Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jul 23;19(7):e0305930. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305930

Pharmaceutical cost dynamics for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in children and adolescents in South Africa, India, and the Philippines

Thomas Wilkinson 1,*, Anthony J Garcia-Prats 2,3, Tina Sachs 3, Mandar Paradkar 4,5, Nishi Suryavanshi 4,5, Aarti Kinikar 6, Melchor V Frias 7, Edina Sinanovic 1, Anneke C Hesseling 3, James A Seddon 3,8, Megan Palmer 3
Editor: Stephen Michael Graham9
PMCID: PMC11265651  PMID: 39042708

Abstract

Rifampicin-resistant (RR) tuberculosis (TB) in children is a major global health concern but is often neglected in economics research. Accurate cost estimations across the spectrum of paediatric RR-TB treatment regimens are critical inputs for prioritisation and budgeting decisions, and an existing knowledge gap at local and international levels. This normative cost analysis was nested in a Phase I/II pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and acceptability trial of TB medications in children in South Africa, the Philippines and India. It assessed the pharmaceutical costs of 36 childhood RR-TB regimens using combinations from 16 different medicines in 34 oral formulations (adult and child-friendly) in 11 weight bands in children <15 years of age. The analysis used local and Global Drug Facility pricing, and local and international guideline recommendations, including adaptions of BPaL and BPaLM regimens in adults. Costs varied significantly between regimen length, age/weight banding, severity of disease, presence of fluroquinolone resistance, and different country guideline recommendations. WHO recommended regimen costs ranged 12-fold: from US$232 per course (short regimen in non-severe disease) to US$2,761 (long regimen in severe, fluroquinolone-resistant disease). Regimen treating fluoroquinolone-resistant infection cost US$1,090 more than comparable WHO-recommended regimen. Providing child-friendly medicine formulations in <5-year-olds across all WHO-recommended regimens is expected to cost an additional $380 (range $212-$563) per child but is expected to have wider benefits including palatability, acceptability, adherence, tolerability, and dose accuracy. There were substantial differences in regimen affordability between countries when adjusted for purchasing power and domestic spending on health. Appropriate, effective, and affordable treatment options are an important component of the fight against childhood RR-TB. A comprehensive understanding of the cost and affordability dynamics of treatment options will enable national TB programs and global collaborations to make the best use of limited healthcare resources for the care of children with RR-TB.

Introduction

There is increasing recognition of the importance of rifampicin-resistant (RR) tuberculosis (TB), defined as Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tuberculosis) resistant to at least rifampicin. An estimated 410,000 incident cases of RR-TB occurred in 2022 [1], and recent model-based estimates suggest that 25,000 to 32,000 new cases of RR-TB occur in children 0–14 years of age each year [24].

In contrast to adults with RR-TB, outcomes among children treated for RR-TB are generally good, with four out of five patients successfully treated [5]. Despite these good outcomes, RR-TB treatment for children remains lengthy (traditionally 9–18 months), complex, and has frequent and significant adverse effects. There have been substantial changes to treatment recommendations for RR-TB treatment in recent years, with the 2022 update of the WHO RR-TB treatment guideline recommending all-oral regimens for children in most cases, with injectable agents limited to salvage therapy only [6].

Treating RR-TB disease in children with shorter, safer, and more effective regimens will require the availability of existing and repurposed medicines, and newer agents such as bedaquiline and delamanid. In addition, the practicality of accurately and consistently administering medicines is improved with child-friendly formulations.

CATALYST was a multi-centre trial investigating the pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and acceptability of new child-friendly formulations of moxifloxacin and clofazimine in children and adolescents routinely treated for RR-TB in South Africa, India, and the Philippines [7]. The CATALYST trial is completed with primary findings forthcoming. A secondary objective of the CATALYST trial was to describe the pharmaceutical costs of RR-TB treatment in children and adolescents. It is expected that any improvements in medicine formulations for children with RR-TB would be incorporated within clinical practice over time. However, unless the nature and profile of the costs of RR-TB are investigated more broadly, the financial implications of the adoption of new formulations for treatment of paediatric RR-TB remain uncertain.

An important initiative relating to RR-TB medicine availability and pricing is the Stop TB Partnership’s Global Drug Facility (GDF), which aids global access to quality-assured TB medicines through a bundled procurement and supply mechanism [8]. Economies of scale mean that purchasing through the GDF may result in lower pricing and better supply chain certainty compared to individual country procurement mechanisms. The GDF catalogue includes formulations of TB medicines for adults and children, with pricing and formulation information regularly updated [9]. A United Nations High-Level Meeting on TB in 2018 encouraged all nations to use the GDF [10], and 134 countries accessed the GDF in 2023. Countries choose which medicines and formulations to procure through the GDF, for example a country may purchase routine first line TB medicines through national procurement mechanisms and utilize the GDF for supply of second line medicines with or without support of donors and development partners [11].

The cost to countries of different RR-TB treatment regimens in children can be uncertain due to the rapidly changing treatment landscape, variation in volumes for weight-based dosing, and medicine price fluctuation (particularly for countries not using the GDF). This uncertainty may result in slow adoption of innovative approaches to care, especially in countries where the burden of RR-TB may be higher and affordability concerns more pronounced. There is currently limited empirical evidence on the cost of paediatric RR-TB care and how changes within the treatment regimen can affect constrained local and national budgets. Understanding the local cost dynamics associated with RR-TB medications and treatment regimens is essential to informing these procurement and implementation decisions.

The aims of this costing analysis were to (1) estimate the costs of a representative sample of RR-TB treatment regimens used in children and adolescents as recommended by global and national guidelines, (2) assess the in-country cost of the WHO-recommended RR-TB regimens in three high burden countries (South Africa, India, and The Philippines), and (3) explore the costs of country-specific RR-TB treatment regimens and local affordability.

Methods

Study design

We performed a pharmaceutical cost analysis, calculating the costs of normative treatment recommendations for children aged <15 years old across eleven weight bands (36 regimens, 16 medicines, 34 formulations) from the perspective of national TB programs in South Africa, India, and the Philippines.

The RR-TB treatment regimens included in this analysis reflected global (WHO [6], The Sentinel Project [12]) and national (South Africa [13], India [14], The Philippines [15]) guidance, and additional regimens based on author judgement. Regimens were grouped into six categories: 1) Short-duration standardised bedaquiline-containing regimens; 2) Long-duration fluroquinolone-susceptible (non-severe disease); 3) Long-duration fluroquinolone-susceptible, (severe disease); 4) Long-duration fluroquinolone-resistant, (non-severe disease); 5) Long-duration fluroquinolone-resistant, (severe disease); and 6) Adaptions of BPaL (bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid) and BPaLM (bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, moxifloxacin) including substitution of pretomanid for delamanid. The regimens representing adaptions of BPaL/BPaLM are provided for comparison as potential future treatment scenarios, in line with experienced child TB physicians’ opinion on potential treatment regimens available for children in the future [16,17].

Only all-oral treatment options were presented in this analysis as injectable-free regimens are the preferred approach for children in all settings reviewed, and it is now possible to build all-oral treatment regimens for all children with RR-TB due to the expanded use of bedaquiline and delamanid to children of all ages [1]. As the composition of RR-TB treatment regimens is largely the same for children living with or without human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), no separate analysis was conducted for children living with HIV. Further detail relating to the source recommendations are in Appendix 8 in S1 File.

Data sources

The number of tablets and the approach to dosing of different formulations were extracted from WHO recommendations [18,19]. If dosing guidance differed between ages in the same weight band the mean of all the likely number of doses for that weight band was used.

TB medicine unit prices were sourced from the January 2024 GDF Medicines Catalogue [9]. Where the GDF catalogue reported a price range, the mid-point cost for that medicine was used. For the South African analysis, the February 2024 Master Health Product List (MHPL) [20] was used to extract TB medicine unit prices in South African Rand and converted to United States dollars (US$). When more than one supplier of medicine for the same formulation was available, the lowest priced formulation was used.

The Central TB Division in India conducts a competitive tender process; however, the specific pricing structures are not publicly available and were not made available following author requests. Given the high medicine volume purchased by the Central TB Division and extensive domestic manufacture of pharmaceuticals in India, GDF pricing was assumed to be indicative of prices in the Indian context for this analysis. GDF prices were used for analyses specific to the Philippines as the country accesses TB medications through the GDF. A medicine was considered child-friendly based on the GDF categorisation [21].

PPP conversion rates [21], exchange rates, and health financing indicators [22] were sourced from the World Bank DataBank. For country context, TB epidemiological profiles were sourced from the Global TB report 2023 Country TB profiles [2325] (Table 1).

Table 1. Tuberculosis epidemiological profile: South Africa, India, the Philippines.

South Africa India Philippines
Population (million) (2022)1 59.4 1417.2 113.9
Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000) (2022)2 468 (304–665) 199 (169–231) 638 (337–1060)
Incidence of RR-TB: all ages, new cases (% of total incidence) (2022) 2 2.9% (2.8–3.0) 2.5% (2.3–2.7) 2.5% (2.0–2.9)
Proportion of TB case notifications aged 0–14 (%), (2022) 2 7% 5% 7%
TB treatment coverage (notified estimated incidence, 2022) 2 77% 80% 59%
TB treatment success rate, new and relapse cases (%) (2021) 2 79% 87% 80%
Household contacts of bacteriologically confirmed TB cases on TPT (%) (2022) 2 6% (5.8–6.1) 22% (22–23) 5.5% (5.-5.7)
Treatment success rate for RR/MDR-TB cases started on 2nd-line treatment (2020) 2 62% 69% 79%

Source: 1. World Bank. World Development Indicators [22]; 2. Global Tuberculosis Report 2023 Tuberculosis country profiles [2325].

TB: Tuberculosis; RR/MDR-TB: Rifampicin-Resistant or Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis; TPT: Tuberculosis Preventive Therapy.

Data analysis

Ages were matched to weight bands using WHO weight-for-age tables [26,27] to allow for the estimation of the proportion of children falling in the respective weight bands and assuming equal distribution between genders (Appendix 9 in S1 File for weight distributions across age ranges). This was required to calculate weight-based dosing costs for children in the <15 years and <5 years age groups, and to incorporate the uneven distribution of child weight (and therefore treatment costs) across age ranges. As children with RR-TB are commonly underweight-for-age, a -1 standard deviation was assumed to reflect weight-for-age based on Global Health Observatory population tables [28].

The costs of TB treatment regimens are represented in US$ and were calculated by multiplying medicine unit prices with the number of dosage units required for a regimen assuming a 4-week (28 day) treatment month.

WHO guidance was used to determine assumptions relating to wastage and the number of tablets or capsules that are required to achieve recommended doses [6]. Dispersible tablets and scored tablets can be halved, whereas unscored tablets and capsules cannot be halved, so any part of a tablet/capsule used to make up a child’s dose represented a whole tablet/capsule used. The number of para-aminosalicylic acid sachets needed for the total daily dose was used to calculate the quantity needed per month (irrespective of whether daily doses were divided into two daily doses). It was assumed that when tablets or capsules are dissolved in water (or other dosing medium), the required dose is administered, and the remaining mixture discarded. The list of medicines and formulations included in the analysis is in S1 Appendix 1 in S1 File, along with the relevant wastage assumptions.

RR-TB treatment regimen costs were adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP) in India, South Africa, and the Philippines. RR-TB regimen costs were analysed as a proportion of local TB budgets and total public health expenditure per person to gain insights into local affordability and to provide meaningful comparisons between countries. TB-related health financing indicators for India, South Africa and the Philippines are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Health financing indicators related to TB in South Africa, India, and the Philippines.

South Africa India Philippines
GDP per capita (US$ current) (2022)1 $6,776 $2,411 $3,499
GDP per capita (PPP adjusted %I current) (2022) 1 $15,920 $8,400 $10,137
Current health expenditure (% of GDP) (2020) 1 9% 3% 5%
Domestic general government health expenditure, per capita (US$) (2020) 1 $304 $21 $74
Domestic general government health expenditure, per capita (PPP I$) (2020) 1 $718 $70 $187
Value of TB program/TB funding per incidence of TB (US$) 2,3 $514 $107 $172
Value of TB program/TB funding per incidence of TB ($I) 2,3 $1,207 $366 $499
Proportion of TB funding supported by external donors 2 17% 19% 15%

Source: 1. World Bank. World Development Indi[cators [22]; 2. Global Tuberculosis Report 2023 Tuberculosis country profiles [2325]; 3. Author calculation. GDP-gross domestic product, $I-international dollar, PPP-purchasing power parity, TB-tuberculosis, US$-United States Dollar.

Results

The 36 regimens were clustered by regimen type, formulation used and age band. Child-friendly formulations were analysed for WHO and Sentinel Project regimens and adapted BPaL/BPaLM regimens only, given limited inclusion of child friendly formulations in national formularies and essential medicines lists South Africa, India, and the Philippines. Table 3 and Fig 1 details the total cost for each regimen and Appendix 3 in S1 File details the mean monthly costs for each regimen. An online interactive costing tool enables further representation of this analysis with user-specified changes to medicine and formulation choice and regimen length [29].

Table 3. Total regimen cost (US$) for RR-TB paediatric regimens (GDF prices).

Regimen Setting Treatment duration (months) Total regimen cost (US$) by age group and formulation
Adult formulations Child-friendly formulations
<15 years <5 years <15 years <5 years
SHORT BEDAQUILINE-CONTAINING ALL ORAL REGIMENS
BDQ (6)-LFX-CFZ-Z-E-hH-ETO (4)/ LFX-CFZ-Z-E (5) Global (WHO)
India
9 243 151 803 394
LZD (2)-BDQ (6)-LFX-CFZ-Z-E-hH (4)/ LFX-CFZ-Z-E (5) Global (WHO)
South Africa
9 232 145 784 382
BDQ-LFX-CFZ-Z-E-hH-ETO (6)/ LFX-CFZ-Z-E (5) WHO
India
11 286 175 945 466
LZD (2)-BDQ-LFX-CFZ-Z-E-hH (6)/ LFX-CFZ-Z-E (5) WHO
South Africa
11 265 164 902 441
LONGER ALL ORAL REGIMENS
Fluoroquinolone-susceptible–non severe
LZD (2)-BDQ-LFX-CFZ (15) Global (WHO) 15 380 249 949 461
BDQ-LFX-CFZ-CS (9) Global (Sentinel Project) 9 341 218 925 475
LZD (2)-BDQ (6)-LFX-CFZ-TRD (15) South Africa 15 1,562 965 - -
LZD (2)-LFX-CFZ-TRD-PAS (15) South Africa 15 2,418 1,498 - -
BDQ-LZD (6)-LFX-CFZ-CS (15) India 15 484 302 - -
LZD-Z (6)-LFX-CFZ-CS (15) India 15 412 247 - -
LZD (6)-BDQ-LFX-CFZ-CS (12) Philippines 12 469 305 - -
LZD (6)-LFX-CFZ-CS-PAS (12) Philippines 12 1,077 672 - -
Fluoroquinolone-susceptible–severe
LZD (2)-BDQ-LFX-CFZ-CS (20) Global (WHO) 20 743 477 2,019 1,040
LZD (2)-BDQ-LFX-CFZ-CS (12) Global (Sentinel Project) 12 455 293 1,244 640
LZD (2)-BDQ-LFX-CFZ-TRD (18) South Africa 18 1,980 1,239 - -
LZD (2)-LFX-CFZ-TRD-PAS (18) South Africa 18 2,900 1,796 - -
LZD (6)-BDQ-LFX-CFZ-CS (18) India 18 684 442 - -
LZD (6)-LFX-CFZ-CS-Z (18) India 18 501 299 - -
LZD (6)-BDQ-LFX-CFZ-CS (18) Philippines 18 685 443 - -
LZD (6)-LFX-CFZ-CS-PAS (18) Philippines 18 1,605 1,000 - -
Fluoroquinolone-resistant–non severe
LZD (2)-BDQ-CFZ-CS (15) Global (WHO) 15 541 352 1,313 697
BDQ-CFZ-CS-DLM (9) Global (Sentinel Project) 9 1,249 1,074 2,193 1,310
LZD (2)-DLM (6)-BDQ-CFZ-TRD (15) South Africa 15 2,246 1,599 - -
LZD (2)-CFZ-TRD-DLM-PAS (15) South Africa 15 3,931 2,924 - -
LZD (6)-BDQ-CFZ-CS-DLM (12) Philippines 12 1,681 1,445 - -
LZD (6)-CFZ-CS-DLM-PAS (12) Philippines 12 2,288 1,813 - -
Fluoroquinolone-resistant–severe
LZD (2)-BDQ-CFZ-CS-DLM (20) Global (WHO) 20 2,761 2,378 4,837 2,895
LZD (2)-BDQ-CFZ-CS-DLM (12) Global (Sentinel Project) 12 1,666 1,434 2,936 1,754
LZD (2)-BDQ-CFZ-TRD-DLM (18) South Africa 18 3,796 2,950 - -
LZD (2)-CFZ-TRD-DLM-PAS (18) South Africa 18 4,716 3,507 - -
LZD (6)-BDQ-CFZ-CS-DLM (18) Philippines 18 2,502 2,154 - -
LZD (6)-CFZ-CS-DLM-PAS (18) Philippines 18 3,422 2,711 - -
Adapted BPaL/BPaLM regimen
LZD (2)—BDQ-DLM-LFX (6) Global
(potential future recommendation)
6 783 699 1,496 854
LZD (2)–BDQ-DLM-CFZ (6) 6 847 737 1,489 865
BDQ-PA-LZD (6) 6 392 351 751 473
BDQ-PA-LZD-MFX (6) 6 418 377 851 534

Costs reflect mean costs per regimen adjusted for distribution of weight-for-age in each category.

BDQ-bedaquiline, CFZ-clofazimine, CS-cycloserine, DLM-delamanid, E-ethambutol, ETO-ethionamide, hH-high dose isoniazid, LFX-levofloxacin, LZD-linezolid, MFX-moxifloxacin, PA-pretomanid, PAS-para-aminosalicylic acid, PTO-prothionamide, Pyr(B6)-Pyridoxine, TRD-terizidone, Z-pyrazinamide.

GDF-Global Drug Facility, US$-United States Dollar; WHO–World Health Organization; RR-TB–Rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis.

Fig 1. Total regimen cost (US$): Who recommended RR-TB regimens by formulation and age range (GDF pricing).

Fig 1

Overall, there is substantial variation in the costs of regimens based on age range, formulation type, treatment duration and regimen composition, driven by disease severity and presence of fluoroquinolone resistance.

Standardised short all-oral regimens

Bedaquiline-containing regimens

The standardised “short” regimens (9–11 months) are currently the preferred choice of treatment for RR-TB according to WHO as well as South African and Indian national TB guidelines for children with uncomplicated, non-severe, fluoroquinolone-susceptible RR-TB disease. The regimens also had the lowest cost of those evaluated, across age bands and formulation type. The treatment duration is determined by culture conversion or health improvement at four months after treatment initiation, and two variations of the standardised course are recommended: one that includes linezolid (recommended in WHO and South African national guidelines) and another that includes ethionamide (recommended in WHO and Indian national guidelines).

Under GDF medicine pricing, the median cost of providing the short bedaquiline-containing RR-TB regimens (including either linezolid or ethionamide) was $157 (range $145 to $175) in the <5-year-old age group when using adult formulations, and $417 ($382 to $466) when using child-friendly formulations.

Longer all-oral regimens

In most of the settings analysed, longer regimens were recommended for children not eligible to receive standardised WHO regimens. These regimens were broadly classified based on severity (typically requiring longer treatment periods) and fluoroquinolone susceptibility (limiting use of levofloxacin and moxifloxacin).

Fluoroquinolone-susceptible, non-severe disease

Eight regimens were analysed with treatment durations ranging from 9 to 15 months. For children aged <15 years using adult formulations, monthly costs ranged from $25 to $161 ($341 to $2,418 for the total treatment period) for the WHO and South African-recommended regimens respectively. When using adult formulations, regimens containing terizidone ($84.69 per month) and/or para-aminosalicylic acid ($62.26 per month) were the most expensive, resulting in higher regimen costs in South Africa compared to recommendations from India, the Philippines or the WHO.

Fluoroquinolone-susceptible, severe disease

A further eight regimens recommended for treatment of fluoroquinolone-susceptible, severe disease were analysed with treatment durations ranging from 12 to 20 months. The median treatment duration for severe disease was 3–4 months longer and cost 65.9% more than for non-severe disease across all regimens analysed. In common with non-severe disease, regimens containing terizidone and/or para-aminosalicylic acid were associated with the highest cost.

Fluoroquinolone-resistant, non-severe disease

Six regimens were analysed with treatment durations ranging from 9 to 15 months for non-severe disease with fluoroquinolone resistance. Delamanid was the most expensive medicine in all but one of the regimens, contributing between 39% to 74% of overall regimen costs. The nine-month regimen recommended in the Sentinel Project is shorter than other guideline recommendations but had a higher medicine cost than the 15-month WHO-recommended regimen due to the inclusion of delamanid.

Fluoroquinolone-resistant, severe disease

Six regimens were analysed with treatment durations ranging from 12 to 20 months. This category consistently incurred the highest costs due to treatment duration and inclusion of high-cost medicines. The recommended regimen within South African guidelines for this group includes delamanid, terizidone, and para-aminosalicylic acid given over a period of 18 months, and is expected to cost $4,716, with each month extension incurring an additional $262. This represents a 20-fold difference in costs between the least expensive regimen (9-month bedaquiline-containing all-oral regimen in uncomplicated cases) and the most expensive regimen for fluoroquinolone-resistant severe disease). WHO-recommended regimens for fluoroquinolone-resistant disease using adult formulations had a median cost approximately three times more than regimens used to treat fluoroquinolone-susceptible strains in severe and non-severe disease, equating to additional costs of $1,090 across the <15-year-old age group. This is mainly due to the exclusion of the relatively low-cost fluroquinolones (levofloxacin or moxifloxacin), requiring inclusion of higher cost delamanid and/or cycloserine. Inclusion of terizidone, para-aminosalicylic acid and bedaquiline also contributed substantially to the overall regimen costs.

Adapted BPaL/BPaLM regimens

Four regimens, reflecting the recent six-month BPaL and BPaLM regimen developments in adults, were included in the analysis for comparison, as future potential regimens to be used as further safety and efficacy data become available. The costs of the regimens using adult formulations in the <15-year-old age group ranged from $392 to $847, with higher costs driven by the addition of delamanid to replace pretomanid. Regimens using child-friendly formulations in the <5-year-old age group were marginally more costly than using adult formulations (median $142 range $122-$157), driven predominantly by cost differences for child friendly bedaquiline and delamanid compared to adult formulations as with other regimen categories. The reduced length of treatment of these regimens (6-months) offers potential for costs to drop below those for existing longer regimens, particularly if further price reductions in delamanid and bedaquiline are achieved.

Individual medicine: Monthly costs

Representing per month medicine costs provides insights into the expected reductions that can be achieved by shortening regimens, and conversely by informing how extended regimens can substantially add to regimen costs.

Table 4 details mean costs for one month’s treatment of individual RR-TB medicines (using GDF prices and WHO dosing recommendations) for children aged <15 and <5 years old, and by child-friendly and adult medicine formulations. Mean monthly costs are weighted by the distribution of child weights across specific age ranges, and disaggregated medicine costs by weight band are presented in Appendix 2A and Appendix 2B in S1 File.

Table 4. Cost per month of RR-TB medicines (GDF prices and WHO dosing recommendations).

 Medicine Child-friendly formulations Adult formulations
Formulations Monthly cost (US$) in children aged*: Formulations Monthly cost (US$) in children aged*:
<15 years <5 years <15 years <5 years
Bedaquiline: Month 1 (existing dosing recommendations) 20mg tablet 83.00 39.05 100mg tablet 27.80 19.16
Bedaquiline: Month 2 onwards
(existing dosing recommendations)
20mg tablet 29.24 13.64 100mg tablet 10.16 7.80
Bedaquiline: Month 1
(potential future once-daily dosing)
20mg tablet 102.49 48.14 100mg tablet 34.58 24.36
Bedaquiline: Month 2 onwards
(potential future once-daily dosing)
20mg tablet 68.24 31.82 100mg tablet 23.71 18.20
Levofloxacin 100mg dispersible tablet 14.76 6.24 250mg tablet 1.45 0.68
Moxifloxacin 100mg dispersible tablet 16.72 10.15 400mg tablet 4.34 4.34
Linezolid 150mg dispersible tablet 14.58 7.74 600mg tablet 3.22 2.69
Clofazimine 50mg capsule 13.74 8.12 100mg tablet or capsule 12.12 7.00
Cycloserine 125mg capsule 39.04 21.96 250mg capsule 12.20 7.52
Terizidone 250mg capsule 84.69 52.22 250mg capsule 84.69 52.22
Ethambutol 100mg tablet 5.20 2.63 400mg tablet 1.41 0.60
Delamanid 25mg dispersible tablet 155.69 99.01 50mg tablet 102.37 95.75
Pyrazinamide 150mg dispersible tablet 24.10 11.45 500mg tablet 0.97 0.50
Ethionamide 125mg dispersible tablet 12.05 6.78 250mg tablet 4.43 2.73
Prothionamide 250mg tablet 4.45 2.75 250mg tablet 4.45 2.75
Para-aminosalicylic acid (PAS) 4g powder in sachet 62.26 39.39 4g powder in sachet 62.26 39.39
Pretomanid~ 200mg tablet 36.56 36.56 200mg tablet 36.56 36.56
Isoniazid 100mg tablet 1.13 0.64 300mg tablet 0.61 0.43
Pyridoxine (Vit B6)~ 50mg tablet 0.22 0.18 50mg tablet 0.22 0.18

*Costs reflect mean costs per regimen adjusted for distribution of weight-for-age in each category.

~ Same formulation used as child-friendly and adult formulation.

GDF-Global Drug Facility, US$-United States Dollar.

Monthly costs of delamanid were substantially higher than any other child TB medicine across formulation and age ranges, however bedaquiline, terizidone and para-aminosalicylic acid represent relatively high per monthly costs. Bedaquiline dosing during month 1 is higher than subsequent months due to the higher loading dosages. The adapted BPaL/BPaLM regimens use higher volumes of bedaquiline than currently recommended regimens, with subsequent impact on total regimen costs.

Fig 2 details the individual medicine cost contribution to different regimens. Delamanid represents an extensive cost component of both the shorter and longer regimens, while bedaquiline, cycloserine and clofazimine all represent significant cost drivers. Within adult formulations, medicines including levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, linezolid, ethambutol, pyrazinamide, ethionamide were all below $5 per month and make negligible contributions to the overall regimen cost.

Fig 2. Individual medicine cost contribution to total regimen cost (US$) in who-recommended RR-TB regimen in children and adolescents <15 years old (GDF pricing).

Fig 2

Regimens using all-child friendly formulations were 1.5 times more expensive than all-adult formations in the <5-year-old age group, and 2.1 times more expensive in the <15-year-old age group. This is largely driven by price disparities related to the different formulations of bedaquiline; recent GDF procurement reduced the monthly cost for maintenance dosing of bedaquiline using adult formulations to $10, while the child friendly formulation to achieve the same dose costs approximately $30 per month [9]. The larger relative disparities–such as levofloxacin dispersible tablets incurring a monthly cost 9 times greater than the solid-dosage formulation—has less overall impact due to lower absolute monthly costs.

Country comparison

A total of 24 regimens recommended under national guidance were analysed by regimen type (short, long), disease severity (non-severe, severe), fluoroquinolone-resistance profile and country (South Africa, India, the Philippines), see Appendix 4 in S1 File. National guidance generally tended to align with WHO, and tended towards longer regimen length which raised overall costs. Utilising South African national procurement prices, regimens were typically more expensive; the mean monthly cost of assessed adult formulations purchased through national procurement in South Africa were twice as high than if South Africa were to access the same formulations with GDF pricing. South African procurement does obtain some high-cost medicines at a lower price than the GDF; notably in the February 2024 contract listings, South Africa achieved a price for terizidone 250mg capsules at 44% lower cost than the GDF [20].

To demonstrate generalised local affordability of globally-recommended regimens in South Africa, India, and the Philippines, five regimens from WHO guidance were analysed adjusting for PPP and assuming GDF procurement arrangements for all settings (S1 Appendix 5 in S1 File). Regimens for children aged <15 years are presented in Fig 3 as a factor of the value of national TB program funding per incidence of TB, and in S1 Appendix 7 in S1 File as a factor of domestic government health expenditure for the three countries. The PPP-adjusted costs for each of the WHO RR-TB regimens (children aged <15 years) were higher than the total funding available per TB case in India and the Philippines, whereas the cost of the standardised 9-month bedaquiline-containing regimen cost approximately one third of funding available per case of TB in South Africa. The difference is most pronounced in higher cost regimens, where medicine costs for fluoroquinolone-resistant, severe disease in children <15 years old using adult formulations is 26 times more than the available funding per TB case in India, 16 times more in the Philippines, and five times more in South Africa. The mean PPP adjusted WHO RR-TB regimen costs for childen aged <15 years using adult formulations were 46, 15 and 3 times more than the domestic general government spending on health per capita in India, the Philippines and South Africa, respectively.

Fig 3. Who RR-TB regimen cost as a proportion of national tb funding per tb case (GDF procurement, PPP adjusted).

Fig 3

Discussion

This research details the cost of various regimens for the treatment of RR-TB in children and adolescents <15 years age in the contexts of South Africa, India, and the Philippines. It is the first pharmaceutical costing analysis in childhood RR-TB that comprehensively incorporates individual medications over all weight distributions in the age group across all available child and adult formulations, and which details both international and national guidance.

The analytical findings are important for national TB programs in planning and budgeting for the management of childhood TB, and in cost effectiveness analyses, particularly relating to the adoption of new treatment regimens and new child-friendly formulations. The analysis supports existing research in this area, notably the Médecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign “DR-TB Drugs Under the Microscope” assessment of adult and child TB medicines more generally [30]. The analysis contributes to an extensive cost consolidation exercise conducted under the Global Health Costing Consortium, which reported a range of TB-related costs, but found limited child-specific costs and no reported costs for RR-TB in children [31].

The findings demonstrate the importance of the pricing of individual medicines and their impact on overall treatment costs. The unit price of delamanid, at a mean monthly cost of $102 and $156 in the <15-year-old age range using adult and child-friendly formulations respectively, drives the consistently high costs of all delamanid-containing regimens. The fluroquinolones (levofloxacin and moxifloxacin) are a mainstay of RR-TB treatment with emerging evidence for their use in prevention of disease following exposure to RR-TB in children and are some of the lowest cost RR-TB drugs at $1.45 and $4.34 per month respectively. Consequently, regimens treating patients with fluoroquinolone resistance are significantly more expensive as higher cost medicines are substituted into regimen.

The adapted BPaL/BPaLM regimens had comparable overall costs to currently recommend regimens; however, regimens with a combination of both delamanid and bedaquiline were relatively more expensive under current price structures. The 6-month treatment period of the adapted BPaL/BPaLM regimens is likely to result in lower overall health service costs with associated benefits for patients and carers. Although these regimens are not currently recommended in children, their introduction would have the potential to change the wider costing and economic landscape for RR-TB in children. Further cost analysis in this area will be a useful input to national and international recommendations about the adapted BPaL/BPaLM regimens in children.

The analysis highlights the relatively modest additional cost of adopting child-friendly medicine formulations compared to requiring children to use adult formulations. In particular, the difference in costs between adult and child-friendly formulations is lower in the <5-year-old age group, indicating that prioritising younger children for child-friendly formulations may be more affordable for national TB programs. The higher price for child-friendly formulations is expected to be associated with procurement volumes, and economies of scale associated with wider use of child-friendly formulations may lead to reduced prices through commercial negotiations and competitive contracting systems. Advocacy from the global community contributed to the 55% unit price reduction for bedaquiline in August 2023, however the price reduction was also likely enabled by the wider use of bedaquiline globally as the price reduction applied to the adult formulation of bedaquiline only [9]. Other factors that may contribute to price reductions include cost-plus pricing estimations, where a price that reflects manufacturing, supply, and profit inform contract negotiations [32]. Under a cost-plus pricing approach, larger volumes and certainty of demand through pooled procurement is also expected to result in lower prices overall as production and supply costs are reduced at scale.

The approach to procurement is an important factor determining treatment costs, notably the finding that if South Africa were to adopt GDF pricing it could reduce expected pharmaceutical costs of RR-TB treatments in children substantially. The analysis demonstrates that it may be possible for South Africa to achieve a budget-neutral transition to all child-friendly formulation regimens by offsetting any increased expenditure with improved overall pricing of TB medicines through the GDF.

The substantial variation of costs in the analysis across contexts showed the limitations of representing common global costs of RR-TB treatment in children. The analysis showed that many factors are expected to influence costs, including differences in local guidance and prescriber choice, procurement practices and the prevalence of fluoroquinolone resistance. The concept of “severe” and “non-severe” RR-TB is an important driver of regimen choice and subsequently costs, and while in practice the severity of RR-TB disease cannot be neatly differentiated into two distinct groupings, this analysis demonstrates that models of care that can identify and treat patients before progression to more severe forms of disease are expected to have lower treatment costs, in addition to better outcomes expected from earlier treatment.

The country-specific analysis showed substantial variation in affordability of the different regimens in South Africa, India, and the Philippines, and demonstrated the acute budgetary need to achieve lower cost treatment options in fiscally constrained settings. Assessing expected budget impact relative to available funding is particularly relevant for national TB program decision-making but should also be a key consideration in the generation of global TB recommendations. As the incidence of RR-TB in children is relatively low, the total budget impact of RR-TB treatments in this group are expected to be only a small proportion of overall national TB program budgets. However, there is a continual need to ensure efficient spending of limited health and TB program funding. This analysis is highly applicable to national TB programs in South Africa, India, and the Philippines, and the approach is adaptable to other country TB programs, particularly those accessing GDF pricing.

This analysis assessed pharmaceutical treatment costs only. Additional health system and household costs, including diagnostics, hospital admission and outpatient visits, represent important factors relating to the affordability and feasibility of the management of childhood RR-TB. This is relevant when considering differences in total health system costs associated with child-friendly formulations, where there are potentially substantial cost savings and health benefits achievable though improved administration and adherence. A consistent finding in formulation acceptability studies is that child-friendly formulations are preferred by both children and caregivers [33]. Further, the routine use of adult formulations in children represents a risk of inconsistent and inaccurate dosing due to variation in approaches to administer medicines including halving, crushing, and dissolving tablets. It also often results in worse medication palatability and acceptability, a high priority patient-centered outcome, which may have negative impacts on adherence and child and caregiver experiences. Although the costs of these risks are difficult to quantify, a proportion of any higher costs associated with child-friendly formulations would be offset by expected improvements in dose accuracy. Lastly, the monitoring and management of adverse events associated with different regimens were not represented in this analysis and may have substantial cost implications that will vary by regimen used.

The global community is unlikely to reach the ambitious sustainable development goal to eliminate TB by 2035 without sustained action and innovation at critical points in the TB care pathway. An essential enabler driving decision-making and action at international and local levels is a comprehensive understanding of costs and affordability of different medicines and combination regimens in key populations, particularly children.

Supporting information

S1 File. Pharmaceutical costs child MDR-TB.

(DOCX)

pone.0305930.s001.docx (193.7KB, docx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. There is an additional data tool that allows users to interact with the data, https://blogs.sun.ac.za/dttc/links/. The data tool does not provide any additional data that is not provided in the paper and supporting files.

Funding Statement

TW, AJGP, TS, MP, NS, AK, MVF, AH, MP are part of the study team of the CATALYST trial, under the BENEFIT Kids project https://unitaid.org/project/better-treatments-and-prevention-for-drug-resistant-tuberculosis-in-children/#en. This project is made possible thanks to Unitaid’s funding and support. Unitaid accelerates access to innovative health products and lays the foundations for their scale-up by countries and partners. The funder played no role in the study design, data collection or analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Report 2023. Geneva; 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dodd PJ, Sismanidis C, Seddon JA. Global burden of drug-resistant tuberculosis in children: a mathematical modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(10):1193–201. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30132-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jenkins HE, Yuen CM. The burden of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in children. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. 2018. May;22(5):S3–6. doi: 10.5588/ijtld.17.0357 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jenkins HE, Tolman AW, Yuen CM, Parr JB, Keshavjee S, Pérez-Vélez CM, et al. Incidence of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis disease in children: systematic review and global estimates. The Lancet. 2014;383(9928):1572–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60195-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Harausz EP, Garcia-Prats AJ, Law S, Schaaf HS, Kredo T, Seddon JA, et al. Treatment and outcomes in children with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2018. Jul 1;15(7). doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002591 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.World Health Organization. WHO operational handbook on tuberculosis. Module 5: management of tuberculosis in children and adolescents. Geneva; 2022. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Garcia-Prats AJ, Starke JR, Waning B, Kaiser B, Seddon JA. New Drugs and Regimens for Tuberculosis Disease Treatment in Children and Adolescents. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2022;11(3):S101–9. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piac047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Stop TB Partnership. Global Drug Facility [Internet]. Available from: www.stoptb.org/facilitate-access-to-tb-drugs-diagnostics/global-drug-facility-gdf.
  • 9.Stop TB Partnership. Global Drug Facility: Medicines Catalog—January 2024. Geneva; 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.United Nations. UN General Assembly: Resolution A/RES/73/3 on Fight Against Tuberculosis. New York; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Babaley M, Kaiser B. Market Updates on Key TB Products and Procurement Trends. In: Stop TB Partnership, Global Drug Facility (GDF). Geneva: Joint UNICEF-UNFPA-WHO meeting; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.The Sentinel Project for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis. Management of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Children: A Field Guide (fifth edition). Boston, USA; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.South African Department of Health. Management of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis: A clinical reference guide. Pretoria; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.National Tuberculosis Elimination Programme. Paediatric TB Management Guideline 2022. New Delhi, India; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.National Tuberculosis Control Program. National Tuberculosis Control Program: Manual of procedures (6th edition). Manila, The Philippines; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Patankar S, Cruz AT, Douglas-Jones B, Garcia-Prats A, Kay A, Reuter A, et al. Making the case for all-oral, shorter regimens for children with drug-resistant tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2023;208(2):130–1. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202304-0670VP [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Garcia-Prats AJ, Tutu D, Hoddinott G, Howell P, Hughes J, Jean-Philippe P, et al. Children deserve simple, short, safe, and effective treatment for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis HHS Public Access. Lancet Infect Dis. 2023;23(7):778–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.World Health Organization. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Annex 6. WHO operational handbook on tuberculosis. Module 5: management of tuberculosis in children and adolescents. Geneva; 2022. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.World Health Organization. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Annex 1: WHO operational handbook on tuberculosis. Module 4: treatment—drug-resistant tuberculosis treatment. 2022 update. Geneva; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Department of Health; Republic of South Africa. Master Health Product List—February 2024 [Internet]. Pretoria; 2024. [cited 2024 Feb 2]. Available from: https://www.health.gov.za/tenders/. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.World Development Indicators database. PPP conversion factor, GDP (LCU per international $) [Internet]. Washington DC; 2023. May. Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.The World Bank. The World Bank. World Development Indicators DataBank. Available from: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Report 2023. Tuberculosis profile: India. Geneva; 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Report 2023. Tuberculosis profile: South Africa. Geneva; 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Report 2023. Tuberculosis profile: Philippines. Geneva; 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.World Health Organization. WHO growth reference data (children aged 5–19 years) [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007. Available from: https://www.who.int/tools/growth-reference-data-for-5to19-years. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.World Health Organization. WHO child growth standards (children aged 0–5 years) [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006. [cited 2023 May 2]. Available from: https://www.who.int/tools/child-growth-standards. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.World Health Organization. The Global Health Observatory: Age specific death rate [Internet]. Geneva; 2019. [cited 2023 May 4]. Available from: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/gho-ghe-life-tables-nmx-age-specific-death-rate-between-ages-x-and-x-plus-n. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Desmond Tutu TB Centre; Stellenbosch University. BENEFIT Kids [Internet]. 2024. Available from: https://blogs.sun.ac.za/dttc/benefit-kids/. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Médecins Sans Frontières. DR-TB Drugs Under the Microscope, 8th Edition [Internet]. 2022. Nov. Available from: https://msfaccess.org/dr-tb-drugs-under-microscope-8th-edition. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Vassall A, Sweeney S, Kahn J, Gomez J. GHCC | Global Heath Cost Consortium [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://ghcosting.org/pages/standards/reference_case. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hill AM, Barber MJ, Gotham D. Estimated costs of production and potential prices for the WHO Essential Medicines List. BMJ Glob Health. 2018;3:571. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000571 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Maphalle LNF, Michniak-Kohn BB, Ogunrombi MO, Adeleke OA. Pediatric Tuberculosis Management: A Global Challenge or Breakthrough? Children 2022, Vol 9, Page 1120. 2022 Jul 27;9(8):1120. doi: 10.3390/children9081120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Stephen Michael Graham

27 Mar 2024

PONE-D-24-06760Pharmaceutical cost dynamics for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in children and adolescents in South Africa, India, and the PhilippinesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wilkinson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 11 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Steve

Stephen Michael Graham, FRACP, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General comments:

1) Update references (and corresponding information and estimates), when appropriate (eg, Global TB report, latest GDF catalogue)

2) Carry out a detailed language check throughout (several typos, repetitions and other errors were found, some of which are mentioned below but not all).

3) In the introduction (or the discussion?), I would recommend adding a couple of sentences on the concept of cost-based generic prices and add a reference to Hill A, Barber M, Gotham D. Estimated costs of production and potential prices for the WHO Essential Medicines List. BMJ Global Health.

4) In the discussion, I recommend adding a couple of statements on the risk of using adult formulations (even if they may end up being cheaper for programmes) when they are manipulated for administration in children (under/over dosing etc).

5) Include considerations around “future regimens” (but I encourage you to change this terminology) in the discussion, as this part is totally missing now. Include some forward-looking considerations on the affordability of such regimens if recommended by WHO in the context of the other regimens you describe.

ABSTRACT

- “Providing child-friendly formulations of medicines in the <5-year-old age group across all WHO recommended regimen is expected to cost an additional $380 (range $212-$563) per child” – please, add some short text on the added value of investing in this despite the additional cost

INTRODUCTION

- Update reference 1 and estimated incident cases with data from the latest Global TB report 2023 (including for Table 1)

- Update reference 8 with the latest GDF catalogue available and update link too.

- Page 12, add a relevant reference to the CATALYST trial and very briefly provide an update on its status to better contextualize this specific study.

- Page 13, the sentence “Purchasing through GDF can result in reduced prices and improved continuity of supply than could be achieved through individual country procurement” – what is it meant with “continuity of supply than could be achieved through individual country procurement”?

- Page 13, second paragraph, rephrase with “The GDF catalogue includes formulations of TB medicines for adults and children, with pricing and formulation information regularly updated”

- Page 13, second paragraph – please provide updated estimates of countries procuring through national programmes, if possible. The current information you provide is from 2021, which is relatively old. Also, perhaps it would be good to add a couple of statements on the nuances between procuring first-line medicines (previously supported by donors and done via GDF by most countries, but now mostly procured with local budget and not anymore from GDF) and second-line medicines.

- Page 13, second paragraph – replace “only some are accessing child-friendly formulations” with “are procuring child-friendly formulations”

METHODS

- Page 14, first para – what do you mean with “ingredients-based pharmaceutical cost analysis”? Perhaps it becomes clearer later on in the paper, but at this stage it is not. It sounds as if you have done an estimate of how much a certain formulation should cost based on the cost of the API, manufacturing + some revenue for the developer (but I do not think this is the case).

- Page 14, first para – clarify what you mean with “from the perspective of national TB programmes in South Africa, India and the Philippines and at a global perspective”?

- Page 14, second para – propose rephrasing as “The RR-TB treatment regimens utilized in this cost-analysis included regimens as per global (…) and national (…) guidance, and potential future regimens based on authors’ judgement”

- Please, check the spelling of the methods section in general, eg, “severe regimens” does not make too much sense; “The BPaLM/BPaL (please, invert the order) adaption regimens (please, rephrase).

- Page 15 – what does it mean that “The BPaL/BPaLM adaption regimens are not currently recommended by WHO or any national TB treatment guidance for children “but reflect the opinions of a wide group of experienced child TB physicians” (please, rephrase, ie “are provided for comparison as potential future treatment scenarios, in line with experienced child TB physicians’ opinion on potential treatment regimens available for children in the future..)

DATA ANALYSIS

- Page 16 – “Therefore, GDF pricing was used as indicative in the Indian context, under

an assumption that prices are expected to be comparable between the Central TB Division and the GDF procurement mechanism” – what information you have to assume that prices are expected to be comparable between the Central TB Division and GDF? Is this assumption based on specific criteria, for example the high medicine volume procured by both india and GDF which could lead to the same prices? Please, clarify.

- Page 18 – “WHO formulation dosing recommendations were used to determine assumptions…” Please, rephrase.

RESULTS

- Page 19 – what do you mean with “given limited specifications for these formulations in national guidance in South Africa, India, and the Philippines”? Does this relate to the lack of clarity on whether these paediatric formulations are available in the respective countries? Country guidelines usually do not include information on whether paediatric formulations of TB medicines are used or not. I strongly recommend looking into the national Essential Medicines Lists for these countries or retrieve this information elsewhere.

“Standardised short all-oral regimen”

- Page 21 – “The standardised “short” regimens (9-11 months) are currently the preferred choice of treatment for RR-TB according to WHO as well as South African and Indian national TB guidelines for patients with uncomplicated, non-severe, fluoroquinolone-susceptible RR-TB disease”. According to WHO and if you do not specify the age, the preferred regimen is BPaLM/BPaL. Please, clarify this sentence possibly by specifying the age you refer to.

-

DISCUSSION

- Page 29, second paragraph “particularly relating to the adoption of new treatment

regimenS and new child friendly formulations.”

- Page 29 – repetition of “this analysis” multiple times across these paragraphs – check language and rephrase.

- Page 29, second paragraph “The analysis supports complements existing analysis in this area, notably the routine pricing analysis under the Médecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign “DR-TB Drugs Under the Microscope” that assesses the cost of adult and child TB medicines and regimens more generally (29)”

- Page 30, first paragraph “replace national treatment programs” with “national tuberculosis programmes”

- Page 30, “The child-friendly formulation price differential is also a direct consequence of procurement practices” – does this refer to what you specify in the following sentence, that is the it depends on the volumes procured? If this is the case, then “procurement practices” is not the best terminology to use. Please, rephrase with, eg, procurement volumes.

- Page 30 “it can be expected that economies of scale will lead to reduced prices, demonstrated by a 55% price reduction in the price of bedaquiline in August 2023 that

applied only to the adult formulation (8)”. I would smoothen the language behind this statement. In general, it is true that as volumes increase, then you can negotiate better prices, but that’s not always the case. Plus, for bedaquiline, there were also strong advocacy pushes to lower the price (it is not just the increased volumes).

- Page 32 – add a reference to back up this statement: “A consistent finding in formulation acceptability studies is that child friendly formulations are

preferred by both children and caregivers”.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

While a straightforward concept, this article presents useful information on drug costing in children that may be useful to national TB programs to inform planning and budgeting.

As mentioned in the discussion, the article could have been strengthened by a more comprehensive analysis on total costs e.g. costs to conduct basic minimum active drug safety monitoring (laboratory testing, ECG etc) and hospital costs (outpatient/hospitalisation etc).

The article is otherwise clearly written and presented.

As a minor point, references could also be updated e.g. 2023 global TB report instead of 2022 (ref 1). Also page 14: it is not clear to me that costs were "modelled" ? were they not just calculated based on regimen and formulation costs.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jul 23;19(7):e0305930. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305930.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 May 2024

Thank you for the reviewer comments. We consider that we have addressed all comments sufficiently as detailed in our response letter uploaded. However we would welcome the opportunity to make any further changes as required.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 20240516.docx

pone.0305930.s002.docx (28.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Stephen Michael Graham

7 Jun 2024

Pharmaceutical cost dynamics for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in children and adolescents in South Africa, India, and the Philippines

PONE-D-24-06760R1

Dear Dr. Wilkinson,

Thanks for resubmission with improvements to the manuscript. We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Steve

Stephen Michael Graham, FRACP, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Stephen Michael Graham

15 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-06760R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wilkinson,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Stephen Michael Graham

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Pharmaceutical costs child MDR-TB.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0305930.s001.docx (193.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 20240516.docx

    pone.0305930.s002.docx (28.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. There is an additional data tool that allows users to interact with the data, https://blogs.sun.ac.za/dttc/links/. The data tool does not provide any additional data that is not provided in the paper and supporting files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES