Respiratory medicine · 2013
Cost-effectiveness of rifampin for 4 months and isoniazid for 6 months in the treatment of tuberculosis infection.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pina José Ma, Clotet Laura, Ferrer Anna, Sala María Rosa, Garrido Patricio, Salleras Lluis, Domínguez Angela
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness ratio of rifampin for 4 months and isoniazid for 6 months in contacts with latent tuberculosis infection.
METHODS: The cost was the sum of the cost of treatment with isoniazid for 6 months or with rifampin for 4 months of all contacts plus the cost of treatment of cases of tuberculosis not avoided. The effectiveness was the number of cases of tuberculosis avoided with isoniazid for 6 months or with rifampin for 4 months. When the cost with one schedule was found to be cheaper than the other and a greater number of tuberculosis cases were avoided, this schedule was considered dominant. The efficacy adopted was 90% for rifampin for 4 months and 69% for isoniazid for 6 months. A sensitivity analysis was made for efficacies of rifampin for 4 months of 80%, 69%, 60% and 50%.
RESULTS: Of the 1002 patients studied, 863 were treated with isoniazid for 6 months and 139 with rifampin for 4 months The cost-effectiveness ratio with isoniazid for 6 month was € 19759.48/avoided case of tuberculosis and € 8736.86/avoided case of tuberculosis with rifampin for 4 months. Rifampin for 4 months was dominant. In the sensitivity analysis, rifampin for 4 months was dominant for efficacies from 60%.
CONCLUSIONS: Rifampin for 4 months was more cost-effective than isoniazid for 6 months.
METHODS: The cost was the sum of the cost of treatment with isoniazid for 6 months or with rifampin for 4 months of all contacts plus the cost of treatment of cases of tuberculosis not avoided. The effectiveness was the number of cases of tuberculosis avoided with isoniazid for 6 months or with rifampin for 4 months. When the cost with one schedule was found to be cheaper than the other and a greater number of tuberculosis cases were avoided, this schedule was considered dominant. The efficacy adopted was 90% for rifampin for 4 months and 69% for isoniazid for 6 months. A sensitivity analysis was made for efficacies of rifampin for 4 months of 80%, 69%, 60% and 50%.
RESULTS: Of the 1002 patients studied, 863 were treated with isoniazid for 6 months and 139 with rifampin for 4 months The cost-effectiveness ratio with isoniazid for 6 month was € 19759.48/avoided case of tuberculosis and € 8736.86/avoided case of tuberculosis with rifampin for 4 months. Rifampin for 4 months was dominant. In the sensitivity analysis, rifampin for 4 months was dominant for efficacies from 60%.
CONCLUSIONS: Rifampin for 4 months was more cost-effective than isoniazid for 6 months.