ArticleBMJ open2021
Cost-effectiveness analysis of 3 months of weekly rifapentine and isoniazid compared to isoniazid monotherapy in a Canadian arctic setting.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of 3-months isoniazid and rifapentine compared to 9-months isoniazid for latent tuberculosis infection: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2022Pooled it
- Costs of 4 Months of Rifampin Versus 2 Months of Double-dose Rifampin for Tuberculosis Infection: Post-Hoc Analysis of a Phase 2b Randomized Trial.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Trial
- Cost-effectiveness of preventive treatment regimens for latent tuberculosis infection among key community-level populations.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of levofloxacin therapy for household contacts of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in Vietnam.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Opportunities for tuberculosis elimination in the Canadian Arctic: cost-effectiveness of community-wide screening in a remote Arctic community.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2024Article
- The Global Expansion of LTBI Screening and Treatment Programs: Exploring Gaps in the Supporting Economic Evidence.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Preventive Treatment for Household Contacts of Drug-Susceptible Tuberculosis Patients.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Effects of Enzyme Induction and Polymorphism on the Pharmacokinetics of Isoniazid and Rifampin in Tuberculosis/HIV Patients.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2022Article
- Costs of Tuberculosis at 3 Treatment Centers, Canada, 2010-2016.Emerging infectious diseases · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the cost effectiveness of once weekly rifapentine and isoniazid for 12 weeks (3HP) to the current standard care for latent tuberculosis (TB) infection (LTBI) in Iqaluit, Nunavut.
designA cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model reflecting local practices for LTBI treatment.
settingA remote Canadian arctic community with a high incidence of TB.
participantsHypothetical patients with LTBI.
interventionsThe cost effectiveness of 3HP was compared with the existing standard of care in the study region which consists of 9 months of twice weekly isoniazid (9H) given by directly observed therapy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with model parameters were derived from historical programmatic data, a local implementation study of 3HP and published literature. Costs from the perspective of the Nunavut healthcare system were measured in 2019 US dollars and were obtained primarily from local, empirically collected data. Secondary health outcomes included estimated TB cases and TB deaths averted using 3HP versus 9H. One way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
resultsThe 3HP regimen was dominant over 9H: costs were lower (US$628 vs US$924/person) and health outcomes slightly improved (20.14 vs 20.13 QALYs/person). In comparison to 9H, 3HP treatment resulted in fewer TB cases (27.89 vs 30.16/1000 persons) and TB deaths (2.29 vs 2.48/1000 persons). 3HP completion, initiation and risk of fatal adverse events were the primary drivers of cost effectiveness.
conclusionIn a remote Canadian arctic setting, using 3HP instead of 9H for LTBI treatment may result in cost savings and similar or improved health outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.