Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34782538›Full record

ArticleThe Indian journal of medical research2021

Cost-effectiveness of incorporating

Malaisamy Muniyandi, Malkeet Singh, Manjula Singh, Kavitha Rajshekhar, Kiran Katoch

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Indian journal of medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Malaisamy MuniyandiDepartment of Health Economics, ICMR-National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Malkeet SinghDepartment of Health Research, Ministry of Health & Family Planning, Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Manjula SinghDivision of Epidemiology & Communicable Diseases, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi, India.
Kavitha RajshekharDepartment of Health Research, Ministry of Health & Family Planning, Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Kiran KatochDistinguished Dr A.S. Paintal Scientist Chair of ICMR at Indian Institute of Health Management Research University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Government of India · INIIHMR University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background & objectives: The elimination goal for leprosy as a public health problem at the national level was achieved in 2005 in India. However, the number of new cases reporting annually remained nearly the same during the last 10-15 years. Moreover, a substantial number of these new cases reported disabilities for the first time. Therefore, besides multidrug therapy (MDT), newer strategies with focus on effectively decreasing the number of new cases, optimizing the treatment of detected cases, averting disabilities and arresting the transmission of the disease are required. So the objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of Mycobacterium indicus pranii (MIP) vaccine implementation in National Leprosy Eradication Programme (NLEP) for newly diagnosed leprosy patients as well as their contacts to arrest/decrease the transmission and occurrence of new cases. Methods: This was a model-based estimation of incremental costs, total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, new cases averted, deaths averted, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and budget impact of the vaccination intervention. This model included the addition of MIP treatment intervention to the newly detected leprosy patients as well as vaccination with MIP to their contacts. Results: Using the societal perspective, discounted ICER was estimated to be ₹73,790 per QALY gained over a five-year time period. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was assessed by varying the values of input parameters. Majority (96%) of simulations fell in North East quadrant of cost-effectiveness plane, which were all below the willingness to pay threshold. Interpretation & conclusions: Introduction of MIP vaccination in the NLEP appears to be a cost-effective strategy for India. Significant health gains were reduction in the number of new leprosy cases, decreased incidence and severity of reactions during treatment, and after release from treatment, prevention of disabilities, thus reducing the cost as well as stigma of the disease.

Indexed as

LeprosyVaccinesCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug Therapy, CombinationHumansIndiaLeprostatic AgentsMycobacteriumQuality-Adjusted Life YearsTreatment OutcomeLeprostatic AgentsVaccinesCost-effectivenessdisabilitieseconomic evaluationincremental cost-effectiveness ratioMycobacterium indicus praniiNational Leprosy Eradication Programmequality-adjusted life years

Identifiers

PMID34782538
PMCPMC8715682
OpenAlexW3213334236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.