菲律宾耐药性结核病治疗中使用的 BPaL 方案的成本和成本效益

D. Evans, K. Hirasen, D.J. Casalme, M.T. Gler, A. Gupta, S. Juneja
{"title":"菲律宾耐药性结核病治疗中使用的 BPaL 方案的成本和成本效益","authors":"D. Evans, K. Hirasen, D.J. Casalme, M.T. Gler, A. Gupta, S. Juneja","doi":"10.5588/ijtldopen.24.0094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDIn 2022, the WHO announced that the 6-month BPaL/M regimen should be used for drug-resistant TB (DR-TB). We estimate the patient and provider costs of BPaL compared to current standard-of-care treatment in the Philippines.METHODSPatients\n on BPaL under operational research, or 9–11-month standard short oral regimen (SSOR) and 18–21-month standard long oral regimen (SLOR) under programmatic conditions were interviewed using the WHO cross-sectional TB patient cost tool. Provider costs were assessed through a bottom-up\n and top-down costing analysis.RESULTSTotal patient costs per treatment episode were lowest with BPaL (USD518.0) and increased with use of SSOR (USD825.8) and SLOR (USD1,023.0). Total provider costs per successful treatment were lowest with\n BPaL (USD1,994.5) and increased with SSOR (USD3,121.5) and SLOR (USD10,032.4). Compared to SSOR, BPaL treatment was cost-effective at even the lowest willingness to pay threshold. As expected, SLOR was the costliest and least effective regimen.CONCLUSIONSCosts\n incurred by patients on BPaL were 37% (95% CI 22–56) less than SSOR and 50% (95% CI 32–68) less than SLOR, while providers could save 36% (95% CI 21–56) to 80% (95% CI 64–93) per successful treatment, respectively. The study shows that treatment of DR-TB with BPaL was\n cost-saving for patients and cost-effective for the health system.","PeriodicalId":516613,"journal":{"name":"IJTLD OPEN","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost and cost-effectiveness of BPaL regimen used in drug-resistant TB treatment in the Philippines\",\"authors\":\"D. Evans, K. Hirasen, D.J. Casalme, M.T. Gler, A. Gupta, S. Juneja\",\"doi\":\"10.5588/ijtldopen.24.0094\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUNDIn 2022, the WHO announced that the 6-month BPaL/M regimen should be used for drug-resistant TB (DR-TB). We estimate the patient and provider costs of BPaL compared to current standard-of-care treatment in the Philippines.METHODSPatients\\n on BPaL under operational research, or 9–11-month standard short oral regimen (SSOR) and 18–21-month standard long oral regimen (SLOR) under programmatic conditions were interviewed using the WHO cross-sectional TB patient cost tool. Provider costs were assessed through a bottom-up\\n and top-down costing analysis.RESULTSTotal patient costs per treatment episode were lowest with BPaL (USD518.0) and increased with use of SSOR (USD825.8) and SLOR (USD1,023.0). Total provider costs per successful treatment were lowest with\\n BPaL (USD1,994.5) and increased with SSOR (USD3,121.5) and SLOR (USD10,032.4). Compared to SSOR, BPaL treatment was cost-effective at even the lowest willingness to pay threshold. As expected, SLOR was the costliest and least effective regimen.CONCLUSIONSCosts\\n incurred by patients on BPaL were 37% (95% CI 22–56) less than SSOR and 50% (95% CI 32–68) less than SLOR, while providers could save 36% (95% CI 21–56) to 80% (95% CI 64–93) per successful treatment, respectively. The study shows that treatment of DR-TB with BPaL was\\n cost-saving for patients and cost-effective for the health system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":516613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IJTLD OPEN\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IJTLD OPEN\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5588/ijtldopen.24.0094\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IJTLD OPEN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5588/ijtldopen.24.0094","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景2022年,世界卫生组织宣布对耐药结核病(DR-TB)采用为期6个月的BPaL/M方案。我们估算了菲律宾 BPaL 与当前标准治疗相比的患者和医疗服务提供者成本。方法使用世界卫生组织横断面肺结核患者成本工具,采访了在运行研究条件下接受 BPaL 治疗的患者,或在计划条件下接受 9-11 个月标准短程口服治疗方案(SSOR)和 18-21 个月标准长程口服治疗方案(SLOR)的患者。结果使用 BPaL 时患者每次治疗的总费用最低(518.0 美元),使用 SSOR(825.8 美元)和 SLOR(1,023.0 美元)时患者每次治疗的总费用增加。BPaL 每次成功治疗的医疗服务提供者总成本最低(1,994.5 美元),SSOR(3,121.5 美元)和 SLOR(10,032.4 美元)则有所增加。与 SSOR 相比,即使在最低支付意愿阈值下,BPaL 治疗也具有成本效益。结论患者接受 BPaL 治疗的费用比 SSOR 低 37%(95% CI 22-56),比 SLOR 低 50%(95% CI 32-68),而医疗服务提供者每次成功治疗可分别节省 36%(95% CI 21-56)至 80%(95% CI 64-93)的费用。研究结果表明,使用 BPaL 治疗 DR-TB 可为患者节省费用,对卫生系统而言也具有成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cost and cost-effectiveness of BPaL regimen used in drug-resistant TB treatment in the Philippines
BACKGROUNDIn 2022, the WHO announced that the 6-month BPaL/M regimen should be used for drug-resistant TB (DR-TB). We estimate the patient and provider costs of BPaL compared to current standard-of-care treatment in the Philippines.METHODSPatients on BPaL under operational research, or 9–11-month standard short oral regimen (SSOR) and 18–21-month standard long oral regimen (SLOR) under programmatic conditions were interviewed using the WHO cross-sectional TB patient cost tool. Provider costs were assessed through a bottom-up and top-down costing analysis.RESULTSTotal patient costs per treatment episode were lowest with BPaL (USD518.0) and increased with use of SSOR (USD825.8) and SLOR (USD1,023.0). Total provider costs per successful treatment were lowest with BPaL (USD1,994.5) and increased with SSOR (USD3,121.5) and SLOR (USD10,032.4). Compared to SSOR, BPaL treatment was cost-effective at even the lowest willingness to pay threshold. As expected, SLOR was the costliest and least effective regimen.CONCLUSIONSCosts incurred by patients on BPaL were 37% (95% CI 22–56) less than SSOR and 50% (95% CI 32–68) less than SLOR, while providers could save 36% (95% CI 21–56) to 80% (95% CI 64–93) per successful treatment, respectively. The study shows that treatment of DR-TB with BPaL was cost-saving for patients and cost-effective for the health system.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信