Denny John1, Prabir Chatterjee2, Shruti Murthy3, Ramesh Bhat4, Baba Maiyaki Musa5. 1. Evidence Synthesis Specialist, Campbell Collaboration, New Delhi, India; PhD Candidate-HTA, Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. Electronic address: djohn1976@gmail.com. 2. Executive Director, State Health Systems Resource Center (SHSRC), First Floor, Health Training Centre Building, Bijli Chowk, Kalibadi, Raipur 492001, Chhattisgarh, India. 3. Department of Statistics, Level 6, Health Science Library, Prasanna School of Public Health, Manipal University, Madhav Nagar, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India. 4. Advisor to the Chancellor, NMIMS University, Mumbai 400056, India. 5. Lecturer, Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In India, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) patients are usually treated in hospitals. Decentralised care model, however, has been suggested as a possible alternative by the World Health Organization (WHO). In the "End TB Strategy", the WHO highlights, as one of the key targets for 2035, that 'no TB-affected families should face catastrophic hardship due to the tuberculosis'. Removal of financial barriers to health-care access and mitigation of catastrophic expenditures are therefore considered vital to achieve the universal health coverage (UHC) goal. Since forgoing healthcare due to the financial constraints is a known fact in India, decentralised care as an intervention choice (as against hospital-based care) might enhance equity provided it is an affordable choice. Thus, an economic evaluation was conducted, from the perspective of the national health system in India, to assess the cost-effectiveness of decentralised care compared to centralised care for MDR-TB. METHODS: This study uses a decision-analytic model with a follow-up of two years to assess the expected costs of the decentralised versus the centralised approaches for MDR-TB treatment. A published systematic review of observational studies yielded the MDR-TB treatment outcomes, which included treatment success, treatment default, treatment failure, and mortality parameters. It was observed that these parameters did not vary significantly between the two alternatives. Treatment costs included the following costs: hospital admission costs, clinic costs, visits to laboratory and MDR-TB centre, drug therapy, injections and food. Costs data of drugs, diagnosis, hospital stay and travel to public facilities, based on a simple market survey, were taken from a recently published study on MDR-TB expenditures in the Chhattisgarh state of India. Potential cost savings related to the implementation of decentralised MDR-TB care for all patients who initiated MDR-TB treatment in India were additionally estimated. RESULTS: Estimated average expected total treatment cost was US$ 3390.56 for the hospital-based model and US$ 1724.1 for the decentralised model for a patient treated for MDR-TB in India, generating potential savings of US$1666.50 per case, with ICER US$ 2382.68 per QALY gained. One of the primary drivers of this difference was the significantly more intensive (thus expensive) stay charges in the hospital. If the costs and treatment probabilities are extrapolated to the whole country, with 48114 MDR-TB patients initiated on treatment in 2017, decentralised care would have additional 1058 patients cured, gain additional 3824 QALYs, and avert 2165 deaths, as compared to centralised care, in India. At various scenarios of coverage rates of decentralised and centralised care the cost difference would range between 23% and 94% for the country. CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence of cost savings for MDR-TB patients if patients choose decentralised treatment in comparison to suggested hospitalisation of these patients for centralised treatment with similar outcomes. The economic evaluation presented in this study expected significant efficiency gains in choice of two treatment options and the cost savings may improve equity. In India, treatment of MDR-TB using decentralised care is expected to result in similar patient outcomes at markedly reduced public health costs compared with centralised care.
BACKGROUND: In India, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) patients are usually treated in hospitals. Decentralised care model, however, has been suggested as a possible alternative by the World Health Organization (WHO). In the "End TB Strategy", the WHO highlights, as one of the key targets for 2035, that 'no TB-affected families should face catastrophic hardship due to the tuberculosis'. Removal of financial barriers to health-care access and mitigation of catastrophic expenditures are therefore considered vital to achieve the universal health coverage (UHC) goal. Since forgoing healthcare due to the financial constraints is a known fact in India, decentralised care as an intervention choice (as against hospital-based care) might enhance equity provided it is an affordable choice. Thus, an economic evaluation was conducted, from the perspective of the national health system in India, to assess the cost-effectiveness of decentralised care compared to centralised care for MDR-TB. METHODS: This study uses a decision-analytic model with a follow-up of two years to assess the expected costs of the decentralised versus the centralised approaches for MDR-TB treatment. A published systematic review of observational studies yielded the MDR-TB treatment outcomes, which included treatment success, treatment default, treatment failure, and mortality parameters. It was observed that these parameters did not vary significantly between the two alternatives. Treatment costs included the following costs: hospital admission costs, clinic costs, visits to laboratory and MDR-TB centre, drug therapy, injections and food. Costs data of drugs, diagnosis, hospital stay and travel to public facilities, based on a simple market survey, were taken from a recently published study on MDR-TB expenditures in the Chhattisgarh state of India. Potential cost savings related to the implementation of decentralised MDR-TB care for all patients who initiated MDR-TB treatment in India were additionally estimated. RESULTS: Estimated average expected total treatment cost was US$ 3390.56 for the hospital-based model and US$ 1724.1 for the decentralised model for a patient treated for MDR-TB in India, generating potential savings of US$1666.50 per case, with ICER US$ 2382.68 per QALY gained. One of the primary drivers of this difference was the significantly more intensive (thus expensive) stay charges in the hospital. If the costs and treatment probabilities are extrapolated to the whole country, with 48114 MDR-TBpatients initiated on treatment in 2017, decentralised care would have additional 1058 patients cured, gain additional 3824 QALYs, and avert 2165 deaths, as compared to centralised care, in India. At various scenarios of coverage rates of decentralised and centralised care the cost difference would range between 23% and 94% for the country. CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence of cost savings for MDR-TBpatients if patients choose decentralised treatment in comparison to suggested hospitalisation of these patients for centralised treatment with similar outcomes. The economic evaluation presented in this study expected significant efficiency gains in choice of two treatment options and the cost savings may improve equity. In India, treatment of MDR-TB using decentralised care is expected to result in similar patient outcomes at markedly reduced public health costs compared with centralised care.
Authors: Pranay Sinha; Subitha L Lakshminarayanan; Chelsie Cintron; Prakash Babu Narasimhan; Lindsey M Locks; Nalin Kulatilaka; Kimberly Maloomian; Senbagavalli Prakash Babu; Madeline E Carwile; Anne F Liu; C Robert Horsburgh; Carlos Acuna-Villaorduna; Benjamin P Linas; Natasha S Hochberg Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2022-09-10 Impact factor: 20.999