Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis diagnosis in South Africa: a real-world cost analysis and economic evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In 2010 a new diagnostic test for tuberculosis, Xpert MTB/RIF, received a conditional programmatic recommendation from WHO. Several model-based economic evaluations predicted that Xpert would be cost-effective across sub-Saharan Africa. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of Xpert in the real world during national roll-out in South Africa.

Methods

For this real-world cost analysis and economic evaluation, we applied extensive primary cost and patient event data from the XTEND study, a pragmatic trial examining Xpert introduction for people investigated for tuberculosis in 40 primary health facilities (20 clusters) in South Africa enrolled between June 8, and Nov 16, 2012, to estimate the costs and cost per disability-adjusted life-year averted of introducing Xpert as the initial diagnostic test for tuberculosis, compared with sputum smear microscopy (the standard of care).

Findings

The mean total cost per study participant for tuberculosis investigation and treatment was US$312·58 (95% CI 252·46-372·70) in the Xpert group and $298·58 (246·35-350·82) in the microscopy group. The mean health service (provider) cost per study participant was $168·79 (149·16-188·42) for the Xpert group and $160·46 (143·24-177·68) for the microscopy group of the study. Considering uncertainty in both cost and effect using a wide range of willingness to pay thresholds, we found less than 3% probability that Xpert introduction improved the cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis diagnostics.

Interpretation

After analysing extensive primary data collection during roll-out, we found that Xpert introduction in South Africa was cost-neutral, but found no evidence that Xpert improved the cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis diagnosis. Our study highlights the importance of considering implementation constraints, when predicting and evaluating the cost-effectiveness of new tuberculosis diagnostics in South Africa.

Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

SUBMITTER: Vassall A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5471605 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis diagnosis in South Africa: a real-world cost analysis and economic evaluation.

Vassall Anna A Siapka Mariana M Foster Nicola N Cunnama Lucy L Ramma Lebogang L Fielding Katherine K McCarthy Kerrigan K Churchyard Gavin G Grant Alison A Sinanovic Edina E

The Lancet. Global health 20170701 7

<h4>Background</h4>In 2010 a new diagnostic test for tuberculosis, Xpert MTB/RIF, received a conditional programmatic recommendation from WHO. Several model-based economic evaluations predicted that Xpert would be cost-effective across sub-Saharan Africa. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of Xpert in the real world during national roll-out in South Africa.<h4>Methods</h4>For this real-world cost analysis and economic evaluation, we applied extensive primary cost and patient event data from ...[more]

PMID: 28619229

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Xpert MTB/RIF test enables rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) and rifampicin resistance. The World Health Organization recommends Xpert for initial diagnosis in individuals suspected of having multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) or HIV-associated TB, and many countries are moving quickly toward adopting Xpert. As roll-out proceeds, it is essential to understand the potential health impact and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies based on Xpert.We evaluated potential health and economic consequences of implementing Xpert in five southern African countries--Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland--where drug resistance and TB-HIV coinfection are prevalent. Using a calibrated, dynamic mathematical model, we compared the status quo diagnostic algorithm, emphasizing sputum smear, against an algorithm incorporating Xpert for initial diagnosis. Results were projected over 10- and 20-y time periods starting from 2012. Compared to status quo, implementation of Xpert would avert 132,000 (95% CI: 55,000-284,000) TB cases and 182,000 (97,000-302,000) TB deaths in southern Africa over the 10 y following introduction, and would reduce prevalence by 28% (14%-40%) by 2022, with more modest reductions in incidence. Health system costs are projected to increase substantially with Xpert, by US$460 million (294-699 million) over 10 y. Antiretroviral therapy for HIV represents a substantial fraction of these additional costs, because of improved survival in TB/HIV-infected populations through better TB case-finding and treatment. Costs for treating MDR-TB are also expected to rise significantly with Xpert scale-up. Relative to status quo, Xpert has an estimated cost-effectiveness of US$959 (633-1,485) per disability-adjusted life-year averted over 10 y. Across countries, cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from US$792 (482-1,785) in Swaziland to US$1,257 (767-2,276) in Botswana. Assessing outcomes over a 10-y period focuses on the near-term consequences of Xpert adoption, but the cost-effectiveness results are conservative, with cost-effectiveness ratios assessed over a 20-y time horizon approximately 20% lower than the 10-y values.Introduction of Xpert could substantially change TB morbidity and mortality through improved case-finding and treatment, with more limited impact on long-term transmission dynamics. Despite extant uncertainty about TB natural history and intervention impact in southern Africa, adoption of Xpert evidently offers reasonable value for its cost, based on conventional benchmarks for cost-effectiveness. However, the additional financial burden would be substantial, including significant increases in costs for treating HIV and MDR-TB. Given the fundamental influence of HIV on TB dynamics and intervention costs, care should be taken when interpreting the results of this analysis outside of settings with high HIV prevalence.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In 2011, South Africa improved its ability to test for rifampicin-resistant TB (RR-TB) by introducing GeneXpert MTB/RIF. At the same time, the South African National TB program adopted a policy decentralized, outpatient treatment for drug resistant (DR-) TB. We aim to analyze the impact of these changes on linkage to care and DR-TB treatment outcomes. METHODS:We retrospectively matched adult patients diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed RR-TB in Johannesburg from 07/2011-06/2012 (early cohort) and 07/2013-06/2014 (late cohort) with records of patients initiating DR-TB treatment at one of the city's four public sector treatment sites. We determine the proportion of persons diagnosed with RR-TB who initiated DR-TB treatment and report time to treatment initiation (TTI) before and after the implementation of Xpert MTB/RIF roll-out in Johannesburg, South Africa. We conducted a sub-analysis among those who initiated DR-TB treatment at the decentralized outpatient DR-TB centers to determine if delays in treatment initiation have a subsequent impact on treatment outcomes. RESULTS:Five hundred ninety four patients were enrolled in the early cohort versus 713 in the late cohort. 53.8 and 36.8% of patients were diagnosed with multi-drug resistant TB in the early and late cohorts, respectively. The proportion of RR-TB confirmed cases diagnosed by Xpert MTB/RIF increased from 43.4 to 60.5% between the early and late cohorts, respectively. The proportion who initiated treatment increased from 43.1% (n?=?256) to 60.3% (n?=?430) in the late cohort. Pre-treatment mortality during the early and the late cohort reduced significantly from 17.5 to 5.8% while lost to follow-up remained high. Although TTI reduced by a median of 19?days, from 33?days (IQR 12-52) in the early cohort to 14?days (IQR 7-31) in the late cohort, this did not translate to improved treatment outcomes and we found no difference in terms of treatment success or on-treatment mortality for those that initiated without delay vs. those that deferred initiation. CONCLUSION:Pre-treatment mortality reduced significantly during late Xpert MTB/RIF coverage but there was no significant difference after treatment was initiated. Despite improvements there is still a significant diagnosis and treatment gap for patients diagnosed with RR-TB and improving treatment outcomes remains critical.

Project description:PurposeTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in patients with smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) and to assess clinical and CT characteristics of Xpert-negative pulmonary TB.Material and methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the records of 1,400 patients with suspected pulmonary TB for whom the sputum Xpert MTB/RIF assay was performed between September 1, 2014 and February 28, 2020. Clinical and CT characteristics of smear-negative pulmonary TB patients with negative Xpert MTB/RIF results were compared with positive results.ResultsOf 1,400 patients, 365 (26.1%) were diagnosed with pulmonary TB and 190 of 365 patients (52.1%) were negative for sputum acid-fast bacilli. The diagnosis of pulmonary TB was based on a positive culture, positive Xpert MTB/RIF or the clinical diagnoses of patients treated with an anti-TB medication. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values of sputum Xpert MTB/RIF for smear-negative pulmonary TB were 41.1%, 100%, 100%, and 90.1%, respectively. Finally, 172 patients with smear-negative pulmonary TB who underwent chest CT within 2 weeks of diagnosis were included to compare Xpert-positive (n = 66) and Xpert- negative (n = 106) groups. Patients with sputum Xpert-negative TB showed lower positive rates for sputum culture (33.0% vs. 81.8%, p<0.001) and bronchoalveolar lavage culture (53.3% vs. 84.6%, p = 0.042) than in Xpert-positive TB. Time to start TB medication was longer in patients with Xpert-negative TB than in Xpert-positive TB (11.3±16.4 days vs. 5.0±8.7 days, p = 0.001). On chest CT, sputum Xpert-negative TB showed significantly lower frequency of consolidation (21.7% vs. 39.4%, p = 0.012), cavitation (23.6% vs. 37.9%, p = 0.045), more frequent peripheral location (50.9% vs. 21.2 p = 0.001) with lower area of involvement (4.3±4.3 vs. 7.6±6.4, p<0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed peripheral location (odds ratios, 2.565; 95% confidence interval: 1.157-5.687; p = 0.020) and higher total extent of the involved lobe (odds ratios, 0.928; 95% confidence interval: 0.865-0.995; p = 0.037) were significant factors associated with Xpert MTB/RIF-negative TB. Regardless of Xpert positivity, more than 80% of all cases were diagnosed of TB on chest CT by radiologists.ConclusionThe detection rate of sputum Xpert MTB/RIF assay was relatively low for smear negative pulmonary TB. Chest CT image interpretation may play an important role in early diagnosis and treatment of Xpert MTB/RIF-negative pulmonary TB.

Project description:BackgroundXpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) is a promising new rapid diagnostic technology for tuberculosis (TB) that has characteristics that suggest large-scale roll-out. However, because the test is expensive, there are concerns among TB program managers and policy makers regarding its affordability for low- and middle-income settings.Methods and findingsWe estimate the impact of the introduction of Xpert on the costs and cost-effectiveness of TB care using decision analytic modelling, comparing the introduction of Xpert to a base case of smear microscopy and clinical diagnosis in India, South Africa, and Uganda. The introduction of Xpert increases TB case finding in all three settings; from 72%-85% to 95%-99% of the cohort of individuals with suspected TB, compared to the base case. Diagnostic costs (including the costs of testing all individuals with suspected TB) also increase: from US$28-US$49 to US$133-US$146 and US$137-US$151 per TB case detected when Xpert is used "in addition to" and "as a replacement of" smear microscopy, respectively. The incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for using Xpert "in addition to" smear microscopy, compared to the base case, range from US$41-$110 per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Likewise the ICERS for using Xpert "as a replacement of" smear microscopy range from US$52-$138 per DALY averted. These ICERs are below the World Health Organization (WHO) willingness to pay threshold.ConclusionsOur results suggest that Xpert is a cost-effective method of TB diagnosis, compared to a base case of smear microscopy and clinical diagnosis of smear-negative TB in low- and middle-income settings where, with its ability to substantially increase case finding, it has important potential for improving TB diagnosis and control. The extent of cost-effectiveness gain to TB programmes from deploying Xpert is primarily dependent on current TB diagnostic practices. Further work is required during scale-up to validate these findings.

Project description:BackgroundSouth Africa has a large burden of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (RR-TB), with 18,734 patients diagnosed in 2014. The number of diagnosed patients has increased substantially with the introduction of the Xpert MTB/RIF test, used for tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis for all patients with presumptive TB. Routine aggregate data suggest a large treatment gap (pre-treatment loss to follow-up) between the numbers of patients with laboratory-confirmed RR-TB and those reported to have started second-line treatment. We aimed to assess the impact of Xpert MTB/RIF implementation on the delay to treatment initiation and loss to follow-up before second-line treatment for RR-TB across South Africa.Methods and findingsA nationwide retrospective cohort study was conducted to assess second-line treatment initiation and treatment delay among laboratory-diagnosed RR-TB patients. Cohorts, including approximately 300 sequentially diagnosed RR-TB patients per South African province, were drawn from the years 2011 and 2013, i.e., before and after Xpert implementation. Patients with prior laboratory RR-TB diagnoses within 6 mo and currently treated patients were excluded. Treatment initiation was determined through data linkage with national and local treatment registers, medical record review, interviews with health care staff, and direct contact with patients or household members. Additional laboratory data were used to track cases. National estimates of the percentage of patients who initiated treatment and time to treatment were weighted to account for the sampling design. There were 2,508 and 2,528 eligible patients in the 2011 and 2013 cohorts, respectively; 92% were newly diagnosed with RR-TB (no prior RR-TB diagnoses). Nationally, among the 2,340 and 2,311 new RR-TB patients in the 2011 and 2013 cohorts, 55% (95% CI 53%-57%) and 63% (95% CI 61%-65%), respectively, started treatment within 6 mo of laboratory receipt of their diagnostic specimen (p < 0.001). However, in 2013, there was no difference in the percentage of patients who initiated treatment at 6 mo between the 1,368 new RR-TB patients diagnosed by Xpert (62%, 95% CI 59%-65%) and the 943 diagnosed by other methods (64%, 95% CI 61%-67%) (p = 0.39). The median time to treatment decreased from 44 d (interquartile range [IQR] 20-69) in 2011 to 22 d (IQR 2-43) in 2013 (p < 0.001). In 2013, across the nine provinces, there were substantial variations in both treatment initiation (range 51%-73% by 6 mo) and median time to treatment (range 15-36 d, n = 1,450), and only 53% of the 1,448 new RR-TB patients who received treatment were recorded in the national RR-TB register. This retrospective study is limited by the lack of information to assess reasons for non-initiation of treatment, particularly pre-treatment mortality data. Other limitations include the use of names and dates of birth to locate patient-level data, potentially resulting in missed treatment initiation among some patients.ConclusionsIn 2013, there was a large treatment gap for RR-TB in South Africa that varied significantly across provinces. Xpert implementation, while reducing treatment delay, had not contributed substantially to reducing the treatment gap in 2013. However, given improved case detection with Xpert, a larger proportion of RR-TB patients overall have received treatment, with reduced delays. Nonetheless, strategies to further improve linkage to treatment for all diagnosed RR-TB patients are urgently required.

Project description:BackgroundXpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) might have higher sensitivity than its predecessor, Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), but its role in tuberculous meningitis diagnosis is uncertain. We aimed to compare Xpert Ultra with Xpert for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected adults.MethodsIn this prospective, randomised, diagnostic accuracy study, adults (≥16 years) with suspected tuberculous meningitis from a single centre in Vietnam were randomly assigned to cerebrospinal fluid testing by either Xpert Ultra or Xpert at baseline and, if treated for tuberculous meningitis, after 3-4 weeks of treatment. Test performance (sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values) was calculated for Xpert Ultra and Xpert and compared against clinical and mycobacterial culture reference standards. Analyses were done for all patients and by HIV status.FindingsBetween Oct 16, 2017, and Feb 10, 2019, 205 patients were randomly assigned to Xpert Ultra (n=103) or Xpert (n=102). The sensitivities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert for tuberculous meningitis diagnosis against a reference standard of definite, probable, and possible tuberculous meningitis were 47·2% (95% CI 34·4-60·3; 25 of 53 patients) for Xpert Ultra and 39·6% (27·6-53·1; 21 of 53) for Xpert (p=0·56); specificities were 100·0% (95% CI 92·0-100·0; 44 of 44) and 100·0% (92·6-100·0; 48 of 48), respectively. In HIV-negative patients, the sensitivity of Xpert Ultra was 38·9% (24·8-55·1; 14 of 36) versus 22·9% (12·1-39·0; eight of 35) by Xpert (p=0·23). In HIV co-infected patients, the sensitivities were 64·3% (38·8-83·7; nine of 14) for Xpert Ultra and 76·9% (49·7-91·8; ten of 13) for Xpert (p=0·77). Negative predictive values were 61·1% (49·6-71·5) for Xpert Ultra and 60·0% (49·0-70·0) for Xpert. Against a reference standard of mycobacterial culture, sensitivities were 90·9% (72·2-97·5; 20 of 22 patients) for Xpert Ultra and 81·8% (61·5-92·7; 18 of 22) for Xpert (p=0·66); specificities were 93·9% (85·4-97·6; 62 of 66) and 96·9% (89·5-91·2; 63 of 65), respectively. Six (22%) of 27 patients had a positive test by Xpert Ultra after 4 weeks of treatment versus two (9%) of 22 patients by Xpert.InterpretationXpert Ultra was not statistically superior to Xpert for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected adults. A negative Xpert Ultra or Xpert test does not rule out tuberculous meningitis. New diagnostic strategies are urgently required.FundingWellcome Trust and the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis diagnosis in South Africa: a real-world cost analysis and economic evaluation.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis diagnosis in South Africa: a real-world cost analysis and economic evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets