Abstract

Rapid on-site diagnosis facilitates tuberculosis control. Performing Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) at point of care is feasible, even when performed by minimally trained health-care workers, and when compared with point-of-care smear microscopy, reduces time to diagnosis and pretreatment loss to follow-up. However, whether Xpert is cost-effective at point of care remains unclear. We empirically collected cost (US$, 2014) and clinical outcome data from participants presenting to primary health-care facilities in four African countries (South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania) during the TB-NEAT trial. Costs were determined using an bottom-up ingredients approach. Effectiveness measures from the trial included number of cases diagnosed, initiated on treatment, and completing treatment. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness of point-of-care Xpert relative to smear microscopy. The study was performed from the perspective of the health-care provider. Using data from 1502 patients, we calculated that the mean Xpert unit cost was lower when performed at a centralised laboratory (Lab Xpert) rather than at point of care ($23·00 [95% CI 22·12-23·88] vs $28·03 [26·19-29·87]). Per 1000 patients screened, and relative to smear microscopy, point-of-care Xpert cost an additional $35 529 (27 054-40 025) and was associated with an additional 24·3 treatment initiations ([-20·0 to 68·5]; $1464 per treatment), 63·4 same-day treatment initiations ([27·3-99·4]; $511 per same-day treatment), and 29·4 treatment completions ([-6·9 to 65·6]; $1211 per completion). Xpert costs were most sensitive to test volume, whereas incremental outcomes were most sensitive to the number of patients initiating and completing treatment. The probability of point-of-care Xpert being cost-effective was 90% at a willingness to pay of $3820 per treatment completion. In southern Africa, although point-of-care Xpert unit cost is higher than Lab Xpert, it is likely to offer good value for money relative to smear microscopy. With the current availability of point-of-care nucleic acid amplification platforms (eg, Xpert Edge), these data inform much needed investment and resource allocation strategies in tuberculosis endemic settings. European Union European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership.

Highlights

  • Screening and diagnosis is a key component of tubercu­losis control and underpins the post-2015 END TB Strategy aimed at substantially reducing the burden of disease.[1,2] The Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) assay is a rapid molecular-based test that has consistently shown its superior sensitivity over smear microscopy in diagnosing pulmonary,[3] extrapulmonary,[4] and paediatric tubercu­ losis.[5,6] As such, it has been endorsed by WHO7 and is undergoing a large-scale global rollout.[8]where Xpert should optimally be placed within national tuberculosis programmes (NTPs) rem­ains unclear

  • Up to 40% of patients in tuberculosis endemic areas contribute to pretreatment loss to follow-up.[11,12,13]

  • This study found that Xpert was cost neutral and did not improve the cost-effectiveness of routine tuberculosis diagnosis

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Screening and diagnosis is a key component of tubercu­losis control and underpins the post-2015 END TB Strategy aimed at substantially reducing the burden of disease.[1,2] The Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) assay is a rapid molecular-based test that has consistently shown its superior sensitivity over smear microscopy in diagnosing pulmonary,[3] extrapulmonary,[4] and paediatric tubercu­ losis.[5,6] As such, it has been endorsed by WHO7 and is undergoing a large-scale global rollout.[8]where Xpert should optimally be placed within national tuberculosis programmes (NTPs) rem­ains unclear. Later diagnosis and reporting of results, as a consequence of centralised placement, can delay clinical decisions and treat­ment initiation.[9,10] up to 40% of patients in tuberculosis endemic areas contribute to pretreatment loss to follow-up (ie, they do not return to the clinic to start treatment after being informed of a positive result).[11,12,13] A large randomised controlled trial[14] showed that placing Xpert at point of care within primary care clinics was feasible, when performed by a minimally trained health-care worker, but significantly reduced pretreatment loss to follow-up.

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.