ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Cost-effectiveness evaluation of bedaquiline- and delamanid-containing regimens for multidrug-/rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in China: a retrospective study based on three nationwide, real-world multicenter cohorts.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bedaquiline and delamanid are novel anti-tuberculosis drugs approved in China and recommended by the World Health Organization, with demonstrated good efficacy and safety profile in clinical trials. However, health economic evaluations of these new drugs using modeling approaches are limited in China. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two novel drug containing regimens compared to traditional regimen in Chinese adult population. Methods: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the patient. Clinical treatment information and outcomes were retrospectively collected from the respective Electronic Data Collection systems. Patient costs were obtained via hospital records. A decision tree-Markov model was constructed, employing a 1-month cycle length, to simulate a 10-year life course of patients receiving different treatment regimens at the age of 39. Transition probabilities were informed by outcome data supplemented with literature sources. Outcomes included average costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a cost-effectiveness comparison between novel drug containing regimens and traditional regimens. Results: The average diagnosis and treatment cost per case for regimens containing new drugs were higher than that for the traditional long-course regimen (traditional regimen: 95,142.74 CNY; bedaquiline-containing regimen: 149,837.33 CNY; delamanid-containing regimen: 140,351.38 CNY). However, the new drug containing regimens yielded more QALYs compared to traditional regimen (traditional regimen: 6.24 QALYs; bedaquiline-containing regimen: 6.81 QALYs; delamanid-containing regimen: 6.72 QALYs). Incremental cost, Incremental effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were 54,698.29 CNY, 0.59 QALYs, 100,029.40 CNY/QALY for cohort B and 45,212.35 CNY, 0.50 QALYs, 90,711.44 CNY/QALY for cohort C. Sensitivity analysis indicated a willingness-to-pay threshold of 105,323.9 CNY/QALY as the point with which the bedaquiline-containing regimen became the dominant cost-effective option. Conclusions: Both new drug-containing regimens demonstrated health economic value and can be recommended as novel treatment options for multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. However, further price reduction for these new drugs remains necessary to enhance affordability and accessibility.
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.