Back

Household contact management of drug-resistant tuberculosis: a global cost-effectiveness modelling analysis of expanded preventive treatment by age

Mafirakureva, N.; McQuaid, C. F.; Harker, M.; Garcia-Prats, A.; Hesseling, A. C.; Seddon, J. A.; Dodd, P.

2026-10-02 public and global health
10.64898/2026.10.01.26364489 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background. Tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT) with levofloxacin reduces tuberculosis disease incidence in multidrug-resistant or rifampicin-resistant (MDR/RR)-tuberculosis household contacts. However, with age, disease progression risk falls and the frequency of adverse events (AE) rises. Methods. To inform decision-makers, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of expanding the use of MDR/RR-TPT by age, with and without tests of tuberculosis infection. We modelled MDR/RR-household contact management (HHCM) in 189 countries, incorporating age-dependent risks of disease progression, death and AEs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as USD/disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted, and as a fraction of per capita gross domestic product (GDP). Findings. Compared to baseline of MDR/RR-HHCM with TPT for those <15 years, adding TPT up to 45 years was cost-effective at a threshold of 30% GDP in 160/189 modelled countries including 17 of the 30 highest incidence countries. Of these 160 countries, the intervention was cost-saving in 46. Strategies targeting TPT to those testing positive for M. tuberculosis infection were dominated by those without testing. Globally, full use of MDR/RR-HHCM with TPT for all would avert 11,900 (10,400 to 13,800) episodes of tuberculosis, 9,960 (9,100 to 10,900) deaths, and 289,000 (262,000 to 321,000) DALYs, but would result in 71,000 (68,000 to 74,000) SAEs and cost $359 million (294 to 449). Interpretation. Expanding MDR/RR-TPT use to older ages without testing appears cost-effective in most settings, but may require substantial resources and result in large numbers of AEs. Funding. Unitaid

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.