Strengthening health systems to improve the value of tuberculosis diagnostics in South Africa: A cost and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
12
06
2020
accepted:
28
04
2021
entrez:
14
5
2021
pubmed:
15
5
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In South Africa, replacing smear microscopy with Xpert-MTB/RIF (Xpert) for tuberculosis diagnosis did not reduce mortality and was cost-neutral. The unchanged mortality has been attributed to suboptimal Xpert implementation. We developed a mathematical model to explore how complementary investments may improve cost-effectiveness of the tuberculosis diagnostic algorithm. Complementary investments in the tuberculosis diagnostic pathway were compared to the status quo. Investment scenarios following an initial Xpert test included actions to reduce pre-treatment loss-to-follow-up; supporting same-day clinical diagnosis of tuberculosis after a negative result; and improving access to further tuberculosis diagnostic tests following a negative result. We estimated costs, deaths and disability-adjusted-life-years (DALYs) averted from provider and societal perspectives. Sensitivity analyses explored the mediating influence of behavioural, disease- and organisational characteristics on investment effectiveness. Among a cohort of symptomatic patients tested for tuberculosis, with an estimated active tuberculosis prevalence of 13%, reducing pre-treatment loss-to-follow-up from ~20% to ~0% led to a 4% (uncertainty interval [UI] 3; 4%) reduction in mortality compared to the Xpert scenario. Improving access to further tuberculosis diagnostic tests from ~4% to 90% among those with an initial negative Xpert result reduced overall mortality by 28% (UI 27; 28) at $39.70/ DALY averted. Effectiveness of investment scenarios to improve access to further diagnostic tests was dependent on a high return rate for follow-up visits. Investing in direct and indirect costs to support the TB diagnostic pathway is potentially highly cost-effective.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In South Africa, replacing smear microscopy with Xpert-MTB/RIF (Xpert) for tuberculosis diagnosis did not reduce mortality and was cost-neutral. The unchanged mortality has been attributed to suboptimal Xpert implementation. We developed a mathematical model to explore how complementary investments may improve cost-effectiveness of the tuberculosis diagnostic algorithm.
METHODS
Complementary investments in the tuberculosis diagnostic pathway were compared to the status quo. Investment scenarios following an initial Xpert test included actions to reduce pre-treatment loss-to-follow-up; supporting same-day clinical diagnosis of tuberculosis after a negative result; and improving access to further tuberculosis diagnostic tests following a negative result. We estimated costs, deaths and disability-adjusted-life-years (DALYs) averted from provider and societal perspectives. Sensitivity analyses explored the mediating influence of behavioural, disease- and organisational characteristics on investment effectiveness.
FINDINGS
Among a cohort of symptomatic patients tested for tuberculosis, with an estimated active tuberculosis prevalence of 13%, reducing pre-treatment loss-to-follow-up from ~20% to ~0% led to a 4% (uncertainty interval [UI] 3; 4%) reduction in mortality compared to the Xpert scenario. Improving access to further tuberculosis diagnostic tests from ~4% to 90% among those with an initial negative Xpert result reduced overall mortality by 28% (UI 27; 28) at $39.70/ DALY averted. Effectiveness of investment scenarios to improve access to further diagnostic tests was dependent on a high return rate for follow-up visits.
INTERPRETATION
Investing in direct and indirect costs to support the TB diagnostic pathway is potentially highly cost-effective.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33989317
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251547
pii: PONE-D-20-18039
pmc: PMC8121360
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0251547Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : UM1 AI154463
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Apr;130:42-50
pubmed: 25681713
Bull World Health Organ. 2012 Oct 1;90(10):739-747A
pubmed: 23109741
Pan Afr Med J. 2014 Aug 05;18:277
pubmed: 25489371
PLoS One. 2010 Nov 17;5(11):e14014
pubmed: 21103344
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 31;(1):CD009593
pubmed: 23440842
Bull World Health Organ. 2017 Aug 01;95(8):554-563
pubmed: 28804167
Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Aug;3(8):e450-e457
pubmed: 26187490
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2017 Sep 1;21(9):1026-1034
pubmed: 28826453
Value Health. 2017 Apr;20(4):699-704
pubmed: 28408014
Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2129-43
pubmed: 23245605
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 Mar;19(3):285-7
pubmed: 25686135
Lancet Infect Dis. 2019 Oct;19(10):1129-1137
pubmed: 31324519
Public Health Action. 2013 Mar 21;3(1):20-2
pubmed: 26392990
Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Nov;3(11):e712-23
pubmed: 26475018
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Oct;2(10):e581-91
pubmed: 25304634
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Jun;70(12):1948-1956
pubmed: 20382461
J Infect Dis. 2017 Nov 6;216(suppl_7):S702-S713
pubmed: 29117342
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2015 Jul;109(7):425-32
pubmed: 25979526
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002 Winter;18(1):112-9
pubmed: 11987434
Indian J Med Res. 2012 May;135(5):737-44
pubmed: 22771607
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Oct 1;196(7):901-910
pubmed: 28727491
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 Jul 1;184(1):132-40
pubmed: 21493734
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Mar;54(6):784-91
pubmed: 22267721
BMJ Glob Health. 2017 Jun 2;2(2):e000224
pubmed: 29081995
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2016 May;110(5):305-11
pubmed: 27198215
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Jun 16;17(1):433
pubmed: 28622763
Lancet Infect Dis. 2015 Jan;15(1):16-7
pubmed: 25541164
Lancet. 2014 Apr 12;383(9925):1333-1354
pubmed: 24263249
Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2010 Oct;10(7):937-46
pubmed: 20964612
PLoS Med. 2014 Nov 25;11(11):e1001760
pubmed: 25423041
J Eval Clin Pract. 1999 Aug;5(3):283-95
pubmed: 10461580
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 26;12(10):e0186496
pubmed: 29073167
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 01;11(3):e0150487
pubmed: 26930400
Glob Public Health. 2015 Oct;10(9):1060-77
pubmed: 25652349
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2016 May 12;3(2):ofw068
pubmed: 27186589
PLoS Med. 2014 Dec 09;11(12):e1001766
pubmed: 25490549
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011 Aug;15(8):996-1004
pubmed: 21740663
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016 Apr 15;71(5):e119-26
pubmed: 26966843
Health Econ. 2016 Feb;25 Suppl 1:53-66
pubmed: 26763594
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 23;9(10):e110558
pubmed: 25340701
Lancet Infect Dis. 2016 Feb;16(2):227-38
pubmed: 26867464
Value Health. 2008 Sep-Oct;11(5):886-97
pubmed: 18489513
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013 Jul;63 Suppl 2:S228-32
pubmed: 23764640
Lancet Infect Dis. 2006 Sep;6(9):570-81
pubmed: 16931408
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 20;12(4):e0174605
pubmed: 28426759
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 Feb;19(2):172-8
pubmed: 25574915
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Oct;2(10):e554-6
pubmed: 25304623
Lancet Infect Dis. 2011 Nov;11(11):819-24
pubmed: 21764384
PLoS Med. 2012;9(11):e1001347
pubmed: 23185139
Lancet Glob Health. 2017 Jul;5(7):e710-e719
pubmed: 28619229
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018 Jul 30;16:27
pubmed: 30069166
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 9;11(11):e0166158
pubmed: 27829072
S Afr Med J. 2013 Jan 14;103(2):101-6
pubmed: 23374320
PLoS Med. 2011 Nov;8(11):e1001120
pubmed: 22087078
Lancet. 2011 Apr 30;377(9776):1495-505
pubmed: 21507477
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 31;9(7):e103328
pubmed: 25079599
Health Econ. 2016 Feb;25 Suppl 1:95-115
pubmed: 26786617
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 Apr;19(4):392-8
pubmed: 25859993
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 12;105(32):11293-8
pubmed: 18695217
PLoS One. 2011 Apr 04;6(4):e17601
pubmed: 21483732
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 18;8(12):e82786
pubmed: 24367555
PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001418
pubmed: 23585736
Trop Med Int Health. 2010 Mar;15(3):277-86
pubmed: 20070633
PLoS Med. 2017 Dec 12;14(12):e1002464
pubmed: 29232377