Search

Background: Chagas disease (CD) is highly endemic in the Bolivian Chaco. The municipality of Monteagudo has been targeted by national interventions as well as by Médecins Sans Frontières to reduce infection rates, and to decentralize early diagnosis and treatment. This study seeks to determine the knowledge and attitudes of a population with increased awareness and to identify remaining factors and barriers for sustained vector control, health care seeking behaviour, and access, in order to improve future interventions., Methodology/principal Findings: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among approximately 10% (n = 669) of the municipality of Monteagudo's households that were randomly selected. Additionally, a total of 14 in-depth interviews and 2 focus group discussions were conducted with patients and key informants. Several attitudes and practices were identified that could undermine effective control against (re-)infection. Knowledge of clinical symptoms and secondary prevention was limited, and revealed specific misconceptions. Although 76% of the participants had been tested for CD, only 18% of those who tested positive concluded treatment with benznidazole (BNZ). Sustained positive serologies after treatment led to perceived ineffectiveness of BNZ. Moreover, access barriers such as direct as well as indirect costs, BNZ stock-outs and a fear of adverse reactions triggered by other community members made patients opt for alternative treatments against CD such as veterinary ivermectin, used by 28% of infected participants in our study. The lack of accessible care for chronic complications as well as socioeconomic consequences, such as the exclusion from both job opportunities and bank loans contributed to the ongoing burden of CD., Conclusions/significance: Large scale interventions should be accompanied by operational research in order to identify misconceptions and unintended consequences early on, to generate accessible data for future interventions, and for rigorous evaluation. An integrated, community-based approach tackling social determinants and including both traditional and animal health sectors might help to overcome current barriers and advocate for patients' rights., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Approximately 300,000 persons in the United States (US) are infected with Trypanosoma cruzi, the protozoan that causes Chagas disease, but less than 1% are estimated to have received antiparasitic treatment. Benznidazole was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of T. cruzi infection in 2017 and commercialized in May 2018. This paper analyzes factors that affect access to benznidazole following commercialization and suggests directions for future actions to expand access. We applied an access framework to identify barriers, facilitators, and key actors that influence the ability of people with Chagas disease to receive appropriate treatment with benznidazole. Data were collected from the published literature, key informants, and commercial databases. We found that the mean number of persons who obtained benznidazole increased from just under 5 when distributed by the CDC to 13 per month after the commercial launch (from May 2018 to February 2019). Nine key barriers to access were identified: lack of multi-sector coordination, failure of health care providers to use a specific order form, lack of an emergency delivery system, high medical costs for uninsured patients, narrow indications for use of benznidazole, lack of treatment guidelines, limited number of qualified treaters, difficulties for patients to make medical appointments, and inadequate evaluation by providers to determine eligibility for treatment. Our analysis shows that access to benznidazole is still limited after FDA approval. We suggest six areas for strategic action for the pharmaceutical company that markets benznidazole and its allied private foundation to expand access to benznidazole in the US. In addition, we recommend expanding the existing researcher-clinician network by including government agencies, companies and others. This paper's approach could be applied to access programs for benznidazole in other countries or for other health products that target neglected populations throughout the world., Competing Interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following potential competing interests. KY was a graduate student at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and this study was a part of his doctoral project financially sponsored by Fundación Mundo Sano. MRR received a grant from Fundación Mundo Sano to organize a workshop titled “Rethinking Chagas” at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, on October 22, 2018." This paper represents the work of the authors and should not be taken as representing either FMS or Exeltis USA. JMG was supported by Grant Number T32 AI007433 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The contents of this research are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Chagas disease, caused by Trypanosoma cruzi , is transmitted by insect vectors, and through transfusions, transplants, insect feces in food, and mother to child during gestation. An estimated 30% of infected persons will develop lifelong, potentially fatal cardiac or digestive complications. Treatment of infants with benznidazole is highly efficacious in eliminating infection. This work evaluates the costs of maternal screening and infant testing and treatment for Chagas disease in the United States, including the cost of commercially available benznidazole. We compare costs of testing and treatment for mothers and infants with the lifetime societal costs without testing and consequent morbidity and mortality due to lack of treatment or late treatment. We constructed a decision-analytic model, using one tree that shows the combined costs for every possible mother-child pairing. Savings per birth in a targeted screening program are $1,314, and with universal screening, $105 per birth. At current screening costs, universal screening results in $420 million in lifetime savings per birth-year cohort. We found that a congenital Chagas screening program in the United States is cost saving for all rates of congenital transmission greater than 0.001% and all levels of maternal prevalence greater than 0.06% compared with no screening program.

Objective: Hong Kong is a high-income city of China with an intermediate tuberculosis (TB) burden, and 1% of TB cases are multidrug-resistant (MDR-TB). The aim of this study was to examine the potential cost-effectiveness of adding bedaquiline or delamanid to the background regimen (BR) for the treatment of MDR-TB in Hong Kong., Methods: A decision-analytic model was designed to simulate outcomes over a 10-year time horizon for MDR-TB patients treated with bedaquiline plus BR (B-BR), delamanid plus BR (D-BR), or BR alone. Outcome measures included direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained., Results: In the base-case analysis, BR was the least costly regimen (USD 47396) with the lowest QALYs gained (6.347). Compared to BR, B-BR gained an additional 0.731 QALYs with incremental cost of USD 9. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of B-BR was USD 12/QALY. D-BR was more costly than BR by USD 20 164 and gained an additional 0.012 QALYs. The ICER of D-BR was USD 1 680333/QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 10000 Monte Carlo simulations, B-BR and D-BR were cost-effective 99.98% and 5.13% of the time, respectively, using 1× gross domestic product per capita (USD 46 182) as the willingness-to-pay threshold., Conclusions: Bedaquiline is more likely than delamanid to be cost-effective when added to BR for the treatment of MDR-TB in Hong Kong., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Novel therapies for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) are likely to be expensive. The cost of novel drugs (e.g., bedaquiline, delamanid) may be so prohibitively high that a traditional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) would rate regimens containing these drugs as not cost-effective. Traditional CEA may not appropriately account for considerations of social justice, and may put the most disadvantaged populations at greater risk. Using the example of novel drug regimens for MDR-TB, we propose a novel methodology, 'justice-enhanced CEA', and demonstrate how such an approach can simultaneously assess social justice impacts alongside traditional cost-effectiveness ratios. Justice-enhanced CEA, as we envision it, is performed in three steps: 1) systematic data collection about patients' lived experiences, 2) use of empirical findings to inform social justice assessments, and 3) incorporation of data-informed social justice assessments into a decision analytic framework that includes traditional CEA. These components are organized around a core framework of social justice developed by Bailey et al. to compare impacts on disadvantage not otherwise captured by CEA. Formal social justice assessments can produce three composite levels: 'expected not to worsen…', 'may worsen…', and 'expected to worsen clustering of disadvantage'. Levels of social justice impact would be assessed for each major type of outcome under each policy scenario compared. Social justice assessments are then overlaid side-by-side with cost-effectiveness assessments corresponding to each branch pathway on the decision tree. In conclusion, we present a 'justice-enhanced' framework that enables the incorporation of social justice concerns into traditional CEA for the evaluation of new regimens for MDR-TB.

Drugs for neglected tropical diseases (NTD) are being excessively priced in the United States. Benznidazole, the first-line drug for Chagas disease, may become approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and manufactured by a private company in the US, thus placing it at risk of similar pricing. Chagas disease is an NTD caused by Trypanosoma cruzi; it is endemic to Latin America, infecting 8 million individuals. Human migration has changed the epidemiology causing nonendemic countries to face increased challenges in diagnosing and managing patients with Chagas disease. Only 2 drugs exist with proven efficacy: benznidazole and nifurtimox. Benznidazole has historically faced supply problems and drug shortages, limiting accessibility. In the US, it is currently only available under an investigational new drug (IND) protocol from the CDC and is provided free of charge to patients. However, 2 companies have stated that they intend to submit a New Drug Application (NDA) for FDA approval. Based on recent history of companies acquiring licensing rights for NTD drugs in the US with limited availability, it is likely that benznidazole will become excessively priced by the manufacturer-paradoxically making it less accessible. However, if the companies can be taken at their word, there may be reason for optimism.

After more than one century since its discovery, Chagas disease is still extremely prevalent in 21 Latin American countries. Chagas disease is one of the most concerning public health problems in Latin America; the overall cost of CD treatment is approximately 7 billion United States dollars per year and it has a strong social impact on populations. Little progress has been made regarding the access to diagnosis and treatment at the primary health care level, calling into question the current policies to ensure the right to health and access to essential medications. In this article, diverse dimensions of access to treatment for Chagas disease are reviewed, illustrating the present state of benznidazole medication in relation to global production capacity, costs, and needs. The findings are based on an investigation requested by Médecins Sans Frontières Brazil through a consultancy in 2015, aiming to estimate the current costs of benznidazole production.

Background: The estimated worldwide annual incidence of MDR-TB is 480 000, representing 5% of TB incidence, but 20% of mortality. Multiple drugs have recently been developed or repurposed for the treatment of MDR-TB. Currently, treatment for MDR-TB costs thousands of dollars per course., Objectives: To estimate generic prices for novel TB drugs that would be achievable given large-scale competitive manufacture., Methods: Prices for linezolid, moxifloxacin and clofazimine were estimated based on per-kilogram prices of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API). Other costs were added, including formulation, packaging and a profit margin. The projected costs for sutezolid were estimated to be equivalent to those for linezolid, based on chemical similarity. Generic prices for bedaquiline, delamanid and pretomanid were estimated by assessing routes of synthesis, costs/kg of chemical reagents, routes of synthesis and per-step yields. Costing algorithms reflected variable regulatory requirements and efficiency of scale based on demand, and were validated by testing predictive ability against widely available TB medicines., Results: Estimated generic prices were US$8-$17/month for bedaquiline, $5-$16/month for delamanid, $11-$34/month for pretomanid, $4-$9/month for linezolid, $4-$9/month for sutezolid, $4-$11/month for clofazimine and $4-$8/month for moxifloxacin. The estimated generic prices were 87%-94% lower than the current lowest available prices for bedaquiline, 95%-98% for delamanid and 94%-97% for linezolid. Estimated generic prices were $168-$395 per course for the STREAM trial modified Bangladesh regimens (current costs $734-$1799), $53-$276 for pretomanid-based three-drug regimens and $238-$507 for a delamanid-based four-drug regimen., Conclusions: Competitive large-scale generic manufacture could allow supplies of treatment for 5-10 times more MDR-TB cases within current procurement budgets., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) is complex, lengthy, and involves a minimum of four drugs termed a background regimen (BR), that have not previously been prescribed or that have proven susceptible to patient sputum culture isolates. In recent years, promising new treatment options have emerged as add-on therapies to a BR. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term costs and effectiveness of adding the novel or group 5 interventions bedaquiline, delamanid, and linezolid to a background regimen (BR) of drugs for the treatment of adult patients with pulmonary multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), within their marketing authorisations, from a German healthcare cost-effectiveness perspective., Methods: A cohort-based Markov model was developed to simulate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of bedaquiline plus BR, delamanid plus BR, or linezolid plus BR versus BR alone in the treatment of MDR-TB, over a 10-year time horizon. Effectiveness of treatment was evaluated in Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) and Life-Years Gained (LYG), using inputs from clinical trials for bedaquiline and delamanid and from a German observational study for linezolid. Cost data were obtained from German Drug Directory costs (€/2015), published literature, and expert opinion. A 3% yearly discount rate was applied. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted., Results: The total discounted costs per-patient were €85,575 for bedaquiline plus BR, €81,079 for delamanid plus BR, and €80,460 for linezolid plus BR, compared with a cost of €60,962 for BR alone. The total discounted QALYs per-patient were 5.95 for bedaquiline plus BR, 5.36 for delamanid plus BR, and 3.91 for linezolid plus BR, compared with 3.68 for BR alone. All interventions were therefore associated with higher QALYs and higher costs than BR alone, with incremental costs per QALY gained of €22,238 for bedaquiline, €38,703 for delamanid, and €87,484 for linezolid, versus BR alone. In a fully incremental analysis, bedaquiline plus BR was the most cost-effective treatment option at thresholds greater than €22,000 per QALY gained. In probabilistic analyses, the probability that bedaquiline plus BR was the most cost-effective treatment strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 was 54.5%, compared with 22.9% for BR alone, 18.2% for delamanid plus BR, and 4.4% for linezolid., Conclusions: In Germany, the addition of bedaquiline, delamanid, or linezolid to a BR would result in QALY gains over BR alone. Based on this analysis, bedaquiline is likely to be the most cost-effective intervention for the treatment of MDR-TB, when added to a BR regimen at thresholds greater than €22,000 per QALY.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of adding delamanid (Deltyba™) to a background regimen (BR) for treating multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in Germany., Methods: The 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., Results: Based 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., Conclusions: Under 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., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Fewer than 20% of patients with multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis are receiving treatment and there is an urgent need to scale up treatment programmes. One of the biggest barriers to scale-up is the treatment regimen, which is lengthy, complex, ineffective, poorly tolerated and expensive. For the first time in over 50 years, new drugs have been developed specifically to treat tuberculosis, with bedaquiline and potentially delamanid expected to be available soon for treatment of MDR cases. However, if the new drugs are merely added to the current treatment regimen, the new regimen will be at least as lengthy, cumbersome and toxic as the existing one. There is an urgent need for strategy and evidence on how to maximize the potential of the new drugs to improve outcomes and shorten treatment. We devised eight key principles for designing future treatment regimens to ensure that, once they are proven safe in clinical trials, they will be clinically effective and programmatically practicable. Regimens should contain at least one new class of drug; be broadly applicable for use against MDR and extensively drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex strains; contain three to five effective drugs, each from a different drug class; be delivered orally; have a simple dosing schedule; have a good side-effect profile that allows limited monitoring; last a maximum of 6 months; and have minimal interaction with antiretrovirals. Following these principles will maximize the potential of new compounds and help to overcome the clinical and programmatic disadvantages and scale-up constraints that plague the current regimen.