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

Real world evidence studies: Perspective on study design and regulatory framework for RWE

<p>There is a growing need for broader information on Real-World Effectiveness and safety of any new intervention, service or protocol vs data limited by standardized and strictly controlled environment like in a RCT. RWE studies gives the freedom for analysis based on a varied and diverse database. As Real-World Studies gain higher acceptance, it is important to understand the types of RWE studies and design that can be used. Data from real-world patient experience has the potential to improve the quality and delivery of medical care, impact overall costs and outcomes. This review helps understand study designs, issues, and its implications in improving medical services. Though the RWE is challenged by diversity of information, large data sets of uncertain quality, and methodological rigor, however if utilized properly has potential to shape policies, protocols and develop programs to implement best practices.RWE has many issues including Legal, technological, data privacy, transparency, and standardization. These challenges can be and necessarily need to be addressed while planning the RWE which would then vastly enhance the acceptance of the evidence generated by RWE. Several researchers, professional societies, government agencies and multi-stakeholder initiatives  worldwide have disseminated guidance, framework, and standards in this aspect which can address gaps in data standardization and improve the quality of RWD</p&gt