Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jun;18(3):393-411.
doi: 10.1007/s40258-019-00536-w.

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Use of Safety-Engineered Syringes in Healthcare Facilities in India

Affiliations

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Use of Safety-Engineered Syringes in Healthcare Facilities in India

Pankaj Bahuguna et al. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2020 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Globally, 16 billion injections are administered each year of which 95% are for curative care. India contributes 25-30% of the global injection load. Over 63% of these injections are reportedly unsafe or deemed unnecessary.

Objectives: To assess the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with the introduction of safety-engineered syringes (SES) as compared to disposable syringes for therapeutic care in India.

Methods: A decision tree was used to compute the volume of needle-stick injuries (NSIs) and reuse episodes among healthcare professionals and the patient population. Subsequently, three separate Markov models were used to compute lifetime costs and QALYs for individuals infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Three SES were evaluated-reuse prevention syringe (RUP), sharp injury prevention (SIP) syringe, and syringes with features of both RUP and SIP. A lifetime study horizon starting from a base year of 2017 was considered appropriate to cover all costs and consequences comprehensively. A systematic review was undertaken to assess the SES effects in terms of reduction in NSIs and reuse episodes. These were then modelled in terms of reduction in transmission of blood-borne infections, life-years and QALYs gained. Future costs and consequences were discounted at the rate of 3%. Incremental cost per QALY gained was computed to assess the cost-effectiveness. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainties.

Results: The introduction of RUP, SIP and RUP + SIP syringes in India is estimated to incur an incremental cost of Indian National Rupee (INR) 61,028 (US$939), INR 7,768,215 (US$119,511) and INR 196,135 (US$3017) per QALY gained, respectively. A total of 96,296 HBV, 44,082 HCV and 5632 HIV deaths are estimated to be averted due to RUP in 20 years. RUP has an 84% probability to be cost-effective at a threshold of per capita gross domestic product (GDP). The RUP syringe can become cost saving at a unit price of INR 1.9. Similarly, SIP and RUP + SIP syringes can be cost-effective at a unit price of less than INR 1.2 and INR 5.9, respectively.

Conclusion: RUP syringes are estimated to be cost-effective in the Indian context. SIP and RUP + SIP syringes are not cost-effective at the current unit prices. Efforts should be made to bring down the price of SES to improve its cost-effectiveness.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Pankaj Bahuguna, Shankar Prinja, R.K. Dhiman, Madhumita Prem Kumar, Vineeta Sharma, A.K. Aggarwal and Rajesh Bhaskar declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Decision tree for cost-effectiveness of safety-engineered syringes
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Markov state transition model for hepatitis B virus
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Markov state transition model for hepatitis C virus
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Markov state transition model for human immunodeficiency virus
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Probability of cost-effectiveness of reuse prevention syringes in India at varying willingness-to-pay thresholds
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Tornado diagram for sensitivity of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (INR) for reuse-prevention syringes with variation in key parameters
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Threshold price analysis for reuse-prevention syringes in India

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Atul K, Priya R, Thakur R, Gupta V, Kotwal J, Seth T. Injection practices in a metropolis of North India: perceptions, determinants and issues of safety. Indian J Med Sci. 2004;58(8):334–344. - PubMed
    1. Handbook on safe injection practices. In: Control NCFD, editor. New Delhi: GOI; 2014.
    1. Arora N. Injection practices in India. WHO South East Asia J Public Health. 2012;1(2):189–200. - PubMed
    1. Network, Safe Injection Global. Advocacy booklet. Switzerland: World Health Organization. 2011. p. 1–25
    1. Gupta E, Bajpai M, Sharma P, Shah A, Sarin S. Unsafe injection practices: a potential weapon for the outbreak of blood borne viruses in the community. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2013;3(2):177. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types