Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus Test and Tuberculin Skin Test for the Diagnosis of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Immunocompetent Subjects in Colombia.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of the QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) test versus the tuberculin skin test in diagnosing latent tuberculosis infection in immunocompetent subjects in the context of the Colombian healthcare system. METHODS: A hypothetical cohort of 2000 immunocompetent adults vaccinated with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin at birth who are asymptomatic for tuberculosis disease was simulated and included in a decision tree over a horizon of <1 year. The direct healthcare costs related to tests, antituberculosis treatment, and medical care were considered, and diagnostic performance was used as a measure of effectiveness. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated, and univariate deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out using 5000 simulations. The currency was the US dollar for the year 2022, with a cost-effectiveness threshold of $6666 USD (1 gross domestic product per capita for 2022). RESULTS: QFT-Plus was cost-effective with an ICER of $5687 USD for each correctly diagnosed case relative to a threshold of $6666 USD. In the deterministic analysis, QFT-Plus was cost-effective in half of the proposed scenarios. The variable that most affected the ICER was the prevalence of latent tuberculosis and test sensitivities. In the probabilistic analysis, QFT-Plus was cost-effective in 54.74% of the simulated scenarios, and tuberculin skin test was dominant in 13.84%. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides evidence of the cost-effectiveness of QFT-Plus compared with the tuberculin skin test in diagnosing latent tuberculosis infection in immunocompetent adults in the Colombian context.

Cost-Utility Analysis Comparing Ocrelizumab Versus Rituximab in the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: The Colombian Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the cost-utility of ocrelizumab versus rituximab in patients with RRMS, from the perspective of the Colombian healthcare system. METHODOLOGY: Cost-utility study based on a Markov model, with a 50-year horizon and payer perspective. The currency was the US dollar for the year 2019, with a cost-effectiveness threshold of $5180 defined for Colombian health system. The model used annual cycles according to the health status determined by the disability scale. Direct costs were considered, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per 1 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was used as the outcome measure. A discount rate of 5% was applied to costs and outcomes. Multiple one-way deterministic sensitivity analyses and 10 000 Monte Carlo simulation were conducted. RESULTS: For the treatment of patients with RRMS, ocrelizumab versus rituximab had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $73 652 for each QALY gained. After 50 years, 1 subject treated with ocrelizumab earns 4.8 QALYs >1 subject treated with rituximab, but at a higher cost of $521 759 versus $168 752, respectively. Ocrelizumab becomes a cost-effective therapy if its price is discounted > 86% or if there is a high willingness to pay. CONCLUSIONS: Ocrelizumab was not a cost-effective drug as compared with rituximab in treating patients with RRMS in Colombia.