Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 97, Issue 1, pp 14–19 | Cite as

The Long-term Health and Economic Benefits of DOTS Implementation in Ecuador

  • Olivia Oxlade
  • Judyth Vaca
  • Elizabeth Romero
  • Kevin Schwartzman
  • Brian Graham
  • Lucero Hernandez
  • Terry Tannenbaum
  • Dick MenziesEmail author
Research

Abstract

Background: Between April 2001 and March 2004, the Directly Observed Therapy-Short course (DOTS) program was successfully implemented by the National Tuberculosis control program, with assistance from the Canadian Lung Association, in three provinces of Ecuador, where 52% of the population of the country reside.

Methods: Markov modelling was used to project TB-related morbidity, mortality and costs if the former TB control program (status quo) had continued or if the newly expanded DOTS program is maintained over 20 years. Extensive sensitivity analyses were used to determine the effect on projected outcomes of varying key assumptions.

Results: If DOTS is maintained over the next 20 years, we predict that 18,760 cases and 15,812 TB-related deaths will be prevented, resulting in societal savings of $203 million and government savings of $7.1 million (all costs in $US). These findings were robust in extensive sensitivity analyses. Given the initial investment of $3 million for DOTS implementation, this would mean a cost of $190 per life saved.

Conclusions: Implementation of DOTS could yield very substantial public health and economic benefits for Ecuador. These results demonstrate the benefits from Canadian government support for DOTS implementation in low- and middle-income countries.

MeSH terms

Tuberculosis control treatment cost effectiveness decision analysis 

Résumé

Contexte: Entre avril 2001 et mars 2004, avec l’aide de l’Association pulmonaire du Canada, le programme équatorien de lutte antituberculeuse a réussi à mettre en oeuvre un programme DOTS (« traitement directement observé sur une courte période ») dans trois provinces de l’Équateur où vit 52 % de la population du pays.

Méthode: Nous avons employé la modélisation par les chaînes de Markov pour calculer les probabilités de morbidité, de mortalité et de coûts liés à la tuberculose si l’ancien programme de lutte antituberculeuse (le statu quo) avait été maintenu ou si le DOTS nouvellement élargi était maintenu au cours des 20 prochaines années. Au moyen d’analyses de sensibilité approfondies, nous avons cherché à déterminer l’effet de diverses hypothèses clés sur les résultats prévus du projet.

Résultats: Si le DOTS est maintenu pendant 20 ans, nous prédisons que 18 760 cas et 15 812 décès liés à la tuberculose seront évités, ce qui économisera à la société des coûts de 203 millions de dollars, et au gouvernement, des coûts de 7,1 millions de dollars (tous les coûts sont en dollars américains). Ces constatations de nos analyses de sensibilité approfondies sont robustes. En supposant un investissement initial de 3 millions de dollars pour la mise en oeuvre du DOTS, le coût moyen par vie épargnée serait de 190 $.

Conclusions: La mise en oeuvre du DOTS pourrait procurer des avantages économiques et de santé publique considérables en Équateur. Ces résultats démontrent les avantages de l’appui du gouvernement canadien à la mise en oeuvre du DOTS dans les pays à faible revenu et à revenu intermédiaire.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Corbett EL, Watt CJ, Walker N, Maher D, Williams BG, Raviglione MC, et al. The growing burden of tuberculosis: Global trends and interactions with the HIV epidemic. Arch Intern Med 2003;163(9):1009–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization. Treatment of Tuberculosis: Guidelines for National Programmes, Second Edition. Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Suarez PG, Watt CJ, Alarcon E, Portocarrero J, Zavala D, Canales R, et al. The dynamics of tuberculosis in response to 10 years of intensive control effort in Peru. J Infect Dis 2001;184:473–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The effect of tuberculosis control in China. Lancet 2004;364(9432):417-22.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vaca J, Peralta H, Gresely L, Cordova R, Kuffo D, Romero E, et al. DOTS implementation in a middle income country - Development and evaluation of a novel approach. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2005;9(5):521–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    World Bank Website. http://www.worldbank.org. 2004 (Accessed on April 15, 2004).
  7. 7.
    Organizacion Panamericana de la Salud. Perfil de Salud del Pais - Ecuador. Pan-American Health Organization, editor. Washington, DC, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lopez AD, Salomon J, Ahmad O, Murray CJL, Mafat D. Life Tables for 191 Countries: Data, Methods and Results. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2000. (GPE Discussion Paper Series: No.9).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell, LB. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996;276(15):1253–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sutherland I. Recent studies in the epidemiology of tuberculosis, based on the risk of being infected with tubercle bacilli. Adv Tuberc Res 1976;19:1–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Control: Surveillance, Planning, Financing. WHO Report 2003. Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    UNAIDS. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/ AIDS. 2002. http://www.unaids.org (Accessed on April 15, 2004).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Insituto Nacional de Estadisticas y Censos. Censo de poblacion y V de vivienda en 2001. Government of Ecuador, editor. http://www.inec.gov.ec. Quito, Ecuador, 2003.(Accessed on April 15, 2004).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anuario de estatisticas vitales NACIMIENTOS Y DEFUNCIONES-INEC-2001. Programa Ampliado de Inmunizaciones MdSPdE, editor. Quito, Ecuador, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Global Drug Facility. First-line tuberculosis drugs & formulations currently supplied/to be supplied by the global TB drug facility. World Health Organization, editor. 2003. http://stoptb.org (Accessed on November 15, 2003).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Floyd K, Skeva J, Nyirenda T, Gausi F, Salaniponi F. Cost and cost-effectiveness of increased community and primary care facility involvement in tuberculosis care in Lilongwe District, Malawi. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2003;7(9 Suppl 1):S29–S37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Floyd K, Wilkinson D, Gilks C. Comparison of cost effectiveness of directly observed treatment (DOT) and conventionally delivered treatment for tuberculosis: Experience from rural South Africa. BMJ 1997;315(7120):1407–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwartzman K, Oxlade O, Barr G, Grimard F, Acosta I, Baez J, et al. Domestic returns from investment in the control of tuberculosis in other countries. N Engl J Med 2005;353(10):1008–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Elzinga G, Raviglione MC, Maher D. Scale up: Meeting targets in global tuberculosis control. Lancet 2004;363(9411):814–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    DeRiemer K, Garcia-Garcia L, Bobadilla-del-Valle M, Palacios-Martinez M, Martinez-Gamboa A, Small PM, et al. Does DOTS work in populations with drug-resistant tuberculosis. Lancet 2005;365(9466):1239–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Styblo K. The relationship between the risk of tuberculosis infection and the risk of developing infectious tuberculosis. Bull Int Union Tuberc 1985;60(3-4):117–19.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    World Health Organization. Global Drug Resistance Surveillance - Country Data for Ecuador (2002). World Health Organization, Washington, DC, 2004.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sherman LF, Fujiwara PI, Cook SV, Bazerman LB, Frieden, TR. Patient and health care system delays in the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 1999;3(12):1088–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yamasaki-Nakagawa M, Ozasa K, Yamada N, Osuga K, Shimouchi A, Ishikawa N, et al. Gender difference in delays to diagnosis and health care seeking behaviour in a rural area of Nepal. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2001;5(1):24–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wandwalo ER, Mørkve O. Delay in tuberculosis case-finding and treatment in Mwanza, Tanzania. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2000;4(2):133–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Caminero Luna, JA. Guia de la Tuberculosis para Medicos Especialistas. Union Internacional contra la Tuberculosis y Enfermedades Respiratorias (UICTER), editor. 2003. Imprimé en France, Imprimerie Chirat. Dépot Légal 2003 No. 6432.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Floyd K, Blanc L, Raviglione M, Lee JW. Resources required for global tuberculosis control. Science 2002;295(5562):2040–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gupta R, Cegielski JP, Espinal MA, Henkens M, Kim JY, Lambregts-van Weezenbeek CSB, et al. Increasing transparency in partnerships for health - introducing the Green Light Committee. Tropical Medicine and International Health 2002;7(2):970–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suarez PG, Floyd K, Portocarrero J, Alarcon E, Rapiti E, Ramos G, et al. Feasibility and costeffectiveness of standardised second-line drug treatment for chronic tuberculosis patients: A national cohort study in Peru. Lancet 2002;359(9322):1980–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olivia Oxlade
    • 1
  • Judyth Vaca
    • 2
  • Elizabeth Romero
    • 3
  • Kevin Schwartzman
    • 1
  • Brian Graham
    • 2
  • Lucero Hernandez
    • 2
  • Terry Tannenbaum
    • 2
  • Dick Menzies
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Respiratory Epidemiology & Clinical Research UnitMontreal Chest Institute/ McGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Canadian Lung AssociationOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Ecuadorian National TB programmeQuitoEcuador

Personalised recommendations