Advertisement

Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 281–286 | Cite as

Cost of illness of tuberculosis in Penang, Malaysia

  • Elfatih Ibrahim Elamin
  • Mohamed Izham Mohamed IbrahimEmail author
  • Syed Azhar Syed Sulaiman
  • Abdul Razak Muttalif
Research Article

Abstract

Objective To assess the costs incurred by the public health services and patients as a result of tuberculosis (TB) treatment. Setting The study was conducted in a government hospital located in the northern region of Malaysia. Method Retrospective data were collected from medical records and the patients were observed until the completion of their medication. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation was applied to calculate direct and indirect costs. Main Outcome Measure Direct and indirect costs of tuberculosis treatment in a government health institution. Results Two hundred and one tuberculosis patients were included in the study. Different regimens with various durations of treatments were used. The direct medical and non-medical costs as well as indirect costs were calculated and were found to be as follows: US$61.44 for anti-tuberculosis drugs and supplies, US$28.63 for X-ray examinations, US$28.53 for laboratory tests, US$20.03 for healthcare staff time, US$4.28 for hospitalisation, US$43.20 for overhead costs, US$608.11 for transportation and meals and US$118.78 for time away from work. The cost to the patients constitutes approximately 80% of the total cost of the treatment. Conclusion The cost of treating the illness of tuberculosis per patient was US$916.4. The cost of anti-tuberculosis drugs constituted the highest proportion of the cost to the public health services (31.7%) while the cost to the patient constituted the major proportion of the total cost of the illness (79.4%).

Keywords

Cost-of-illness Direct cost Government hospital setting Indirect cost Malaysia Pharmacoeconomics Tuberculosis (TB) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all staff at the Chest Clinic of the Penang Hospital for their continuous help and their endless patience in searching for the files of tuberculosis patient throughout the data collection period. Their assistance is greatly appreciated.

Conflict of interests

We would like to declare that there is no conflict of interests in conducting this research. This study was conducted as part of the MSc research.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. Anti-tuberculosis drug resistance in the world. Geneva: WHO Global TB Programme; 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elsony A, Suliaman E, Shinawy A. Manual of tuberculosis control programme in Sudan, 3rd ed. Sudan: Federal Ministry of Health; 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    American Thoracic Society. Diagnostic standard, classification of TB in adults and children. Am. J. Respir. Care Med. 2000;161:1376–95.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    World Health Organization. Towards a TB free future. Geneva: WHO/CDS/STB; 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    The Caribbean Epidemiology Centre. Tuberculosis manual of prevention & control procedures 1st ed. Trinidad; 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    World Health Organization. The economic impacts of tuberculosis. Amsterdam: Stop TB Initiative; 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wyss K, Kilima P, Lorenz N. Cost of tuberculosis for household and health care providers in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2001;6:60–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iseman M, Chan E. Current medical treatment for tuberculosis. BMJ 2002;320:282–6.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lyawoo K. Tuberculosis in Malaysia: problems and prospect of treatment and control. Tuberculosis 2004;84:4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Malaysia Tuberculosis Control Programme. NTB report for the year 2001. Malaysia: Ministry of Health; 2001.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zwarenstein M, Schoeman J, Vundule C, Lombard C, Tatley M. Randomised controlled trial of self-supervised and directly observed treatment of Tuberculosis. Lancet 1998;352:1340–1343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jerant A, Bannon M, Rittenhouse S. Identification and management of Tuberculosis. Am. Fam. Physician 2000;61:2667–2678.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Core curriculum on tuberculosis, 4th ed. Atlanta: Department of Health & Human services; 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Islam M, Wakai S, Ishikawa N, Chowdhury A, Vaughan J. Cost-effectiveness of community health workers in tuberculosis control in Bangladesh. Bull. World Health Organ. 2002;80:445–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanderson P. An economic evaluation of alternative programme designs for Tuberculosis control in rural Uganda. Soc. Sci. Med. 1995;40:1203–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hurtiga A, Pande S, Porter J, Dam D. Tuberculosis treatment and private practitioners in Kathmandu Valley. J. Nap. Med. Assoc. 2000;39:163–8.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guwatudde D, Zalwango S, Kamy M, Debanne S, Diaz M, Okwera A, Mugerwa R, King C, Whalen C. Burden of tuberculosis in Kamala, Uganda. Bull. World Health Organ. 2003;81(11):799–805.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. morbidity and mortality weekly report–treatment of tuberculosis. June 20, 2003/52(RR11);1–77.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elfatih Ibrahim Elamin
    • 1
  • Mohamed Izham Mohamed Ibrahim
    • 1
    Email author
  • Syed Azhar Syed Sulaiman
    • 1
  • Abdul Razak Muttalif
    • 2
  1. 1.Social and Administrative Pharmacy School of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversiti Sains MalaysiaPenangMalaysia
  2. 2.Chest ClinicPenang HospitalPenangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations