Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet Global Health. 1 February 2025; Volume 13 (Issue 2); e355-e363.; DOI:10.1016/S2214-109X(24)00467-4
Sweeney S, Laurence YV, Berry C, Singh MP, Dodd M, et al.
Lancet Global Health. 1 February 2025; Volume 13 (Issue 2); e355-e363.; DOI:10.1016/S2214-109X(24)00467-4
BACKGROUND
New 6-month rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis treatment regimens containing bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid (BPaL) with or without moxifloxacin or clofazimine, could improve treatment efficacy, safety, and tolerability, and free up resources within the health system. Following a change to WHO rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis treatment guidelines, countries are facing difficult decisions about when and how to incorporate new drug regimens into national guidelines. We aimed to assess the probability of BPaL-based regimens being cost-saving using data collected in the TB-PRACTECAL trial.
METHODS
This economic evaluation using a cost-utility analysis was embedded in five TB-PRACTECAL trial sites in Belarus, Uzbekistan, and South Africa. Between Nov 19, 2020, and Sept 27, 2022, we collected detailed primary unit cost data in six hospitals and four ambulatory health facilities and collected data on patient-incurred costs from 73 trial participants. The primary efficacy endpoint of the main trial, a composite of unfavourable outcomes (death, disease recurrence, treatment failure, early discontinuation of therapy, withdrawal, or loss to follow-up) and clinically important safety outcomes by 72 weeks of follow-up were incorporated into the analysis. Societal perspective cost data and effect outcome data were input into a Markov model to estimate the cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted by BPaL-based regimens compared with the standard of care over a 20-year time horizon. We conducted a range of univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to test our findings.
FINDINGS
BPaL-based regimens averted a mean of 1·28 DALYs and saved a mean of US$14 868 (SD 291) per person from the provider perspective compared with standard-of-care regimens over 20 years. Patient-incurred costs were reduced by a mean of $172 (SD 0·84) in BPaL-based regimen groups compared with standard of care. The main cost drivers for both providers and patients were inpatient bed-days; the duration of the inpatient period varied across countries. Varying a range of model parameters affected the degree of cost savings but did not change the finding that BPaL-based regimens are cost-saving compared with standard of care.
INTERPRETATION
This trial-based evidence adds to consistent indications from modelling studies that BPaL-based regimens are cost-saving for both the patient and health system. Urgent implementation of BPaL-based regimens in countries with a high burden of tuberculosis could improve treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, reduce pill burden, and free up desperately needed resources within the health system.
Journal Article > LetterFull Text
Clin Infect Dis. 15 August 2024; Volume 79 (Issue 2); 569-570.; DOI:10.1093/cid/ciad767
Crocker-Buque T, Lachenal N, Narasimooloo C, Abdrasuliev T, Parpieva N, et al.
Clin Infect Dis. 15 August 2024; Volume 79 (Issue 2); 569-570.; DOI:10.1093/cid/ciad767
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 6 June 2024; Volume 68 (Issue 7); e0053624.; DOI:10.1128/aac.00536-24
Motta I, Cusinato M, Ludman AJ, Lachenal N, Dodd M, et al.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 6 June 2024; Volume 68 (Issue 7); e0053624.; DOI:10.1128/aac.00536-24
Regimens for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis currently rely on the use of QT-prolonging agents. Using data from the randomized controlled trial, TB-PRACTECAL, we investigated differences in QTcF among participants in the three interventional arms: BPaL (bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid), BPaLC (BPaL with clofazimine), and BPaLM (BPaL with moxifloxacin). Additionally, we assessed whether age, body mass index, and country were causally associated with QTcF prolongation. The trial included participants from South Africa, Uzbekistan, and Belarus. A post hoc analysis of electrocardiogram data was undertaken. Random effects regression was used to model QTcF longitudinally over 24 weeks and causal frameworks guided the analysis of non-randomized independent variables. 328 participants were included in BPaL-based arms. The longitudinal analysis of investigational arms showed an initial QTcF steep increase in the first week. QTcF trajectories between weeks 2 and 24 differed slightly by regimen, with highest mean peak for BPaLC (QTcF 446.5 ms). Overall, there were 397 QTcF >450 ms (of 3,744) and only one QTcF >500 ms. The odds of QTcF >450 ms among participants in any investigational arm, was 8.33 times higher in Uzbekistan compared to Belarus (95% confidence interval: 3.25–21.33). No effect on QTcF prolongation was found for baseline age or body mass index (BMI). Clinically significant QTc prolongation was rare in this cohort of closely monitored participants. Across BPaL-based regimens, BPaLC showed a slightly longer and sustained effect on QTcF prolongation, but the differences (both in magnitude of change and trajectory over time) were clinically unimportant. The disparity in the risk of QTc prolongation across countries would be an important factor to further investigate when evaluating monitoring strategies.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet Respir Med. 1 February 2024; Volume 12 (Issue 2); 117-128.; DOI:10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00389-2
Nyang'wa BT, Berry C, Kazounis E, Motta I, Parpieva N, et al.
Lancet Respir Med. 1 February 2024; Volume 12 (Issue 2); 117-128.; DOI:10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00389-2
BACKGROUND
Around 500,000 people worldwide develop rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis each year. The proportion of successful treatment outcomes remains low and new treatments are needed. Following an interim analysis, we report the final safety and efficacy outcomes of the TB-PRACTECAL trial, evaluating the safety and efficacy of oral regimens for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis.
METHODS
This open-label, randomised, controlled, multi-arm, multicentre, non-inferiority trial was conducted at seven hospital and community sites in Uzbekistan, Belarus, and South Africa, and enrolled participants aged 15 years and older with pulmonary rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio using variable block randomisation and stratified by trial site, to receive 36-80 week standard care; 24-week oral bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid (BPaL); BPaL plus clofazimine (BPaLC); or BPaL plus moxifloxacin (BPaLM) in stage one of the trial, and in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard care or BPaLM in stage two of the trial, the results of which are described here. Laboratory staff and trial sponsors were masked to group assignment and outcomes were assessed by unmasked investigators. The primary outcome was the percentage of participants with a composite unfavourable outcome (treatment failure, death, treatment discontinuation, disease recurrence, or loss to follow-up) at 72 weeks after randomisation in the modified intention-to-treat population (all participants with rifampicin-resistant disease who received at least one dose of study medication) and the per-protocol population (a subset of the modified intention-to-treat population excluding participants who did not complete a protocol-adherent course of treatment (other than because of treatment failure or death) and those who discontinued treatment early because they violated at least one of the inclusion or exclusion criteria). Safety was measured in the safety population. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02589782, and is complete.
FINDINGS
Between Jan 16, 2017, and March 18, 2021, 680 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 552 were enrolled and randomly assigned (152 to the standard care group, 151 to the BPaLM group, 126 to the BPaLC group, and 123 to the BPaL group). The standard care and BPaLM groups proceeded to stage two and are reported here, post-hoc analyses of the BPaLC and BPaL groups are also reported. 151 participants in the BPaLM group and 151 in the standard care group were included in the safety population, with 138 in the BPaLM group and 137 in the standard care group in the modified intention-to-treat population. In the modified intention-to-treat population, unfavourable outcomes were reported in 16 (12%) of 137 participants for whom outcome was assessable in the BPaLM group and 56 (41%) of 137 participants in the standard care group (risk difference -29·2 percentage points [96·6% CI -39·8 to -18·6]; non-inferiority and superiority p<0·0001). 34 (23%) of 151 participants receiving BPaLM had adverse events of grade 3 or higher or serious adverse events, compared with 72 (48%) of 151 participants receiving standard care (risk difference -25·2 percentage points [96·6% CI -36·4 to -13·9]). Five deaths were reported in the standard care group by week 72, of which one (COVID-19 pneumonia) was unrelated to treatment and four (acute pancreatitis, suicide, sudden death, and sudden cardiac death) were judged to be treatment-related.
INTERPRETATION
The 24-week, all-oral BPaLM regimen is safe and efficacious for the treatment of pulmonary rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, and was added to the WHO guidance for treatment of this condition in 2022. These findings will be key to BPaLM becoming the preferred regimen for adolescents and adults with pulmonary rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis.
Around 500,000 people worldwide develop rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis each year. The proportion of successful treatment outcomes remains low and new treatments are needed. Following an interim analysis, we report the final safety and efficacy outcomes of the TB-PRACTECAL trial, evaluating the safety and efficacy of oral regimens for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis.
METHODS
This open-label, randomised, controlled, multi-arm, multicentre, non-inferiority trial was conducted at seven hospital and community sites in Uzbekistan, Belarus, and South Africa, and enrolled participants aged 15 years and older with pulmonary rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio using variable block randomisation and stratified by trial site, to receive 36-80 week standard care; 24-week oral bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid (BPaL); BPaL plus clofazimine (BPaLC); or BPaL plus moxifloxacin (BPaLM) in stage one of the trial, and in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard care or BPaLM in stage two of the trial, the results of which are described here. Laboratory staff and trial sponsors were masked to group assignment and outcomes were assessed by unmasked investigators. The primary outcome was the percentage of participants with a composite unfavourable outcome (treatment failure, death, treatment discontinuation, disease recurrence, or loss to follow-up) at 72 weeks after randomisation in the modified intention-to-treat population (all participants with rifampicin-resistant disease who received at least one dose of study medication) and the per-protocol population (a subset of the modified intention-to-treat population excluding participants who did not complete a protocol-adherent course of treatment (other than because of treatment failure or death) and those who discontinued treatment early because they violated at least one of the inclusion or exclusion criteria). Safety was measured in the safety population. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02589782, and is complete.
FINDINGS
Between Jan 16, 2017, and March 18, 2021, 680 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 552 were enrolled and randomly assigned (152 to the standard care group, 151 to the BPaLM group, 126 to the BPaLC group, and 123 to the BPaL group). The standard care and BPaLM groups proceeded to stage two and are reported here, post-hoc analyses of the BPaLC and BPaL groups are also reported. 151 participants in the BPaLM group and 151 in the standard care group were included in the safety population, with 138 in the BPaLM group and 137 in the standard care group in the modified intention-to-treat population. In the modified intention-to-treat population, unfavourable outcomes were reported in 16 (12%) of 137 participants for whom outcome was assessable in the BPaLM group and 56 (41%) of 137 participants in the standard care group (risk difference -29·2 percentage points [96·6% CI -39·8 to -18·6]; non-inferiority and superiority p<0·0001). 34 (23%) of 151 participants receiving BPaLM had adverse events of grade 3 or higher or serious adverse events, compared with 72 (48%) of 151 participants receiving standard care (risk difference -25·2 percentage points [96·6% CI -36·4 to -13·9]). Five deaths were reported in the standard care group by week 72, of which one (COVID-19 pneumonia) was unrelated to treatment and four (acute pancreatitis, suicide, sudden death, and sudden cardiac death) were judged to be treatment-related.
INTERPRETATION
The 24-week, all-oral BPaLM regimen is safe and efficacious for the treatment of pulmonary rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, and was added to the WHO guidance for treatment of this condition in 2022. These findings will be key to BPaLM becoming the preferred regimen for adolescents and adults with pulmonary rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis.
Conference Material > Poster
Motta I, Cusinato M, Ludman A, Abdrasuliev T, Butabekov I, et al.
MSF Scientific Day International 2023. 7 June 2023; DOI:10.57740/vz2n-4971
Conference Material > Slide Presentation
Stringer B, Lowton K, Cusinato M, Fielding K, Liverko I, et al.
MSF Scientific Day International 2023. 7 June 2023; DOI:10.57740/by3w-4h53
Conference Material > Abstract
Stringer B, Lowton K, Cusinato M, Fielding K, Liverko I, et al.
MSF Scientific Day International 2023. 7 June 2023; DOI:10.57740/0589-cg13
INTRODUCTION
The TB-PRACTECAL study trialed a shorter, more tolerable regimen of oral drugs than standard of care (SoC) – which can last for up to 20 months and involve both injectables and up to 20 tablets a day. In this sub-study, PRACTECAL-PRO, we measured and explored trial participant quality of life, experiences, and perspectives on treatment, to understand outcomes more fully. Both studies were conducted in Uzbekistan, South Africa, and Belarus.
METHODS
We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation using quality of life (QoL) surveys and in-depth interviews. Participants in investigational and SoC arms completed the Short Form 12 (SF-12) and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) at four timepoints (baseline, 12, 24, and 48 weeks). Healthy age- and sex-matched volunteers were surveyed at a single timepoint to establish locally relevant controls. Participants from investigational arms were purposively sampled for in-depth interviews to describe qualitatively patient satisfaction and experience with the investigational arm trial, including factors enabling toleration or rejection of a novel treatment by patients.
ETHICS
This study was approved by the MSF Ethics Review Board and by the ethics review committees of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Uzbekistan; the Republican Scientific and Practical Centre for Pulmonology and Tuberculosis, Belarus; the regulatory authority of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Belarus and Pharma Ethics Independent Ethics Committee, South Africa.
RESULTS
Overall, of 137 trial participants 28.5% (39) and 71.5% (98) were randomised to the SoC arm and one of three investigational arms, respectively. Statistically significant univariate scores by arm were observed at week 48 for SGRQ Impact domain (median -3.8, 95% confidence interval (CI), -5.7 to 0.0) and at week 24 for SF-12 physical component score (median 3.1, 95%CI 0.2 to 6.7). Longitudinal analysis showed that the proportional reduction in SGRQ scores per month was higher in the investigational group compared to the SoC for all domains and the total score. For both the SGRQ and SF-12, baseline scores indicated worse quality of life for the trial participant group (that is, investigational arms and SoC together) than for the healthy control group. Qualitative analysis showed early treatment satisfaction was a useful predictor of better adherence. Treatment acceptability was linked to participants’ support networks and their experience of counselling and clinical advice. Tolerability of the regimen helped reassure patients and household members on efficacy and value of the treatment. Participants reported that early improvement helped them return to productive lives sooner, with the potential to address social determinants with financial protection schemes for a shorter investment period. Patient perspectives around residual burden of disease can help inform clinicians about ongoing care.
CONCLUSION
All PRACTECAL-PRO participants reported worse generic and disease-specific QoL at baseline, compared to an age and sex-matched healthy control group. Participants taking a novel shortened oral regimens demonstrated both a quicker improvement in their respiratory disease-specific QoL over 48 weeks than those receiving SoC, and an improvement that exceeded the SGRQ’s minimum clinically important difference. In-depth interviews give insights suggesting investment toward patient-sensitive and socially responsive treatment and care. For interviewees, the supportive care experienced was as important as their satisfaction and tolerability of the novel drug regimen. Patient perspectives are an essential component of assessing clinical trial outcomes.
CONFLCITS OF INTEREST
None declared.
The TB-PRACTECAL study trialed a shorter, more tolerable regimen of oral drugs than standard of care (SoC) – which can last for up to 20 months and involve both injectables and up to 20 tablets a day. In this sub-study, PRACTECAL-PRO, we measured and explored trial participant quality of life, experiences, and perspectives on treatment, to understand outcomes more fully. Both studies were conducted in Uzbekistan, South Africa, and Belarus.
METHODS
We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation using quality of life (QoL) surveys and in-depth interviews. Participants in investigational and SoC arms completed the Short Form 12 (SF-12) and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) at four timepoints (baseline, 12, 24, and 48 weeks). Healthy age- and sex-matched volunteers were surveyed at a single timepoint to establish locally relevant controls. Participants from investigational arms were purposively sampled for in-depth interviews to describe qualitatively patient satisfaction and experience with the investigational arm trial, including factors enabling toleration or rejection of a novel treatment by patients.
ETHICS
This study was approved by the MSF Ethics Review Board and by the ethics review committees of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Uzbekistan; the Republican Scientific and Practical Centre for Pulmonology and Tuberculosis, Belarus; the regulatory authority of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Belarus and Pharma Ethics Independent Ethics Committee, South Africa.
RESULTS
Overall, of 137 trial participants 28.5% (39) and 71.5% (98) were randomised to the SoC arm and one of three investigational arms, respectively. Statistically significant univariate scores by arm were observed at week 48 for SGRQ Impact domain (median -3.8, 95% confidence interval (CI), -5.7 to 0.0) and at week 24 for SF-12 physical component score (median 3.1, 95%CI 0.2 to 6.7). Longitudinal analysis showed that the proportional reduction in SGRQ scores per month was higher in the investigational group compared to the SoC for all domains and the total score. For both the SGRQ and SF-12, baseline scores indicated worse quality of life for the trial participant group (that is, investigational arms and SoC together) than for the healthy control group. Qualitative analysis showed early treatment satisfaction was a useful predictor of better adherence. Treatment acceptability was linked to participants’ support networks and their experience of counselling and clinical advice. Tolerability of the regimen helped reassure patients and household members on efficacy and value of the treatment. Participants reported that early improvement helped them return to productive lives sooner, with the potential to address social determinants with financial protection schemes for a shorter investment period. Patient perspectives around residual burden of disease can help inform clinicians about ongoing care.
CONCLUSION
All PRACTECAL-PRO participants reported worse generic and disease-specific QoL at baseline, compared to an age and sex-matched healthy control group. Participants taking a novel shortened oral regimens demonstrated both a quicker improvement in their respiratory disease-specific QoL over 48 weeks than those receiving SoC, and an improvement that exceeded the SGRQ’s minimum clinically important difference. In-depth interviews give insights suggesting investment toward patient-sensitive and socially responsive treatment and care. For interviewees, the supportive care experienced was as important as their satisfaction and tolerability of the novel drug regimen. Patient perspectives are an essential component of assessing clinical trial outcomes.
CONFLCITS OF INTEREST
None declared.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
N Engl J Med. 22 December 2022; Volume 387 (Issue 25); 2331-2343.; DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa2117166
Nyang'wa BT, Berry C, Kazounis E, Motta I, Parpieva N, et al.
N Engl J Med. 22 December 2022; Volume 387 (Issue 25); 2331-2343.; DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa2117166
BACKGROUND
In patients with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis, all-oral treatment regimens that are more effective, shorter, and have a more acceptable side-effect profile than current regimens are needed.
METHODS
We conducted an open-label, phase 2–3, multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of three 24-week, all-oral regimens for the treatment of rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. Patients in Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan who were 15 years of age or older and had rifampin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis were enrolled. In stage 2 of the trial, a 24-week regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin (BPaLM) was compared with a 9-to-20-month standard-care regimen. The primary outcome was an unfavorable status (a composite of death, treatment failure, treatment discontinuation, loss to follow-up, or recurrence of tuberculosis) at 72 weeks after randomization. The noninferiority margin was 12 percentage points.
RESULTS
Recruitment was terminated early. Of 301 patients in stage 2 of the trial, 145, 128, and 90 patients were evaluable in the intention-to-treat, modified intention-to-treat, and per-protocol populations, respectively. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 11% of the patients in the BPaLM group and 48% of those in the standard-care group had a primary-outcome event (risk difference, -37 percentage points; 96.6% confidence interval [CI], -53 to -22). In the per-protocol analysis, 4% of the patients in the BPaLM group and 12% of those in the standard-care group had a primary-outcome event (risk difference, -9 percentage points; 96.6% CI, -22 to 4). In the as-treated population, the incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher or serious adverse events was lower in the BPaLM group than in the standard-care group (19% vs. 59%).
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with rifampin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis, a 24-week, all-oral regimen was noninferior to the accepted standard-care treatment, and it had a better safety profile. (Funded by Médecins sans Frontières; TB-PRACTECAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02589782. opens in new tab.)
In patients with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis, all-oral treatment regimens that are more effective, shorter, and have a more acceptable side-effect profile than current regimens are needed.
METHODS
We conducted an open-label, phase 2–3, multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of three 24-week, all-oral regimens for the treatment of rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. Patients in Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan who were 15 years of age or older and had rifampin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis were enrolled. In stage 2 of the trial, a 24-week regimen of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin (BPaLM) was compared with a 9-to-20-month standard-care regimen. The primary outcome was an unfavorable status (a composite of death, treatment failure, treatment discontinuation, loss to follow-up, or recurrence of tuberculosis) at 72 weeks after randomization. The noninferiority margin was 12 percentage points.
RESULTS
Recruitment was terminated early. Of 301 patients in stage 2 of the trial, 145, 128, and 90 patients were evaluable in the intention-to-treat, modified intention-to-treat, and per-protocol populations, respectively. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, 11% of the patients in the BPaLM group and 48% of those in the standard-care group had a primary-outcome event (risk difference, -37 percentage points; 96.6% confidence interval [CI], -53 to -22). In the per-protocol analysis, 4% of the patients in the BPaLM group and 12% of those in the standard-care group had a primary-outcome event (risk difference, -9 percentage points; 96.6% CI, -22 to 4). In the as-treated population, the incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher or serious adverse events was lower in the BPaLM group than in the standard-care group (19% vs. 59%).
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with rifampin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis, a 24-week, all-oral regimen was noninferior to the accepted standard-care treatment, and it had a better safety profile. (Funded by Médecins sans Frontières; TB-PRACTECAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02589782. opens in new tab.)
Conference Material > Video
Berry C, Motta I, Kazounis E, Fielding K, Dodd M, et al.
MSF Scientific Days International 2022. 7 June 2022; DOI:10.57740/atfr-ws57
Protocol > Research Protocol
BMJ Open. 10 October 2020; Volume 10 (Issue 10); e036599.; DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036599
Sweeney S, Gomez G, Kitson N, Sinha A, Yatskevich N, et al.
BMJ Open. 10 October 2020; Volume 10 (Issue 10); e036599.; DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036599
INTRODUCTION
Current treatment regimens for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) are long, poorly tolerated and have poor outcomes. Furthermore, the costs of treating MDR-TB are much greater than those for treating drug-susceptible TB, both for health service and patient-incurred costs. Urgent action is needed to identify short, effective, tolerable and cheaper treatments for people with both quinolone-susceptible and quinolone-resistant MDR-TB. We present the protocol for an economic evaluation (PRACTECAL-EE substudy) alongside an ongoing clinical trial (TB-PRACTECAL) aiming to assess the costs to patients and providers of new regimens, as well as their cost-effectiveness and impact on participant poverty levels. This substudy is based on data from the three countries participating in the main trial.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
Primary cost data will be collected from the provider and patient perspectives, following economic best practice. We will estimate the probability that new MDR-TB regimens containing bedaquiline, pretomanid and linezolid are cost-effective from a societal perspective as compared with the standard of care for MDR-TB patients in Uzbekistan, South Africa and Belarus. Analysis uses a Markov model populated with primary cost and outcome data collected at each study site. We will also estimate the impact of new regimens on prevalence of catastrophic patient costs due to TB.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
Ethical approval has been obtained from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Médecins Sans Frontières. Local ethical approval will be sought in each study site. The results of the economic evaluation will be shared with the country health authorities and published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Current treatment regimens for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) are long, poorly tolerated and have poor outcomes. Furthermore, the costs of treating MDR-TB are much greater than those for treating drug-susceptible TB, both for health service and patient-incurred costs. Urgent action is needed to identify short, effective, tolerable and cheaper treatments for people with both quinolone-susceptible and quinolone-resistant MDR-TB. We present the protocol for an economic evaluation (PRACTECAL-EE substudy) alongside an ongoing clinical trial (TB-PRACTECAL) aiming to assess the costs to patients and providers of new regimens, as well as their cost-effectiveness and impact on participant poverty levels. This substudy is based on data from the three countries participating in the main trial.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
Primary cost data will be collected from the provider and patient perspectives, following economic best practice. We will estimate the probability that new MDR-TB regimens containing bedaquiline, pretomanid and linezolid are cost-effective from a societal perspective as compared with the standard of care for MDR-TB patients in Uzbekistan, South Africa and Belarus. Analysis uses a Markov model populated with primary cost and outcome data collected at each study site. We will also estimate the impact of new regimens on prevalence of catastrophic patient costs due to TB.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
Ethical approval has been obtained from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Médecins Sans Frontières. Local ethical approval will be sought in each study site. The results of the economic evaluation will be shared with the country health authorities and published in a peer-reviewed journal.