Cost effectiveness of treating multi-drug resistant tuberculosis by adding Deltyba™ to background regimens in Germany

SummaryObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of adding delamanid (Deltyba™) to a background regimen (BR) for treating multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in Germany.MethodsThe incremental cost-effectiveness of treating a cohort of MDR-TB patients, 38-years old on average, with Deltyba™ plus BR versus a five drug- BR regimen alone was compared in a Markov model over a period of 10 years. Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and disability-adjusted life years (DALY) were determined from a societal perspective. Recent data from a German cost calculation on MDR-TB were applied to the 24-month outcome results of patients participating in the placebo-controlled, phase II Otsuka's Trial 204. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at a rate of 3% and subjected to deterministic as well as probabilistic sensitivity analysis in a Monte Carlo simulation.ResultsBased on the current market prices the total discounted cost per patient on BR plus Deltyba™ was €142,732 compared to €150,909 for BR alone. The total discounted QALYs per patient were 8.47 for Deltyba™ versus 6.13 for BR alone. Accordingly, the addition of Deltyba™ proved to be dominant over the BR alone-strategy by simultaneously saving €8177 and gaining 2.34 QALYs. Deltyba™ was cost saving in 73% of probabilistic sensitivity analyses compared to BR alone and 100% cost effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €10,000.ConclusionsUnder conditions prevalent in Germany, Deltyba™ added to a five drug BR regimen is likely to be cost-saving compared to BR alone under a wide range of assumptions. Adding delamanid remained cost-effective when costs due to loss of productivity were excluded as the QALYs gained by lower lethality and a higher proportion of successfully treated patients outweighed the delamanid drug costs. These results strongly support the application of Deltyba™ in treating MDR-TB patients

Final treatment outcomes of multidrug and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis patients in Latvia receiving delamanid-containing regimens

publishersversionPeer reviewe

Developing biomarkers assays to accelerate tuberculosis drug development : defining target product profiles

Funding: This study is supported by the UNITE4TB consortium (www.unite4tb.org). UNITE4TB has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No 101007873. The JU receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA, Deutsches Zentrum für Infektionsforschung e. V. (DZIF), and Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU; Munich, Germany). EFPIA/AP contribute to 50% of funding, whereas the contribution of DZIF and the LMU Hospital Munich has been granted by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. CL is supported by DZIF under grant TTU-TB 02.709.Drug development for tuberculosis is hindered by the methodological limitations in the definitions of patient outcomes, particularly the slow organism growth and difficulty in obtaining suitable and representative samples throughout the treatment. We developed target product profiles for biomarker assays suitable for early-phase and late-phase clinical drug trials by consulting subject-matter experts on the desirable performance and operational characteristics of such assays for monitoring of tuberculosis treatment in drug trials. Minimal and optimal criteria were defined for scope, intended use, pricing, performance, and operational characteristics of the biomarkers. Early-stage trial assays should accurately quantify the number of viable bacilli, whereas late-stage trial assays should match the number, predict relapse-free cure, and replace culture conversion endpoints. The operational criteria reflect the infrastructure and resources available for drug trials. The effective tools should define the sterilising activity of the drug and lower the probability of treatment failure or relapse in people with tuberculosis. The target product profiles outlined in this Review should guide and de-risk the development of biomarker-based assays suitable for phase 2 and 3 clinical drug trials.Peer reviewe

Efficacy and safety of delamanid in combination with an optimised background regimen for treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group phase 3 trial

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd Background: Delamanid is one of two recently approved drugs for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of delamanid in the first 6 months of treatment. Methods: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 17 sites in seven countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Peru, the Philippines, and South Africa). We enrolled eligible adults (\u3e18 years) with pulmonary multidrug-resistant tuberculosis to receive, in combination with an optimised background regimen developed according to WHO and national guidelines, either oral delamanid (100 mg twice daily) for 2 months followed by 200 mg once daily for 4 months or placebo (same regimen). Patients were centrally randomised (2:1) and stratified by risk category for delayed sputum culture conversion. Primary outcomes were the time to sputum culture conversion over 6 months and the difference in the distribution of time to sputum culture conversion over 6 months between the two groups, as assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01424670. Findings: Between Sept 2, 2011, and Nov 27, 2013, we screened 714 patients, of whom 511 were randomly assigned (341 to delamanid plus optimised background regimen [delamanid group] and 170 to placebo plus optimised background regimen [placebo group]) and formed the safety analysis population. 327 patients were culture-positive for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis at baseline and comprised the efficacy analysis population (226 in the delamanid group and 101 in the placebo group). Median time to sputum culture conversion did not differ between the two groups (p=0·0562; modified Peto-Peto), with 51 days (IQR 29–98) in the delamanid group and 57 days (43–85) in the placebo group; the hazard ratio was 1·17 (95% CI 0·91–1·51, p=0·2157). 501 (98·0%) of 511 patients had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. 136 (26·6%) of 511 patients had at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event; the incidence was similar between treatment groups (89 [26·1%] of 341 patients for delamanid and 47 [27·6%] of 170 for placebo). Deaths related to treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups (15 [4·4%] of 341 for delamanid and six [3·5%] of 170 for placebo). No deaths were considered to be related to delamanid. Interpretation: The reduction in median time to sputum culture conversion over 6 months was not significant in the primary analysis. Delamanid was well tolerated with a highly characterised safety profile. Further evaluation of delamanid is needed to determine its role in a rapidly evolving standard of care. Funding: Otsuka Pharmaceutical

Current state-of-the-art and gaps in platform trials: 10 things you should know, insights from EU-PEARL

Summary: Platform trials bring the promise of making clinical research more efficient and more patient centric. While their use has become more widespread, including their prominent role during the COVID-19 pandemic response, broader adoption of platform trials has been limited by the lack of experience and tools to navigate the critical upfront planning required to launch such collaborative studies. The European Union-Patient-cEntric clinicAl tRial pLatform (EU-PEARL) initiative has produced new methodologies to expand the use of platform trials with an overarching infrastructure and services embedded into Integrated Research Platforms (IRPs), in collaboration with patient representatives and through consultation with U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency stakeholders. In this narrative review, we discuss the outlook for platform trials in Europe, including challenges related to infrastructure, design, adaptations, data sharing and regulation. Documents derived from the EU-PEARL project, alongside a literature search including PubMed and relevant grey literature (e.g., guidance from regulatory agencies and health technology agencies) were used as sources for a multi-stage collaborative process through which the 10 more important points based on lessons drawn from the EU-PEARL project were developed and summarised as guidance for the setup of platform trials. We conclude that early involvement of critical stakeholder such as regulatory agencies or patients are critical steps in the implementation and later acceptance of platform trials. Addressing these gaps will be critical for attaining the full potential of platform trials for patients. Funding: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking with support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA