The cost-effectiveness of a bedaquiline-containing short-course regimen for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in South Africa.

Background: Bedaquiline-containing regimens have demonstrated improved outcomes over injectable-containing regimens in the long-term treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended replacing injectables in the standard short-course regimen (SCR) with a bedaquiline-containing regimen. The South African national TB program similarly recommends a bedaquiline-containing regimen. Here, we investigated the cost-effectiveness of a bedaquiline-containing SCR versus an injectable-containing SCR for the treatment of MDR-TB in South Africa.Methods: A Markov model was adapted to simulate the incidence of active patients with MDR-TB. Patients could transition through eight health states: active MDR-TB, culture conversion, cure, follow-up loss, secondary MDR-TB, extensively DR-TB, end-of-life care, and death. A 5% discount was assumed on costs and outcomes. Health outcomes were expressed as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).Results: Over a 10-year time horizon, a bedaquiline-containing SCR dominated an injectable-containing SCR, with an incremental saving of US $982 per DALY averted. A bedaquiline-containing SCR was associated with lower total costs versus an injectable-containing SCR (US $597 versus $657 million), of which US $3.2 versus $21.9 million was attributed to adverse event management.Conclusions: Replacing an injectable-containing SCR with a bedaquiline-containing SCR is cost-effective, offering a cost-saving alternative with improved patient outcomes for MDR-TB.

Bedaquiline- versus injectable-containing drug-resistant tuberculosis regimens: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) continues to be a major public health challenge with suboptimal treatment outcomes including well-documented treatment-related toxicities. We compared the cost-effectiveness of bedaquiline (BDQ) containing regimens with injectable containing regimens (short-course regimen [SCR] and long-course regiman [LCR]) in India, Russia, and South Africa. METHODS: The analysis evaluated the direct costs of DR-TB treatment which included drugs, hospitalization, injectable-related adverse event costs, and other costs. Scenarios altered regimen costs, SCR/LCR ratio, and substitution rate between regimens (whether BDQ or injectable containing). RESULTS: BDQ containing regimens are more cost effective based on cost per treatment success compared with injectable containing regimens, reducing these in SCR by 18-20% and in LCR by 49-54%. Average cost effectiveness ratios (ACERs) of BDQ containing regimens are lower. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) is negative. Exclusive use of BDQ containing regimens results in approximately 61,000 more patients treated successfully over 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Across all countries, BDQ containing regimens are dominant compared to injectable containing regimens, entailing lower treatment costs to achieve better clinical outcomes. This analysis can provide insight and support to local and global decision-makers and public health organizations to allocate efficiently resources improving patient and public health outcomes.