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.
Competing Interests: Declaration of interests LR reports consulting fees from GSK (paid to institution) and support for attending trial-related meetings from Janssen Research & Development and the US Agency for International Development (USAID; paid to institution). JJM reports support for attending meetings or travel from the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. EMT reports consulting fees from GSK (paid to institution) and support for attending meetings from USAID (paid to institution). MM, PB, RD, GN, AKBh, BK, SKM, AJN, GB, IDR, and EW report support for attending trial-related meetings from Janssen Research & Development and USAID (paid to institution). ET reports support for attending meetings from USAID (paid to institution). SBS reports a research grant on tuberculosis research (paid to institution) from the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Development Office, support for attending trial-related meetings from Janssen Research & Development and USAID (paid to institution), and is co-chair of the Scientific Working Group on Implementation Research for the Tropical Disease Research Foundation (unpaid). All other authors declare no competing interests.
(Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)