Transferability of a EUnetHTA relative effectiveness assessment to low- and middle-income countries setting.

In 2020, European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) published a relative effectiveness analysis (REA) of Pretomanid in combination with Bedaquiline and Linezolid for the treatment of extensively drug-resistant (XDR) or treatment-intolerant or nonresponsive multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB) (REA PTJA14). This REA may have a significant value for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) outside Europe, particularly those with a high burden of drug-resistant TB. This commentary focuses on whether the REA PTJA14 can be transferred and to what extent a REA can be translated to LMICs context outside Europe. We found that the assessments on the clinical effectiveness and risks of bias reported in REA PTJA14 are useful for LMICs outside Europe. The highly standardized management of TB will support the applicability of the REA to LMICs outside of Europe. Transferring this REA can reduce workload and efficiently use limited resources to conduct health technology assessment (HTA). However, the transfer should consider several critical issues, including variations in health system delivery and clinical practice and setting-specific constraints. In the TB context, the differences in the current standard treatment for XDR or nonresponsive MDR TB, resources availability for drug-resistant TB management, and how healthcare is delivered in the countries can complicate the applicability of the REA PTJA14. Given that LMICs have limitations in doing HTA, it is now critical to develop standard guidelines for transferring REA or other HTA results from high-income countries or other LMICs to maximize the benefits of the REA for LMICs outside Europe.

Managing Uncertainties Due to Limited Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Novel Anti-Tuberculosis Regimens: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence for the implementation of new health technologies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) may lead to uncertainties in economic evaluations and cause the evaluations to produce inaccurate information for decision making. We performed a systematic review of economic evaluations on implementing new short-course regimens (SCR) for drug-sensitive and drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB), to explore how uncertainties due to the limited evidence in the studies were dealt with and to identify useful information for decision making from these studies. METHODS: We searched in electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, NHSEED, and CEA registry for economic evaluations addressing the implementation of new anti-TB SCRs in LMICs published until September 2018. We included studies addressing both the cost and outcomes of implementing a new regimen for drug-sensitive and drug-resistant TB with a shorter treatment duration than the currently used regimens. The quality of the included studies was assessed using The Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist. We extracted information from the included studies on uncertainties and how they were managed. The management of uncertainties was compared with approaches used in early health technology assessments (HTAs), including sensitivity analyses and pragmatic scenario analyses. We extracted information that could be useful for decision making such as cost-effectiveness conclusions, and barriers to implementing the intervention. RESULTS: Four of the 322 studies found in the search met the eligibility criteria. Three studies were model-based studies that investigated the cost effectiveness of a new first-line SCR. One study was an empirical study investigating the cost effectiveness of new regimens for drug-resistant TB. The model-based studies addressed uncertainties due to limited evidence through various sensitivity analyses as in early HTAs. They performed a deterministic sensitivity analysis and found the main drivers of the cost-effectiveness outcomes, that is, the rate of treatment default and treatment delivery costs. Additionally, two of the model-based studies performed a pragmatic scenario analysis and found a potential barrier to implementing the new first-line SCR, that is, a weak health system with a low TB care utilization rate. The empirical study only performed a few scenario analyses with different regimen prices and volumes of TB care utilization. Therefore, the study could only provide information on the main cost drivers. CONCLUSION: Using an approach similar to that used in early HTAs, where uncertainties due to the limited evidence are rigorously explored upfront, the economic evaluations could inform not only the decision to implement the intervention but also how to manage risks and implementation barriers.

Disparities in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of tuberculosis diagnosis: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Structural approach disparities were minimally addressed in past systematic reviews of model-based cost-effectiveness analyses addressing Tuberculosis management strategies. This review aimed to identify the structural approach disparities in model-based cost-effectiveness analysis studies addressing Tuberculosis diagnosis and describe potential hazards caused by those disparities. METHODS: A systematic search to identify studies published before October 2015 was performed in five electronic databases. After removal of duplication, studies' titles and abstracts were screened based on predetermined criteria. The full texts of potentially relevant studies were subsequently screened and excluded when they did not address active pulmonary Tuberculosis diagnosis. Quality of the studies was assessed using the "Philips' checklist." Various data regarding general information, cost-effectiveness results, and disease modeling were extracted using standardized data extraction forms. Data pertaining to models' structural approaches were compared and analyzed qualitatively for their applicability in various study settings, as well as their potential influence on main outcomes and cost-effectiveness conclusion. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies were included in the review. Most studies utilized a static model, which could underestimate the cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic tools strategies, due to the omission of indirect diagnosis effects, i.e. transmission reduction. A few structural assumption disparities were found in the dynamic models. Extensive disparities were found in the static models, consisting of varying structural assumptions regarding treatment outcomes, clinical diagnosis and empirical treatment, inpatient discharge decision, and re-diagnosis of false negative patients. CONCLUSION: In cost-effectiveness analysis studies addressing active pulmonary Tuberculosis diagnosis, models showed numerous disparities in their structural approaches. Several structural approaches could be inapplicable in certain settings. Furthermore, they could contribute to under- or overestimation of the cost-effectiveness of the diagnosis tools or strategies. They could thus lead to ambiguities and difficulties when interpreting a study result. A set of recommendations is proposed to manage issues related to these structural disparities.