Cost-effectiveness assessment of three components of the bovine tuberculosis surveillance system by intradermal tuberculin testing in French cattle farms by a scenario tree approach

Abstract

In most officially bovine tuberculosis (bTB)-free countries, bTB has not been fully eradicated. Costly and time-consuming surveillance and control measures are therefore still in place to control this infection. An officially bTB-free status, both at the national and at the herd level, influences whether and when animals can be sold. Thus, this infection is still an economic issue, justifying measures towards its eradication. An evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of such measures would be highly useful, especially to optimise the costs of control measures and their adaptation to a local epidemiological context. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of three mandatory surveillance protocols currently used in France by herd type (type of production, size, and turnover of the herd) under French field conditions. The first protocol (“strict”) implies the direct slaughter and post-mortem analyses of any intradermal cervical tuberculin test (ICT) reactor, and negative results to a second intradermal cervical comparative tuberculin test (ICCT) to regain bTB-free status of the herd. In the second protocol (“compliant quick-path”) bTB-free status can be regain if post-mortem analyses of reactors to the first ICT are negative. In the third protocol (“compliant slow-path”), ICCT-reactive animals are tested using the interferon gamma assay; the results of this test influence the path of further investigation. We built scenario trees for each of these protocols at the animal level. They allowed us to estimate herd sensitivity and the total cost of each protocol by herd type. The protocols could be ordered by decreasing herd sensitivity and cost, regardless of the herd type, as follows: strict protocol, compliant quick-path protocol, and compliant slow-path protocol. We calculated a cost-effectiveness index to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of each protocol. The strict protocol was never the most cost-effective, regardless of herd type, due to higher costs relative to the other protocols, despite better herd sensitivity. We found the compliant quick-path to be the most cost-effective protocol for big beef, big dairy, and mixed herds. The compliant slow-path was the most cost-effective for small-scale beef and dairy herds. All differences were significant. This comparison of the cost-effectiveness of the protocols by herd type could help authorities to choose the most suitable protocol in the investigation of suspected cases, depending on the herd type, but could be improved by accounting for important sociological data, such as the acceptability of the protocols.