Economic and modeling evidence for tuberculosis preventive therapy among people living with HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the strongest known risk factor for tuberculosis (TB) through its impairment of T-cell immunity. Tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT) is recommended for people living with HIV (PLHIV) by the World Health Organization, as it significantly reduces the risk of developing TB disease. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of modeling studies to summarize projected costs, risks, benefits, and impacts of TPT use among PLHIV on TB-related outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science from inception until December 31, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts; extracted data; and assessed quality. Extracted data were summarized using descriptive analysis. We performed quantile regression and random effects meta-analysis to describe trends in cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness outcomes across studies and identified key determinants of these outcomes. Our search identified 6,615 titles; 61 full texts were included in the final review. Of the 61 included studies, 31 reported both cost and effectiveness outcomes. A total of 41 were set in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), while 12 were set in high-income countries (HICs); 2 were set in both. Most studies considered isoniazid (INH)-based regimens 6 to 2 months long (n = 45), or longer than 12 months (n = 11). Model parameters and assumptions varied widely between studies. Despite this, all studies found that providing TPT to PLHIV was predicted to be effective at averting TB disease. No TPT regimen was substantially more effective at averting TB disease than any other. The cost of providing TPT and subsequent downstream costs (e.g. post-TPT health systems costs) were estimated to be less than $1,500 (2020 USD) per person in 85% of studies that reported cost outcomes (n = 36), regardless of study setting. All cost-effectiveness analyses concluded that providing TPT to PLHIV was potentially cost-effective compared to not providing TPT. In quantitative analyses, country income classification, consideration of antiretroviral therapy (ART) use, and TPT regimen use significantly impacted cost-effectiveness. Studies evaluating TPT in HICs suggested that TPT may be more effective at preventing TB disease than studies evaluating TPT in LMICs; pooled incremental net monetary benefit, given a willingness-to-pay threshold of country-level per capita gross domestic product (GDP), was $271 in LMICs (95% confidence interval [CI] -$81 to $622, p = 0.12) and was $2,568 in HICs (-$32,115 to $37,251, p = 0.52). Similarly, TPT appeared to be more effective at averting TB disease in HICs; pooled percent reduction in active TB incidence was 20% (13% to 27%, p < 0.001) in LMICs and 37% (-34% to 100%, p = 0.13) in HICs. Key limitations of this review included the heterogeneity of input parameters and assumptions from included studies, which limited pooling of effect estimates, inconsistent reporting of model parameters, which limited sample sizes of quantitative analyses, and database bias toward English publications. CONCLUSIONS: The body of literature related to modeling TPT among PLHIV is large and heterogeneous, making comparisons across studies difficult. Despite this variability, all studies in all settings concluded that providing TPT to PLHIV is potentially effective and cost-effective for preventing TB disease.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,019 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».