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

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

Bedaquiline, Delamanid, Linezolid and Clofazimine for Treatment of Pre-extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND Treatment success rates for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) remain low globally. Availability of newer drugs has given scope to develop regimens that can be patient-friendly, less toxic, with improved outcomes. We proposed to determine the effectiveness of an entirely oral, short-course regimen with Bedaquiline and Delamanid in treating MDR-TB with additional resistance to fluoroquinolones (MDR-TBFQ+) or second-line injectable (MDR-TBSLI+). METHODS We prospectively determined the effectiveness and safety of combining two new drugs with two repurposed drugs - Bedaquiline, Delamanid, Linezolid, and Clofazimine for 24-36 weeks in adults with pulmonary MDR-TBFQ+ or/and MDR-TBSLI+. The primary outcome was a favorable response at end of treatment, defined as two consecutive negative cultures taken four weeks apart. The unfavorable outcomes included bacteriologic or clinical failure during treatment period. RESULTS Of the 165 participants enrolled, 158 had MDR-TBFQ+. At the end of treatment, after excluding 12 patients due to baseline drug susceptibility and culture negatives, 139 of 153 patients (91%) had a favorable outcome. Fourteen patients (9%) had unfavorable outcomes: four deaths, seven treatment changes, two bacteriological failures, and one withdrawal. During treatment, 85 patients (52%) developed myelosuppression, 69 (42%) reported peripheral neuropathy, and none had QTc(F) prolongation >500msec. At 48 weeks of follow-up, 131 patients showed sustained treatment success with the resolution of adverse events in the majority. CONCLUSION After 24-36 weeks of treatment, this regimen resulted in a satisfactory favorable outcome in pulmonary MDR-TB patients with additional drug resistance. Cardiotoxicity was minimal, and myelosuppression, while common, was detected early and treated successfully

Long-term efficacy and safety of two short standardised regimens for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (STREAM stage 2): extended follow-up of an open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

Background STREAM stage 2 showed that two bedaquiline-containing regimens (a 9-month all-oral regimen and a 6-month regimen with 8 weeks of aminoglycoside) had superior efficacy to a 9-month injectable-containing regimen for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis up to 76 weeks after randomisation. Our objective in this follow-up analysis was to assess the durability of efficacy and safety, including mortality, at 132 weeks. Methods We report the long-term outcomes from STREAM stage 2, a randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority (10% margin) trial in participants (aged ≥15 years) with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis without fluoroquinolone or aminoglycoside resistance at 13 clinical sites in seven countries (Ethiopia, Georgia, India, Moldova, Mongolia, South Africa, and Uganda). Participants were randomly assigned 1:2:2:2 (via permuted blocks and stratified by site and HIV status plus CD4 cell count) to the 2011 WHO long regimen (terminated early), a 9-month control regimen, a 9-month oral regimen with bedaquiline (primary comparison), or a 6-month regimen with bedaquiline and 8 weeks of an injectable antituberculous drug. Participants and clinicians were aware of treatment-group assignments, but laboratory staff were masked. The primary outcome, reported previously, was favourable status (negative cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis without a preceding unfavourable outcome; any death, bacteriological failure or recurrence, and major treatment change were considered unfavourable) at week 76. Here we report efficacy outcomes at week 132, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. Safety assessments continued to 132 weeks and were in all participants who received at least one dose of the study regimen. All comparisons used concurrently randomised participants. This trial is registered on ISRCTN (ISRCTN18148631) and is now completed. Findings Between March 28, 2016, and Jan 28, 2020, 588 participants were randomly assigned to the long (n=32), control (n=202), oral (n=211), or 6-month (n=143) treatment regimens; 352 (60%) were male and 236 (40%) were female. Of the 556 participants on the three shorter regimens, 517 were included in the mITT population (187 in control group, 196 in oral group, and 134 in 6-month group) and 465 in the per-protocol analyses. Six additional participants had an unfavourable outcome that occurred between week 76 and the end of efficacy follow-up (one in control group, four in oral group, one in 6-month group). In the mITT population, the proportion of patients with an unfavourable outcome at the end of follow-up was 19·6% (95% CI 14·3 to 24·9) in the oral group and 29·3% (23·3 to 36·5) in the control group (–9·7 percentage points difference [95% CI –18·7 to –1·8]; psuperiority=0·024). An estimated 9·8% (95% CI 4·6 to 14·9) of participants on the 6-month regimen had an unfavourable outcome, which was significantly lower than for those concurrently on the control regimen (32·5% [23·7 to 40·2]; psuperiority<0·0001) or the oral regimen (23·8% [16·9 to 31·1]; psuperiority=0·013). Few serious or severe adverse events were reported after week 76, with no indication of a difference between the regimens. At week 132, treatment-emergent hearing loss was recorded in significantly fewer participants on the oral regimen (7/205; 3%) than the control regimen (16/198; 8%; p=0.041); there was no significant difference in severe hearing loss between the oral regimen (6/139; 4%) and the 6-month regimen (5/143; 4%; p=0·72). Death rates were low: 1·01 (95% CI 0·48 to 2·12) per 100 person-years in participants allocated to bedaquiline (ie, oral and 6-month regimen, n=287) compared with 1·52 (0·63 to 3·66) in participants on the control regimen (n=140; p=0·49). Interpretation Both of the bedaquiline-containing regimens maintained superiority to the control regimen, without evidence of increased mortality, providing two additional evidence-based treatment options for patients; previous mortality concerns for bedaquiline were not substantiated

Evaluation of two short standardised regimens for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (STREAM stage 2): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

The STREAM stage 1 trial showed that a 9-month regimen for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis was non-inferior to the 20-month 2011 WHO-recommended regimen. In STREAM stage 2, we aimed to compare two bedaquiline-containing regimens with the 9-month STREAM stage 1 regimen. We did a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in 13 hospital clinics in seven countries, in individuals aged 15 years or older with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis without fluoroquinolone or aminoglycoside resistance. Participants were randomly assigned 1:2:2:2 to the 2011 WHO regimen (terminated early), a 9-month control regimen, a 9-month oral regimen with bedaquiline (primary comparison), or a 6-month regimen with bedaquiline and 8 weeks of second-line injectable. Randomisations were stratified by site, HIV status, and CD4 count. Participants and clinicians were aware of treatment-group assignments, but laboratory staff were masked. The primary outcome was favourable status (negative cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis without a preceding unfavourable outcome) at 76 weeks; any death, bacteriological failure or recurrence, and major treatment change were considered unfavourable outcomes. All comparisons used groups of participants randomly assigned concurrently. For non-inferiority to be shown, the upper boundary of the 95% CI should be less than 10% in both modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol analyses, with prespecified tests for superiority done if non-inferiority was shown. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN18148631. Between March 28, 2016, and Jan 28, 2020, 1436 participants were screened and 588 were randomly assigned. Of 517 participants in the mITT population, 133 (71%) of 187 on the control regimen and 162 (83%) of 196 on the oral regimen had a favourable outcome: a difference of 11·0% (95% CI 2·9-19·0), adjusted for HIV status and randomisation protocol (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). By 76 weeks, 108 (53%) of 202 participants on the control regimen and 106 (50%) of 211 allocated to the oral regimen had an adverse event of grade 3 or 4; five (2%) participants on the control regimen and seven (3%) on the oral regimen had died. Hearing loss (Brock grade 3 or 4) was more frequent in participants on the control regimen than in those on the oral regimen (18 [9%] vs four [2%], p=0·0015). Of 134 participants in the mITT population who were allocated to the 6-month regimen, 122 (91%) had a favourable outcome compared with 87 (69%) of 127 participants randomly assigned concurrently to the control regimen (adjusted difference 22·2%, 95% CI 13·1-31·2); six (4%) of 143 participants on the 6-month regimen had grade 3 or 4 hearing loss. Both bedaquiline-containing regimens, a 9-month oral regimen and a 6-month regimen with 8 weeks of second-line injectable, had superior efficacy compared with a 9-month injectable-containing regimen, with fewer cases of hearing loss. USAID and Janssen Research & Development

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

WHO global research priorities for antimicrobial resistance in human health

The WHO research agenda for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in human health has identified 40 research priorities to be addressed by the year 2030. These priorities focus on bacterial and fungal pathogens of crucial importance in addressing AMR, including drug-resistant pathogens causing tuberculosis. These research priorities encompass the entire people-centred journey, covering prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of antimicrobial-resistant infections, in addition to addressing the overarching knowledge gaps in AMR epidemiology, burden and drivers, policies and regulations, and awareness and education. The research priorities were identified through a multistage process, starting with a comprehensive scoping review of knowledge gaps, with expert inputs gathered through a survey and open call. The priority setting involved a rigorous modified Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative approach, ensuring global representation and applicability of the findings. The ultimate goal of this research agenda is to encourage research and investment in the generation of evidence to better understand AMR dynamics and facilitate policy translation for reducing the burden and consequences of AMR

Flea outbreak at United Nations base in South Sudan: A public health challenge

Background: A large number Indian troops are deployed in International Peacekeeping Missions Worldwide and are exposed to emerging and re-emerging vectors and diseases in unfamiliar terrain. This article describes the experience of a flea outbreak among Indian UN Peacekeepers in a remote part of South Sudan. Methods: Health visits to the area confirmed presence of dog fleas. Flea bites disrupted daily routine of the unit and many troopers reported to medical facilities with severe dermatitis. Death of a field rat in the immediate vicinity along with detection of rat fleas was cause for worry as Plague and other flea-borne diseases are known to occur in the country in sylvatic form. Result: Conventional vector control measures had limited impact and unconventional measures had to be devised due to limited capacity in the inaccessible area. Severity of the problem, potential to cause flea-borne diseases and unavailability of conventional insecticides prompted the author to use Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) for area spray in the UN base. Conclusion: Healthcare providers in fast-evolving operational situations such as Peacekeeping Missions need to maintain high index of suspicion and often adopt innovative methods to ensure effective public health cover to troops