Krishna P Reddy1,2,3, C Robert Horsburgh4,5, Robin Wood6, Naomi F Fields1, Michael P Girouard1,3, Sydney Costantini1, Taige Hou1, Kenneth A Freedberg1,7,8,3,9, Rochelle P Walensky1,7,8,3. 1. Medical Practice Evaluation Center. 2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine. 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Desmond Tutu HIV Foundation, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 7. Division of General Internal Medicine, and. 8. Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Rationale: Recent tuberculosis treatment trials failed to show that some 4-month (4m) regimens were noninferior to conventional 6-month (6m) regimens for a composite clinical outcome. Novel shortened regimens may still have important clinical and economic benefits in populations with high loss to follow-up (LTFU) and in subgroups such as people with human immunodeficiency virus. Objectives: To identify scenarios in which a novel 4m regimen would be preferred to a conventional 6m regimen for treatment of drug-susceptible tuberculosis in people with human immunodeficiency virus in South Africa, in terms of short-term and long-term clinical and economic outcomes. Methods: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications-International microsimulation model to project outcomes modeled on participants in the OFLOTUB trial. For calibration purposes, we did a base case analysis by applying trial-informed parameters for the 4m/6m regimens, including monthly LTFU during treatment (0.68%/0.83%), average monthly tuberculosis recurrence (0.65%/0.31%), and monthly drug costs (U.S. dollars [USD]25.90/3.70). We then evaluated different scenarios and 4m regimen characteristics, varying key parameters, including LTFU (informed by observational cohort data), recurrence, and cost. We projected outcomes, including 2-year mortality and life expectancy. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis, evaluating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a 4m versus 6m regimen. Results: In the base case model analysis, risk of the composite unfavorable outcome in the 4m/6m groups was 19.8%/15.9%, similar to the trial; projected life expectancies were 22.1/22.3 years. In analyses of alternative scenarios and 4m regimen characteristics, a 4m regimen yielded lower risk of the composite unfavorable outcome than the conventional 6m regimen if LTFU increased to greater than 3.5%/mo or if average recurrence after a 4m regimen decreased to less than 0.45%/mo, and it yielded higher life expectancy if LTFU was greater than 3.5%/mo or if recurrence was less than 0.5%/mo. A 4m regimen was not cost-effective in the base case but became cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <USD940/yr of life saved) in two-way sensitivity analysis; for example, if LTFU was greater than or equal to 5.3%/mo and either average recurrence was less than or equal to 0.5%/mo or drug cost was less than or equal to USD15/mo.Conclusions: A novel shortened tuberculosis treatment regimen could improve outcomes such as survival despite conferring a higher recurrence risk, particularly in settings where LTFU is higher than that seen in recent trials.
Rationale: Recent tuberculosis treatment trials failed to show that some 4-month (4m) regimens were noninferior to conventional 6-month (6m) regimens for a composite clinical outcome. Novel shortened regimens may still have important clinical and economic benefits in populations with high loss to follow-up (LTFU) and in subgroups such as people with human immunodeficiency virus. Objectives: To identify scenarios in which a novel 4m regimen would be preferred to a conventional 6m regimen for treatment of drug-susceptible tuberculosis in people with human immunodeficiency virus in South Africa, in terms of short-term and long-term clinical and economic outcomes. Methods: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications-International microsimulation model to project outcomes modeled on participants in the OFLOTUB trial. For calibration purposes, we did a base case analysis by applying trial-informed parameters for the 4m/6m regimens, including monthly LTFU during treatment (0.68%/0.83%), average monthly tuberculosis recurrence (0.65%/0.31%), and monthly drug costs (U.S. dollars [USD]25.90/3.70). We then evaluated different scenarios and 4m regimen characteristics, varying key parameters, including LTFU (informed by observational cohort data), recurrence, and cost. We projected outcomes, including 2-year mortality and life expectancy. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis, evaluating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a 4m versus 6m regimen. Results: In the base case model analysis, risk of the composite unfavorable outcome in the 4m/6m groups was 19.8%/15.9%, similar to the trial; projected life expectancies were 22.1/22.3 years. In analyses of alternative scenarios and 4m regimen characteristics, a 4m regimen yielded lower risk of the composite unfavorable outcome than the conventional 6m regimen if LTFU increased to greater than 3.5%/mo or if average recurrence after a 4m regimen decreased to less than 0.45%/mo, and it yielded higher life expectancy if LTFU was greater than 3.5%/mo or if recurrence was less than 0.5%/mo. A 4m regimen was not cost-effective in the base case but became cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <USD940/yr of life saved) in two-way sensitivity analysis; for example, if LTFU was greater than or equal to 5.3%/mo and either average recurrence was less than or equal to 0.5%/mo or drug cost was less than or equal to USD15/mo.Conclusions: A novel shortened tuberculosis treatment regimen could improve outcomes such as survival despite conferring a higher recurrence risk, particularly in settings where LTFU is higher than that seen in recent trials.
Entities:
Keywords:
cost-effectiveness; human immunodeficiency virus; simulation; treatment; tuberculosis
Authors: Gustavo E Velásquez; Meredith B Brooks; Julia M Coit; Henry Pertinez; Dante Vargas Vásquez; Epifanio Sánchez Garavito; Roger I Calderón; Judith Jiménez; Karen Tintaya; Charles A Peloquin; Elna Osso; Dylan B Tierney; Kwonjune J Seung; Leonid Lecca; Geraint R Davies; Carole D Mitnick Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Roos E Barth; Maarten F Schim van der Loeff; Rob Schuurman; Andy I M Hoepelman; Annemarie M J Wensing Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Nicolas A Menzies; Gabriela B Gomez; Fiammetta Bozzani; Susmita Chatterjee; Nicola Foster; Ines Garcia Baena; Yoko V Laurence; Sun Qiang; Andrew Siroka; Sedona Sweeney; Stéphane Verguet; Nimalan Arinaminpathy; Andrew S Azman; Eran Bendavid; Stewart T Chang; Ted Cohen; Justin T Denholm; David W Dowdy; Philip A Eckhoff; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Andreas Handel; Grace H Huynh; Marek Lalli; Hsien-Ho Lin; Sandip Mandal; Emma S McBryde; Surabhi Pandey; Joshua A Salomon; Sze-Chuan Suen; Tom Sumner; James M Trauer; Bradley G Wagner; Christopher C Whalen; Chieh-Yin Wu; Delia Boccia; Vineet K Chadha; Salome Charalambous; Daniel P Chin; Gavin Churchyard; Colleen Daniels; Puneet Dewan; Lucica Ditiu; Jeffrey W Eaton; Alison D Grant; Piotr Hippner; Mehran Hosseini; David Mametja; Carel Pretorius; Yogan Pillay; Kiran Rade; Suvanand Sahu; Lixia Wang; Rein M G J Houben; Michael E Kimerling; Richard G White; Anna Vassall Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Corinne S Merle; Katherine Fielding; Omou Bah Sow; Martin Gninafon; Mame B Lo; Thuli Mthiyane; Joseph Odhiambo; Evans Amukoye; Boubacar Bah; Ferdinand Kassa; Alimatou N'Diaye; Roxana Rustomjee; Bouke C de Jong; John Horton; Christian Perronne; Charalambos Sismanidis; Olivier Lapujade; Piero L Olliaro; Christian Lienhardt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gwenan M Knight; Gabriela B Gomez; Peter J Dodd; David Dowdy; Alice Zwerling; William A Wells; Frank Cobelens; Anna Vassall; Richard G White Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: M E Murphy; G H Wills; S Murthy; C Louw; A L C Bateson; R D Hunt; T D McHugh; A J Nunn; S K Meredith; C M Mendel; M Spigelman; A M Crook; S H Gillespie Journal: BMC Med Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Krishna P Reddy; Ankur Gupta-Wright; Katherine L Fielding; Sydney Costantini; Amy Zheng; Elizabeth L Corbett; Liyang Yu; Joep J van Oosterhout; Stephen C Resch; Douglas P Wilson; C Robert Horsburgh; Robin Wood; Melanie Alufandika-Moyo; Jurgens A Peters; Kenneth A Freedberg; Stephen D Lawn; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Nicole C McCann; Jennifer Cohn; Clare Flanagan; Emma Sacks; Sushant Mukherjee; Rochelle P Walensky; Oluwarantimi Adetunji; Kenneth K Maeka; Christopher Panella; Addmore Chadambuka; Haurovi Mafaune; Collins Odhiambo; Kenneth A Freedberg; Andrea L Ciaranello Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Krishna P Reddy; Claudia M Denkinger; Tobias Broger; Nicole C McCann; Ankur Gupta-Wright; Andrew D Kerkhoff; Pamela P Pei; Fatma M Shebl; Katherine L Fielding; Mark P Nicol; C Robert Horsburgh; Graeme Meintjes; Kenneth A Freedberg; Robin Wood; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 9.079