Assessing potential drug-drug interactions between clofazimine and other frequently used agents to treat drug-resistant tuberculosis

Clofazimine is included in drug regimens to treat rifampicin/drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB), but there is little information about its interaction with other drugs in DR-TB regimens. We evaluated the pharmacokinetic interaction between clofazimine and isoniazid, linezolid, levofloxacin, and cycloserine, dosed as terizidone. Newly diagnosed adults with DR-TB at Klerksdorp/Tshepong Hospital, South Africa, were started on the then-standard treatment with clofazimine temporarily excluded for the initial 2 weeks. Pharmacokinetic sampling was done immediately before and 3 weeks after starting clofazimine, and drug concentrations were determined using validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assays. The data were interpreted with population pharmacokinetics in NONMEM v7.5.1 to explore the impact of clofazimine co-administration and other relevant covariates on the pharmacokinetics of isoniazid, linezolid, levofloxacin, and cycloserine. Clofazimine, isoniazid, linezolid, levofloxacin, and cycloserine data were available for 16, 27, 21, 21, and 6 participants, respectively. The median age and weight for the full cohort were 39 years and 52 kg, respectively. Clofazimine exposures were in the expected range, and its addition to the regimen did not significantly affect the pharmacokinetics of the other drugs except levofloxacin, for which it caused a 15% reduction in clearance. A posteriori power size calculations predicted that our sample sizes had 97%, 90%, and 87% power at P < 0.05 to detect a 30% change in clearance of isoniazid, linezolid, and cycloserine, respectively. Although clofazimine increased the area under the curve of levofloxacin by 19%, this is unlikely to be of great clinical significance, and the lack of interaction with other drugs tested is reassuring.

Obesity is South Africa's new HIV epidemic

-

Introducing an Ethics Framework for health priority-setting in South Africa on the path to universal health coverage

BACKGROUND

South Africa (SA) has embarked on a process to implement universal health coverage (UHC) funded by National Health Insurance (NHI). The 2019 NHI Bill proposes creation of a health technology assessment (HTA) body to inform decisions about which interventions NHI funds will cover under UHC. In practice, HTA often relies mainly on economic evaluations of cost-effectiveness and budget impact, with less attention to the systematic, specific consideration of important social, organisational and ethical impacts of the health technology in question. In this context, the South African Values and Ethics for Universal Health Coverage (SAVE-UHC) research project recognised an opportunity to help shape the health priority-setting process by providing a way to take account of multiple, ethically relevant considerations that reflect SA values. The SAVE-UHC Research Team developed and tested an SA-specific Ethics Framework for HTA assessment and analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To develop and test an Ethics Framework for use in the SA context for health priority-setting.

METHODS

The Framework was developed iteratively by the authors and a multidisciplinary panel (18 participants) over a period of 18 months, using the principles outlined in the 2015 NHI White Paper as a starting point. The provisional Ethics Framework was then tested with multi-stakeholder simulated appraisal committees (SACs) in three provinces. The membership of each SAC roughly reflected the composition of a potential SA HTA committee. The deliberations and dedicated focus group discussions after each SAC meeting were recorded, analysed and used to refine the Framework, which was presented to the Working Group for review, comment and final approval.

RESULTS

This article describes the 12 domains of the Framework. The first four (Burden of the Health Condition, Expected Health Benefits and Harms, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, and Budget Impact) are commonly used in HTA assessments, and a further eight cover the other ethical domains. These are Equity, Respect and Dignity, Impacts on Personal Financial Situation, Forming and Maintaining Important Personal Relationships, Ease of Suffering, Impact on Safety and Security, Solidarity and Social Cohesion, and Systems Factors and Constraints. In each domain are questions and prompts to enable use of the Framework by both analysts and assessors. Issues that arose, such as weighting of the domains and the availability of SA evidence, were discussed by the SACs.

CONCLUSIONS

The Ethics Framework is intended for use in priority-setting within an HTA process. The Framework was well accepted by a diverse group of stakeholders. The final version will be a useful tool not only for HTA and other priority-setting processes in SA, but also for future efforts to create HTA methods in SA and elsewhere.