Background: Shorter, safer, and cheaper tuberculosis (TB) preventive treatment (TPT) regimens will enhance uptake and effectiveness. WHO developed target product profiles describing minimum requirements and optimal targets for key attributes of novel TPT regimens. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis addressing the scale-up of regimens meeting these criteria in Brazil, a setting with relatively low transmission and low HIV and rifampicin-resistant TB (RR-TB) prevalence, and South Africa, a setting with higher transmission and higher HIV and RR-TB prevalence.
Methods and findings: We used outputs from a model simulating scale-up of TPT regimens meeting minimal and optimal criteria. We assumed that drug costs for minimal and optimal regimens were identical to 6 months of daily isoniazid (6H). The minimal regimen lasted 3 months, with 70% completion and 80% efficacy; the optimal regimen lasted 1 month, with 90% completion and 100% efficacy. Target groups were people living with HIV (PLHIV) on antiretroviral treatment and household contacts (HHCs) of identified TB patients. The status quo was 6H at 2019 coverage levels for PLHIV and HHCs. We projected TB cases and deaths, TB-associated disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and costs (in 2020 US dollars) associated with TB from a TB services perspective from 2020 to 2035, with 3% annual discounting. We estimated the expected costs and outcomes of scaling up 6H, the minimal TPT regimen, or the optimal TPT regimen to reach all eligible PLHIV and HHCs by 2023, compared to the status quo. Maintaining current 6H coverage in Brazil (0% of HHCs and 30% of PLHIV treated) would be associated with 1.1 (95% uncertainty range [UR] 1.1-1.2) million TB cases, 123,000 (115,000-132,000) deaths, and 2.5 (2.1-3.1) million DALYs and would cost $1.1 ($1.0-$1.3) billion during 2020-2035. Expanding the 6H, minimal, or optimal regimen to 100% coverage among eligible groups would reduce DALYs by 0.5% (95% UR 1.2% reduction, 0.4% increase), 2.5% (1.8%-3.0%), and 9.0% (6.5%-11.0%), respectively, with additional costs of $107 ($95-$117) million and $51 ($41-$60) million and savings of $36 ($14-$58) million, respectively. Compared to the status quo, costs per DALY averted were $7,608 and $808 for scaling up the 6H and minimal regimens, respectively, while the optimal regimen was dominant (cost savings, reduced DALYs). In South Africa, maintaining current 6H coverage (0% of HHCs and 69% of PLHIV treated) would be associated with 3.6 (95% UR 3.0-4.3) million TB cases, 843,000 (598,000-1,201,000) deaths, and 36.7 (19.5-58.0) million DALYs and would cost $2.5 ($1.8-$3.6) billion. Expanding coverage with the 6H, minimal, or optimal regimen would reduce DALYs by 6.9% (95% UR 4.3%-95%), 15.5% (11.8%-18.9%), and 38.0% (32.7%-43.0%), respectively, with additional costs of $79 (-$7, $151) million and $40 (-$52, $140) million and savings of $608 ($443-$832) million, respectively. Compared to the status quo, estimated costs per DALY averted were $31 and $7 for scaling up the 6H and minimal regimens, while the optimal regimen was dominant. Study limitations included the focus on 2 countries, and no explicit consideration of costs incurred before the decision to prescribe TPT.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that scale-up of TPT regimens meeting minimum or optimal requirements would likely have important impacts on TB-associated outcomes and would likely be cost-effective or cost saving.