Leprosy post-exposure prophylaxis in the Indian health system: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

India has the highest burden of leprosy in the world. Following a recent WHO guideline, the Indian National Leprosy Programme is introducing post-exposure prophylaxis with single-dose rifampicin (SDR-PEP) in all high-endemic districts of the country. The aim of this study is to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of SDR-PEP in different leprosy disability burden situations. We used a stochastic individual-based model (SIMCOLEP) to simulate the leprosy new case detection rate trend and the impact of implementing contact screening and SDR-PEP from 2016 to 2040 (25 years) in the Union Territory of Dadra Nagar Haveli (DNH) in India. Effects of the intervention were expressed as disability adjusted life years (DALY) averted under three assumption of disability prevention: 1) all grade 1 disability (G1D) cases prevented; 2) G1D cases prevented in PB cases only; 3) no disability prevented. Costs were US$ 2.9 per contact. Costs and effects were discounted at 3%. The incremental cost per DALY averted by SDR-PEP was US$ 210, US$ 447, and US$ 5,673 in the 25th year under assumption 1, 2, and 3, respectively. If prevention of G1D was assumed, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 1.0 at the threshold of US$ 2,000, which is equivalent to the GDP per capita of India. The probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.6, if no disability prevention was assumed. The cost per new leprosy case averted was US$ 2,873. Contact listing, screening and the provision of SDR-PEP is a cost-effective strategy in leprosy control in both the short (5 years) and long term (25 years). The cost-effectiveness depends on the extent to which disability can be prevented. As the intervention becomes increasingly cost-effective in the long term, we recommend a long-term commitment for its implementation.

Cost-effectiveness of a chemoprophylactic intervention with single dose rifampicin in contacts of new leprosy patients.

BACKGROUND: With 249,007 new leprosy patients detected globally in 2008, it remains necessary to develop new and effective interventions to interrupt the transmission of M. leprae. We assessed the economic benefits of single dose rifampicin (SDR) for contacts as chemoprophylactic intervention in the control of leprosy. METHODS: We conducted a single centre, double blind, cluster randomised, placebo controlled trial in northwest Bangladesh between 2002 and 2007, including 21,711 close contacts of 1,037 patients with newly diagnosed leprosy. We gave a single dose of rifampicin or placebo to close contacts, with follow-up for four years. The main outcome measure was the development of clinical leprosy. We assessed the cost effectiveness by calculating the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the standard multidrug therapy (MDT) program with the additional chemoprophylaxis intervention versus the standard MDT program only. The ICER was expressed in US dollars per prevented leprosy case. FINDINGS: Chemoprophylaxis with SDR for preventing leprosy among contacts of leprosy patients is cost-effective at all contact levels and thereby a cost-effective prevention strategy. In total, $6,009 incremental cost was invested and 38 incremental leprosy cases were prevented, resulting in an ICER of $158 per one additional prevented leprosy case. It was the most cost-effective in neighbours of neighbours and social contacts (ICER $214), slightly less cost-effective in next door neighbours (ICER $497) and least cost-effective among household contacts (ICER $856). CONCLUSION: Chemoprophylaxis with single dose rifampicin given to contacts of newly diagnosed leprosy patients is a cost-effective intervention strategy. Implementation studies are necessary to establish whether this intervention is acceptable and feasible in other leprosy endemic areas of the world.