Conclusions: Rifampin for 4 months was more cost-effective than isoniazid
Per 1000 individuals on antiretroviral therapy in the reference scenario, treatment with 3HP rather than IPT was estimated to avert 9 cases of TB and 1 death
You should not use this medicine if you are allergic to isoniazid or rifampin, or if you have active liver disease (including hepatitis or cirrhosis), or a history of liver problems caused
Two months of treatment with rifampin-pyrazinamide (RZ) and 9 months of treatment with isoniazid are both recommended for treatment of latent tuberculosis infection in adults without human immunodeficiency virus infection, but the relative cost-effectiveness of these 2 treatments is unknown
Cost-effectiveness of rifampin for 4 months and isoniazid for 6 months in the treatment of tuberculosis infection Mean costs per patient were lower for rifampin than isoniazid: adjusted cost ratio=0
In Uganda, isoniazid plus ethambutol is used for 6 months (6HE) during the continuation treatment phase of new tuberculosis (TB) cases
Eden, R
Potential cost-effectiveness of rifampin vs
Cost-effectiveness of rifampin for 4 months and isoniazid for 6 months in the treatment of tuberculosis infection All regimens reduced costs and increased QALYs compared with no preventive treatment
Costs and cost-effectiveness of four treatment regimens for The cost-effectiveness was 436,842
Furthermore, costs for adverse event care were lower for rifampin in all settings compared to INH
Ethambutol has an average rating of 3
5 out of 10 from a total of 28 ratings on Drugs
Shorter, rifamycin-based treatment regimens generally have a lower risk of hepatotoxicity than 6H and 9H