Point of care Xpert MTB/RIF versus smear microscopy for tuberculosis diagnosis in southern African primary care clinics: a multicentre economic evaluation.
Journal
The Lancet. Global health
ISSN: 2214-109X
Titre abrégé: Lancet Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101613665
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2019
06 2019
Historique:
received:
04
07
2018
revised:
28
12
2018
accepted:
28
02
2019
entrez:
18
5
2019
pubmed:
18
5
2019
medline:
27
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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 $3820 per treatment completion. In southern Africa, although point-of-care Xpert unit cost is higher than Lab Xpert, it is likely to offer good value for money relative to smear microscopy. With the current availability of point-of-care nucleic acid amplification platforms (eg, Xpert Edge), these data inform much needed investment and resource allocation strategies in tuberculosis endemic settings. European Union European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Rapid on-site diagnosis facilitates tuberculosis control. Performing Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) at point of care is feasible, even when performed by minimally trained health-care workers, and when compared with point-of-care smear microscopy, reduces time to diagnosis and pretreatment loss to follow-up. However, whether Xpert is cost-effective at point of care remains unclear.
METHODS
We empirically collected cost (US$, 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.
FINDINGS
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.
INTERPRETATION
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.
FUNDING
European Union European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31097281
pii: S2214-109X(19)30164-0
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30164-0
pmc: PMC7197817
mid: NIHMS1582161
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e798-e807Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : K23 AI094251
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
Bull World Health Organ. 2016 Dec 1;94(12):925-930
pubmed: 27994285
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 06;8(6):e65421
pubmed: 23762367
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2012 May;16(5):701; author reply 702
pubmed: 22507934
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54587
pubmed: 23349933
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013 Mar;17(3):368-72
pubmed: 23407225
JAMA. 2016 Sep 13;316(10):1093-103
pubmed: 27623463
Eur Respir J. 2014 Jun;43(6):1763-75
pubmed: 24525439
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 31;(1):CD009593
pubmed: 23440842
BMJ. 2005 Dec 10;331(7529):1364
pubmed: 16282379
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014 Nov 1;67(3):e88-93
pubmed: 25314255
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006 Dec 06;4:20
pubmed: 17147833
AIDS. 2013 Nov 28;27(18):2883-92
pubmed: 25119690
Trop Med Int Health. 2012 Sep;17(9):1142-51
pubmed: 22686606
AIDS. 2012 May 15;26(8):987-95
pubmed: 22333751
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Apr 15;62(8):995-1001
pubmed: 26908793
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011 Dec;15(12):1567-72
pubmed: 22005110
Value Health. 2015 Mar;18(2):161-72
pubmed: 25773551
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Oct;2(10):e581-91
pubmed: 25304634
Bull World Health Organ. 2015 Feb 1;93(2):118-24
pubmed: 25883405
Lancet Glob Health. 2013 Aug;1(2):e97-e104
pubmed: 25104164
Scand J Infect Dis. 2008;40(2):111-20
pubmed: 17852907
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014 May;90(5):866-872
pubmed: 24615134
Health Econ. 2016 Feb;25 Suppl 1:53-66
pubmed: 26763594
Eur Respir J. 2016 Aug;48(2):516-25
pubmed: 27418550
Eur Respir J. 2012 Aug;40(2):442-7
pubmed: 22241741
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2016 Sep;20(9):1212-8
pubmed: 27510248
Lancet Infect Dis. 2011 Nov;11(11):819-24
pubmed: 21764384
Health Econ. 2004 May;13(5):405-15
pubmed: 15127421
Lancet. 2016 Mar 19;387(10024):1211-26
pubmed: 26377143
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36966
pubmed: 22693561
Lancet. 2014 Feb 1;383(9915):424-35
pubmed: 24176144
Lancet Glob Health. 2017 Jul;5(7):e710-e719
pubmed: 28619229
Pharmacoeconomics. 2011 Jan;29(1):51-62
pubmed: 21142278
PLoS Med. 2011 Jul;8(7):e1001063
pubmed: 21814496
PLoS Med. 2011 Nov;8(11):e1001120
pubmed: 22087078
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2016 May;20(5):611-8
pubmed: 27084814
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Jan;18(1):76-84
pubmed: 29198911
Lancet. 2011 Apr 30;377(9776):1495-505
pubmed: 21507477
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2008 Jul;12(7):820-3
pubmed: 18544210
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015 Sep 1;70(1):83-90
pubmed: 26049281
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2005 Jan;9(1):25-31
pubmed: 15675546
Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Aug;3(8):e450-e457
pubmed: 26187490