Table 1.
Base-case parameters and probabilities used in the model.
Table 2.
Utility adjustments for events occurring in the model, expressed as fractions of a life-year.
Table 3.
Costs in US$ associated with treating latent TB infection.
Table 4.
Costs in US$ associated with treating active TB.
Figure 1.
Cost-effectiveness plot of the four regimens and the “no treatment” strategy.
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) are represented by the inverse slope of the dotted and dashed lines between strategies. Abbreviations: 9H = isoniazid daily for 9 months, 3HP = isoniazid plus rifapentine weekly for 3 months, 1HP = isoniazid plus rifapentine daily for 1 month. SAT = self-administered therapy, DOT = directly-observed therapy.
Table 5.
Costs, effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the four drug regimens in order of increasing effectiveness, referenced to the strategy of “no treatment.”
Figure 2.
Two-way sensitivity analysis strategy graph comparing risk reduction and adherence for isoniazid/rifapentine daily for one month (1HP).
The clear area shows combinations of adherence and risk reduction for 1HP that are high enough that 1HP is a cost-saving regimen. In the cross-hatched area, all combinations of adherence and risk reduction for 1HP are too low, so isoniazid/rifapentine monthly for 12 weeks self-administered (3HP-SAT) is preferred regimen.
Figure 3.
Two-way sensitivity analysis strategy graph comparing adherence for isoniazid/rifapentine daily for one month (1HP) vs. isoniazid/rifapentine weekly for three months self-administered (3HP-SAT).
In the diagonal cross-hatched area, 1HP is cost-saving and therefore the preferred regimen. In the horizontal cross-hatched area, 3HP-SAT is cost-saving. In the shaded area, neither regimen is cost-saving when compared to isoniazid monotherapy daily for nine months (9H), which is the preferred regimen.