Informing decision-making for universal access to quality tuberculosis diagnosis in India: an economic-epidemiological model.
Cost-benefit analysis
Diagnostic techniques and procedures
Systems analysis
Tuberculosis
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 08 2019
06 08 2019
Historique:
received:
22
03
2019
accepted:
05
07
2019
entrez:
7
8
2019
pubmed:
7
8
2019
medline:
7
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
India and many other high-burden countries have committed to providing universal access to high-quality diagnosis and drug susceptibility testing (DST) for tuberculosis (TB), but the most cost-effective approach to achieve this goal remains uncertain. Centralized testing at district-level hub facilities with a supporting sample transport network can generate economies of scale, but decentralization to the peripheral level may provide faster diagnosis and reduce losses to follow-up (LTFU). We generated functions to evaluate the costs of centralized and decentralized molecular testing for tuberculosis with Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), a WHO-endorsed test which can be performed at centralized and decentralized levels. We merged the cost estimates with an agent-based simulation of TB transmission in a hypothetical representative region in India to assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of each strategy. Compared against centralized Xpert testing, decentralization was most favorable when testing volume at decentralized facilities and pre-treatment LTFU were high, and specimen transport network was exclusively established for TB. Assuming equal quality of centralized and decentralized testing, decentralization was cost-saving, saving a median $338,000 (interquartile simulation range [IQR] - $222,000; $889,000) per 20 million people over 10 years, in the most cost-favorable scenario. In the most cost-unfavorable scenario, decentralized testing would cost a median $3161 [IQR $2412; $4731] per disability-adjusted life year averted relative to centralized testing. Decentralization of Xpert testing is likely to be cost-saving or cost-effective in most settings to which these simulation results might generalize. More decentralized testing is more cost-effective in settings with moderate-to-high peripheral testing volumes, high existing clinical LTFU, inability to share specimen transport costs with other disease entities, and ability to ensure high-quality peripheral Xpert testing. Decision-makers should assess these factors when deciding whether to decentralize molecular testing for tuberculosis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
India and many other high-burden countries have committed to providing universal access to high-quality diagnosis and drug susceptibility testing (DST) for tuberculosis (TB), but the most cost-effective approach to achieve this goal remains uncertain. Centralized testing at district-level hub facilities with a supporting sample transport network can generate economies of scale, but decentralization to the peripheral level may provide faster diagnosis and reduce losses to follow-up (LTFU).
METHODS
We generated functions to evaluate the costs of centralized and decentralized molecular testing for tuberculosis with Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), a WHO-endorsed test which can be performed at centralized and decentralized levels. We merged the cost estimates with an agent-based simulation of TB transmission in a hypothetical representative region in India to assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of each strategy.
RESULTS
Compared against centralized Xpert testing, decentralization was most favorable when testing volume at decentralized facilities and pre-treatment LTFU were high, and specimen transport network was exclusively established for TB. Assuming equal quality of centralized and decentralized testing, decentralization was cost-saving, saving a median $338,000 (interquartile simulation range [IQR] - $222,000; $889,000) per 20 million people over 10 years, in the most cost-favorable scenario. In the most cost-unfavorable scenario, decentralized testing would cost a median $3161 [IQR $2412; $4731] per disability-adjusted life year averted relative to centralized testing.
CONCLUSIONS
Decentralization of Xpert testing is likely to be cost-saving or cost-effective in most settings to which these simulation results might generalize. More decentralized testing is more cost-effective in settings with moderate-to-high peripheral testing volumes, high existing clinical LTFU, inability to share specimen transport costs with other disease entities, and ability to ensure high-quality peripheral Xpert testing. Decision-makers should assess these factors when deciding whether to decentralize molecular testing for tuberculosis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31382959
doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1384-8
pii: 10.1186/s12916-019-1384-8
pmc: PMC6683370
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
155Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : K01 AI138853
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : K08 AI127908
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 21;(1):CD009593
pubmed: 24448973
Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Mar 15;64(6):804-805
pubmed: 27986690
Lancet Glob Health. 2016 Dec;4(12):e907-e908
pubmed: 27855868
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 3;11(8):e0160796
pubmed: 27486896
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Mar 8;3(2):e000755
pubmed: 29607104
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42458
pubmed: 22879990
Health Econ. 2016 Feb;25 Suppl 1:53-66
pubmed: 26763594
PLoS Med. 2014 Jul 15;11(7):e1001674
pubmed: 25025235
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2016 Sep;20(9):1212-8
pubmed: 27510248
J Infect Dis. 2016 Apr 15;213 Suppl 2:S41-6
pubmed: 27025697
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 1;14(4):e0214675
pubmed: 30933997
Elife. 2014 Jun 04;3:
pubmed: 24898755
PLoS Med. 2016 Oct 25;13(10):e1002149
pubmed: 27780217
Bull World Health Organ. 2016 Dec 1;94(12):925-930
pubmed: 27994285
Bull World Health Organ. 2014 Feb 1;92(2):126-38
pubmed: 24623906
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2017 Oct 26;15:21
pubmed: 29089861
PLoS Med. 2016 Oct 25;13(10):e1002152
pubmed: 27780211
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 26;9(2):e89301
pubmed: 24586675
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 23;8(7):e69728
pubmed: 23936088
J Infect Dis. 2015 Apr 1;211 Suppl 2:S21-8
pubmed: 25765103
Value Health. 2016 Dec;19(8):929-935
pubmed: 27987642
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36966
pubmed: 22693561
Lancet Glob Health. 2017 Jul;5(7):e710-e719
pubmed: 28619229
PLoS Med. 2011 Jul;8(7):e1001067
pubmed: 21818180
PLoS Med. 2011 Nov;8(11):e1001120
pubmed: 22087078
Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Sep;33(9):939-55
pubmed: 25939501
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012 May 1;60(1):e1-7
pubmed: 22240465