Scaling up target regimens for tuberculosis preventive treatment in Brazil and South Africa: An analysis of costs and cost-effectiveness

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL PLoS Medicine Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004032
Ntwali Placide Nsengiyumva, J. Campbell, O. Oxlade, J. Vesga, C. Lienhardt, A. Trajman, D. Falzon, S. den Boon, N. Arinaminpathy, K. Schwartzman
{"title":"Scaling up target regimens for tuberculosis preventive treatment in Brazil and South Africa: An analysis of costs and cost-effectiveness","authors":"Ntwali Placide Nsengiyumva, J. Campbell, O. Oxlade, J. Vesga, C. Lienhardt, A. Trajman, D. Falzon, S. den Boon, N. Arinaminpathy, K. Schwartzman","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":20368,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004032","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在巴西和南非扩大结核病预防治疗目标方案:成本和成本效益分析
背景:更短、更安全、更便宜的结核病预防治疗(TPT)方案将提高接受度和有效性。世卫组织制定了目标产品简介,描述了新型TPT方案关键属性的最低要求和最佳目标。我们在巴西和南非进行了成本-效果分析,以解决在传播率相对较低、艾滋病毒和利福平耐药结核病(RR-TB)患病率相对较低和传播率较高、艾滋病毒和耐药结核病患病率较高的环境中扩大符合这些标准的方案。方法和发现我们使用了一个模型的输出,该模型模拟了满足最小和最优标准的TPT方案的放大。我们假设最小和最佳方案的药物成本与6个月每日异烟肼(6H)相同。最小方案持续3个月,完成率70%,有效率80%;最佳方案持续1个月,完成率90%,有效率100%。目标人群是接受抗逆转录病毒治疗的艾滋病毒感染者(PLHIV)和确诊结核病患者的家庭接触者(hhc)。在2019年,艾滋病毒感染者和丙型肝炎病毒感染者的覆盖率为6H。我们从结核病服务的角度预测了从2020年到2035年与结核病相关的结核病病例和死亡、结核病相关的残疾调整生命年(DALYs)和成本(以2020年美元计),每年有3%的折扣。与现状相比,我们估计了到2023年扩大6H、最低TPT方案或最佳TPT方案以覆盖所有符合条件的PLHIV和hhc的预期成本和结果。在巴西维持目前的6H覆盖率(0%的hhc和30%的PLHIV得到治疗)将导致1.1亿(95%不确定范围[UR] 110 - 120万)例结核病病例、12.3万(11.5 - 13.2万)例死亡和250万(2.1-3.1)万伤残调整生命年,并在2020-2035年期间耗资1.1亿(10 - 13亿美元)美元。在符合条件的人群中,将6小时、最低限度或最佳方案扩大到100%的覆盖率将使伤残调整生命年分别减少0.5%(95%或1.2%减少,0.4%增加)、2.5%(1.8%-3.0%)和9.0%(6.5%-11.0%),额外费用分别为107美元(9500 - 1.17亿美元)和51美元(4100 - 6000万美元),节省费用分别为36美元(1400 - 5800万美元)。与现状相比,扩大6H方案和最小方案避免的每DALY成本分别为7608美元和808美元,而最优方案占主导地位(节省成本,减少DALY)。在南非,维持目前的6H覆盖率(0%的hhc和69%的PLHIV得到治疗)将与360万(95%兰特300 - 430)例结核病病例、84.3万(59.8万- 1201000)例死亡和367万(195 - 5800)万伤残调整生命年相关,并将耗资25亿美元(18 - 36美元)。扩大6H方案、最小方案或最佳方案的覆盖范围将使DALYs分别减少6.9% (95% UR 4.3%-95%)、15.5%(11.8%-18.9%)和38.0%(32.7%-43.0%),额外费用分别为79美元(- 7亿美元,1.51亿美元)和40美元(- 52,1.4亿美元),节省费用分别为6.08美元(443 - 8.32亿美元)。与现状相比,扩大6H方案和最小方案避免的每个DALY估计成本分别为31美元和7美元,而最佳方案占主导地位。研究的局限性包括只关注两个国家,在决定是否使用TPT之前没有明确考虑所产生的费用。结论:我们的研究结果表明,扩大满足最低或最佳要求的TPT方案可能对结核病相关结果产生重要影响,并可能具有成本效益或节省成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
21.60
自引率
0.60%
发文量
227
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: PLOS Medicine aims to be a leading platform for research and analysis on the global health challenges faced by humanity. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedicine, the environment, society, and politics, that affect the well-being of individuals worldwide. It particularly highlights studies that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or our understanding of disease mechanisms, with the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes in diverse settings. Unwavering in its commitment to ethical standards, PLOS Medicine ensures integrity in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and transparently disclosing any conflicts of interest during the reporting, peer review, and publication processes. The journal promotes transparency by providing visibility into the review and publication procedures. It also encourages data sharing and the reuse of published work. Author rights are upheld, allowing them to retain copyright. Furthermore, PLOS Medicine strongly supports Open Access publishing, making research articles freely available to all without restrictions, facilitating widespread dissemination of knowledge. The journal does not endorse drug or medical device advertising and refrains from exclusive sales of reprints to avoid conflicts of interest.
期刊最新文献
Associations between food insecurity in high-income countries and pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis Association between surgeon training grade and the risk of revision following unicompartmental knee replacement: An analysis of National Joint Registry data Effects of a self-guided digital mental health self-help intervention for Syrian refugees in Egypt: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Suicide after leaving the UK Armed Forces 1996–2018: A cohort study Association of birthweight centiles and early childhood development of singleton infants born from 37 weeks of gestation in Scotland: A population-based cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1