Cost of digital technologies and family-observed DOT for the 9-month injectable-containing MDR-TB regimen

Background: In 2017 WHO recommended the use of digital technologies, such as medication monitors and video observed treatment (VOT) for directly-observed treatment (DOT) of drug-susceptible TB, with no policy recommendations for multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), which imposes considerably higher patient-costs. Given the COVID-related demand on health systems, the benefits of transitioning towards more patient-centred approaches are increasingly relevant. Design/Methods: A decision-tree model was developed to explore the cost-effectiveness of several DOT replacement approaches including VOT, 99DOTS and family-observed DOT. Assuming a 9-month, injectable-containing regimen (as evaluated within the STREAM trial), we constructed base-case models to reflect the standard-of-care in Ethiopia, India, and Uganda. The model used STREAM data supplemented with published studies, with sensitivity analyses conducted on key parameters. Results: Modelling suggested that standard-of-care is the most expensive strategy in India and Uganda, with considerable direct- and indirect-costs incurred by patients. In Ethiopia, implementing VOT and 99DOTS increased health-system costs by US$402 and US$17 respectively, but patient-costs remained lower than for standard-of-care. These higher health-system costs were largely caused by up-front technology expenditure, with 80% of Ethiopians not owning a smartphone. Sensitivity analyses showed costs were sensitive to both loss-to-follow-up and relapse rates. However, only the VOT strategy in Uganda exceeded standard-of-care DOT costs, by US$70 per patient, when the relapse rate was equalled to the upper-bound of the confidence interval. Modelling suggested each of VOT, 99DOTS, and family-observed DOT would halve patients’ out-of-pocket costs. Taking a patient perspective, each strategy appeared highly cost-effective across all countries, even if implemented solely in continuation phase. Conclusions: While data on the costs and efficacy of switching MDR-TB treatment management to new technologies are lacking, our modelling suggests alternative DOT support strategies can significantly reduce patient-costs. Health-system costs however are more country-specific, depending heavily on both internet availability and smartphone penetration within the population

Cost of digital technologies and family-observed DOT for a shorter MDR-TB regimen: a modelling study in Ethiopia, India and Uganda

Background: In 2017, the WHO recommended the use of digital technologies, such as medication monitors and video observed treatment (VOT), for directly observed treatment (DOT) of drug-susceptible TB. The WHO’s 2020 guidelines extended these recommendations to multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), based on low evidence. The impact of COVID on health systems and patients underscored the need to use digital technologies in the management of MDR-TB. Methods: A decision-tree model was developed to explore the costs of several potential DOT alternatives: VOT, 99DOTS (Directly-observed Treatment, Short-course) and family-observed DOT. Assuming a 9-month, all-oral regimen (as evaluated within the STREAM trial), we constructed base-case cost models for the standard-of-care DOTs in Ethiopia, India, and Uganda, as well as for the three alternative DOT approaches. The models were populated with STREAM Stage 2 clinical trial outcome and cost data, supplemented with market prices data for the digital DOT strategies. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on key parameters. Results: Modelling suggested that the standard-of-care DOT approach is the most expensive DOT strategy from a societal perspective in all three countries evaluated (Ethiopia, India, Uganda), with considerable direct- and indirect-costs incurred by patients. The second most expensive DOT approach is VOT, with high health-system costs, largely caused by up-front technology expenditure. Each of VOT, 99DOTS and family-observed DOT would reduce by more than 90% patients’ direct and indirect costs compared to standard of care DOT. Results were robust to the sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: While data on the costs and efficacy of alternative DOT approaches in the context of shorter MDR-TB treatment is limited, our modelling suggests alternative DOT approaches can significantly reduce patient costs in all three countries. Health system costs are higher for VOT and lower for 99DOTS and family-observed therapy when compared to standard of care DOT, as low smartphone penetration and internet availability requires the VOT health system to fund the cost of making them available to patients

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

Economic evaluation protocol of a short, all-oral bedaquiline-containing regimen for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis from the STREAM trial

Introduction: A December 2019 WHO rapid communication recommended the use of 9-month all-oral regimens for treating multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). Besides the clinical benefits, they are thought to be less costly than the injectable-containing regimens, for both the patient and the health system. STREAM is the first randomised controlled trial with an economical evaluation to compare all-oral and injectable-containing 9–11-month MDR-TB treatment regimens. Methods and analysis: Health system costs of delivering a 9-month injectable-containing regimen and a 9-month all-oral bedaquiline-containing regimen will be collected in Ethiopia, India, Moldova and Uganda, using ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ costing approaches. Patient costs will be collected using questionnaires that have been developed based on the STOP-TB questionnaire. The primary objective of the study is to estimate the cost utility of the two regimens, from a health system perspective. Secondary objectives include estimating the cost utility from a societal perspective as well as evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the regimens, using both health system and societal perspectives. The effect measure for the cost–utility analysis will be the quality-adjusted life years (QALY), while the effect measure for the cost-effectiveness analysis will be the efficacy outcome from the clinical trial. Ethics and dissemination: The study has been evaluated and approved by the Ethics Advisory Group of the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease and also approved by ethics committees in all participating countries. All participants have provided written informed consent. The results of the economic evaluation will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number: ISRCTN18148631

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

Cost of treatment support for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis using patient-centred approaches in Ethiopia:a model-based method

Background: Patient and health system costs for treating multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) remain high even after treatment duration was shortened. Many patients do not finish treatment, contributing to increased transmission and antimicrobial resistance. A restructure of health services, that is more patient-centred has the potential to reduce costs and increase trust and patient satisfaction. The aim of the study is to investigate how costs would change in the delivery of MDR-TB care in Ethiopia under patient-centred and hybrid approaches compared to the current standard-of-care. Methods: We used published data, collected from 2017 to 2020 as part of the Standard Treatment Regimen of Anti-Tuberculosis Drugs for Patients with MDR-TB (STREAM) trial, to populate a discrete event simulation (DES) model. The model was developed to represent the key characteristics of patients’ clinical pathways following each of the three treatment delivery strategies. To the pathways of 1000 patients generated by the DES model we applied relevant patient cost data derived from the STREAM trial. Costs are calculated for treating patients using a 9-month MDR-TB treatment and are presented in 2021 United States dollars (USD). Results: The patient-centred and hybrid strategies are less costly than the standard-of-care, from both a health system (by USD 219 for patient-centred and USD 276 for the hybrid strategy) and patient perspective when patients do not have a guardian (by USD 389 for patient-centred and USD 152 for the hybrid strategy). Changes in indirect costs, staff costs, transport costs, inpatient stay costs or changes in directly-observed-treatment frequency or hospitalisation duration for standard-of-care did not change our results. Conclusion: Our findings show that patient-centred and hybrid strategies for delivering MDR-TB treatment cost less than standard-of-care and provide critical evidence that there is scope for such strategies to be implemented in routine care. These results should be used inform country-level decisions on how MDR-TB is delivered and also the design of future implementation trials. Graphical Abstract