Search

Background: Drug-resistant (DR) tuberculosis (TB) is typically characterized by resistance to a single or combination of first- and/or second-line anti-TB agents and commonly includes rifampicin-resistant (RR)-TB, multidrug-resistant (MDR)-TB, pre-extensively drug-resistant (pre-XDR)-TB and XDR-TB. Historically, all variations of DR-TB required treatment with second-line drugs which are less effective and more toxic than first-line options, have a longer treatment duration and are more expensive to both patients and providers. The World Health Organization (WHO) now recommends a new second-line 3-drug 6-month all-oral regimen consisting of bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid referred to as BPaL. We estimate patient and provider costs of DR-TB treatment with BPaL compared to the current standard of care in South Africa., Methods and Findings: In coordination with South Africa's BPaL clinical access programme (CAP) we conducted an economic evaluation of A) patient costs through a cross-sectional patient cost survey and B) provider costs through a bottom-up costing analysis consisting of a retrospective medical record review (patient resource-use) and top-down financial record review (fixed/shared costs such as overhead). Across both costing perspectives, we compare costs of 1) BPaL, to current standard of care options including the 2) 9-11-month standard short oral regimen (SSOR) and 3) 18-21-month standard long oral regimen (SLOR). Eligible patients included those ≥14 years old with confirmed sputum pulmonary RR/MDR-TB, pre-XDR or XDR-TB. All costs are reported in 2022 United States Dollar (US$). A total of 72 patients were enrolled and completed the patient cost survey (41.7% on BPaL, 16.7% on the SSOR and 41.7% on the SLOR). Mean on-treatment patient costs were lowest among those on BPaL ($56.6) and increased four-fold among those on the SSOR ($228.1) and SLOR ($224.7). Direct medical patient costs were negligible across all treatment regimens, while direct non-medical patient and guardian costs for travel, food and nutritional supplementation accounted for the largest proportion of total costs ($54.6, $227.8 and $224.3 for BPaL, the SSOR and SLOR respectively). In assessing provider costs, a total of 112 medical records were reviewed (37.5%, 41.1% and 21.4% on BPaL, the SSOR and SLOR respectively). Total provider costs for producing a favorable treatment outcome (cured/completed treatment) were similar among those on BPaL ($4,948.7 per patient) and the SSOR ($4,905.6 per patient) with costs increasing substantially among those on the SLOR ($8,919.9 per patient). Based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), at even the lowest willingness to pay (WTP) threshold, treatment with the new BPaL regimen was more cost-effective than current standard of care treatment options (ICER: $311.4 < WTP: $3,341)., Conclusions: When using the newly recommended BPaL regimen, cost to patients decreased by 75% compared to current standard of care treatment options in South Africa. Due in part to higher resource-use within the BPaL CAP offsetting the shorter treatment duration, cost of treatment provision through BPaL and the 9-11-month SSOR were similar. However, when considering cost and treatment outcomes, BPaL was more cost-effective than other standard of care regimens currently available for DR-TB in South Africa., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have no competing interests., (Copyright: © 2024 Evans et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: There is a need for short and safe all-oral treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. We compared outcomes up to 24 months after treatment initiation for patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in South Africa treated with a short, all-oral bedaquiline-containing regimen (bedaquiline group), or a short, injectable-containing regimen (injectable group)., Methods: Patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, aged 18 years or older, eligible for a short regimen starting treatment between Jan 1 and Dec 31, 2017, with a bedaquiline-containing or WHO recommended injectable-containing treatment regimen of 9-12 months, registered in the drug-resistant tuberculosis database (EDRWeb), and with known age, sex, HIV status, and national identification number were eligible for study inclusion; patients receiving linezolid, carbapenems, terizidone or cycloserine, delamanid, or para-aminosalicylic acid were excluded. Bedaquiline was given at a dose of 400 mg once daily for two weeks followed by 200 mg three times a week for 22 weeks. To compare regimens, patients were exactly matched on HIV and ART status, previous tuberculosis treatment history, and baseline acid-fast bacilli smear and culture result, while propensity score matched on age, sex, province of treatment, and isoniazid-susceptibility status. We did binomial linear regression to estimate adjusted risk differences (aRD) and 95% CIs for 24-month outcomes, which included: treatment success (ie, cure or treatment completion without evidence of recurrence) versus all other outcomes, survival versus death, disease free survival versus survival with treatment failure or recurrence, and loss to follow-up versus all other outcomes., Findings: Overall, 1387 (14%) of 10152 patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis treated during 2017 met inclusion criteria; 688 in the bedaquiline group and 699 in the injectable group. Four patients (1%) had treatment failure or recurrence, 44 (6%) were lost to follow-up, and 162 (24%) died in the bedaquiline group, compared with 17 (2%), 87 (12%), and 199 (28%), respectively, in the injectable group. In adjusted analyses, treatment success was 14% (95% CI 8-20) higher in the bedaquiline group than in the injectable group (70% vs 57%); loss to follow-up was 4% (1-8) lower in the bedaquiline group (6% vs 12%); and disease-free survival was 2% (0-5) higher in the bedaquiline group (99% vs 97%). The bedaquiline group had 8% (4-11) lower risk of mortality during treatment (17·0% vs 22·4%), but there was no difference in mortality post-treatment., Interpretation: Patients in the bedaquiline group experienced significantly higher rates of treatment success at 24 months. This finding supports the use of short bedaquiline-containing regimens in eligible patients., Funding: WHO Global TB Programme., Translation: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests NAI reports partial support from Janssen Pharmaceuticals to the institution for the consumables used for bedaquiline drug susceptibility testing. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)