week 76 of follow-up. Cost-effectiveness of the oral and 6-month regimens versus control was estimated in four countries (oral regimen) and two countries (6-month regimen), using health-related quality of life for cost-utility analysis and trial efficacy for cost-effectiveness analysis. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN18148631. FINDINGS: 300 participants were included in the economic analyses (Ethiopia, 61; India, 142; Moldova, 51; Uganda, 46). In the cost-utility analysis, the oral regimen was not cost-effective in Ethiopia, India, Moldova, and Uganda from either a provider or societal perspective. In Moldova, the oral regimen was dominant from a societal perspective. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the oral regimen was likely to be cost-effective from a provider perspective at willingness-to-pay thresholds per additional favourable outcome of more than US$4500 in Ethiopia, $1900 in India, $3950 in Moldova, and $7900 in Uganda, and from a societal perspective at thresholds of more than $15 900 in Ethiopia, $3150 in India, and $4350 in Uganda, while in Moldova the oral regimen was dominant. In Ethiopia and India, the 6-month regimen would cost tuberculosis programmes and participants less than the control regimen and was highly likely to be cost-effective in both cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Reducing the bedaquiline price from $1·81 to $1·00 per tablet made the oral regimen cost-effective in the provider-perspective cost-utility analysis in India and Moldova and dominate over the control regimen in the provider-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis in India. INTERPRETATION: At current costs, the oral bedaquiline-containing regimen for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis is unlikely to be cost-effective in many low-income and middle-income countries. The 6-month regimen represents a cost-effective alternative if injectable use for 2 months is acceptable. FUNDING: USAID and Janssen Research & Development.

Assessing tuberculosis control priorities in high-burden settings: a modelling approach.

BACKGROUND: In the context of WHO's End TB strategy, there is a need to focus future control efforts on those interventions and innovations that would be most effective in accelerating declines in tuberculosis burden. Using a modelling approach to link the tuberculosis care cascade to transmission, we aimed to identify which improvements in the cascade would yield the greatest effect on incidence and mortality. METHODS: We engaged with national tuberculosis programmes in three country settings (India, Kenya, and Moldova) as illustrative examples of settings with a large private sector (India), a high HIV burden (Kenya), and a high burden of multidrug resistance (Moldova). We collated WHO country burden estimates, routine surveillance data, and tuberculosis prevalence surveys from 2011 (for India) and 2016 (for Kenya). Linking the tuberculosis care cascade to tuberculosis transmission using a mathematical model with Bayesian melding in each setting, we examined which cascade shortfalls would have the greatest effect on incidence and mortality, and how the cascade could be used to monitor future control efforts. FINDINGS: Modelling suggests that combined measures to strengthen the care cascade could reduce cumulative tuberculosis incidence by 38% (95% Bayesian credible intervals 27-43) in India, 31% (25-41) in Kenya, and 27% (17-41) in Moldova between 2018 and 2035. For both incidence and mortality, modelling suggests that the most important cascade losses are the proportion of patients visiting the private health-care sector in India, missed diagnosis in health-care settings in Kenya, and drug sensitivity testing in Moldova. In all settings, the most influential delay is the interval before a patient's first presentation for care. In future interventions, the proportion of individuals with tuberculosis who are on high-quality treatment could offer a more robust monitoring tool than routine notifications of tuberculosis. INTERPRETATION: Linked to transmission, the care cascade can be valuable, not only for improving patient outcomes but also in identifying and monitoring programmatic priorities to reduce tuberculosis incidence and mortality. FUNDING: US Agency for International Development, Stop TB Partnership, UK Medical Research Council, and Department for International Development.