ArticleAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2026
Potential long-acting tuberculosis treatment for people with HIV: cost-effectiveness benchmarks.
Article in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleLong-acting tuberculosis (TB) drugs could improve treatment outcomes in South Africa, where there is high prevalence of HIV and TB coinfection and high attrition from standard TB treatment, but potential benefits must be weighed against costs.
objectivesTo identify scenarios where a long-acting TB treatment would provide clinical benefit and be cost-effective compared with standard TB treatment for people with HIV in South Africa.
methodsWe used a microsimulation model to compare clinical and cost outcomes of (1) standard-of-care 6-month oral TB treatment (SOC); and (2) a long-acting treatment regimen, entailing standard oral therapy for 2 months followed by a one-time injection (LA). Base case parameters for the SOC/LA strategies included efficacy, 97.6%/97.6%; disengagement on oral therapy, 4.8% per month; TB relapse, 0.34%/0.34% per month starting 5 months after regimen completion; and total regimen cost, US$50.40/$199.80 (cost of long-acting injectable drug alone, $175). We varied these parameters in sensitivity analysis. Outcomes included mortality, treatment completions, TB relapses, life-years, and health system costs. We defined LA to be cost-effective compared to SOC when its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was <$3,000 per year-of-life saved (YLS).
resultsIn base case simulations, the LA strategy would produce lower all-cause mortality (11.4% vs 11.6%) and less disengagement (12.9% vs 20.9%) than SOC at 6 months. LA would be cost-effective in the base case at the lifetime horizon (ICER $520/YLS) and at 24 months (ICER $2230/YLS). Over the lifetime horizon, LA would be cost-effective compared with SOC over all parameter ranges evaluated in one-way sensitivity analysis. At 24 months, LA would not be cost-effective compared to SOC when LA efficacy is <96%, monthly probability of disengagement from the oral regimen component of SOC and LA is <4%, or cost of the long-acting injectable drug is >$200.
conclusionsThere are combinations of efficacy, cost, and care disengagement at which a long-acting injectable TB treatment regimen could be cost-effective compared with the conventional oral treatment. Cost-effectiveness could be achieved if the long-acting treatment regimen maintains high efficacy at reasonable cost, especially when disengagement from -standard oral treatment is high.
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.