Dataset Information

Comparison of yield and relative costs of different screening algorithms for tuberculosis in active case-finding: a cross-section study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Part of tuberculosis (TB) patients were missed if symptomatic screening was based on the main TB likely symptoms. This study conducted to compare the yield and relative costs of different TB screening algorithms in active case-finding in the whole population in China.

Methods

The study population was screened based on the TB likely symptoms through a face-to-face interview in selected 27 communities from 10 counties of 10 provinces in China. If the individuals had any of the enhanced TB likely symptoms, both chest X-ray and sputum tests were carried out for them furtherly. We used the McNemar test to analyze the difference in TB detection among four algorithms in active case-finding. Of four algorithms, two were from WHO recommendations including 1a/1c, one from China National Tuberculosis Program, and one from this study with the enhanced TB likely symptoms. Furthermore, a two-way ANOVA analysis was performed to analyze the cost difference in the performance of active case-finding adjusted by different demographic and health characteristics among different algorithms.

Results

Algorithm with the enhanced TB likely symptoms defined in this study could increase the yield of TB detection in active case-finding, compared with algorithms recommended by WHO (p < 0.01, Kappa 95% CI: 0. 93-0.99) and China NTP (p = 0.03, Kappa 95% CI: 0.96-1.00). There was a significant difference in the total costs among different three algorithms WHO 1c/2/3 (F = 59.13, p < 0.01). No significant difference in the average costs for one active TB case screened and diagnosed through the process among Algorithms 1c/2/3 was evident (F = 2.78, p = 0.07). The average costs for one bacteriological positive case through algorithm WHO 1a was about two times as much as the costs for one active TB case through algorithms WHO 1c/2/3.

Conclusions

Active case-finding based on the enhanced symptom screening is meaningful for TB case-finding and it could identify more active TB cases in time. The findings indicated that this enhanced screening approach cost more compared to algorithms recommend by WHO and China NTP, but the increased yield resulted in comparative costs per patient. And it cost much more that only smear/bacteriological-positive TB cases are screened in active case-finding.

SUBMITTER: Zhao F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8361931 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited evidence on whether active case finding (ACF) among marginalised and vulnerable populations mitigates the financial burden during tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis.ObjectivesTo determine the effect of ACF among marginalised and vulnerable populations on prevalence and inequity of catastrophic costs due to TB diagnosis among TB-affected households when compared with passive case finding (PCF).MethodsIn 18 randomly sampled ACF districts in India, during March 2016 to February 2017, we enrolled all new sputum-smear-positive TB patients detected through ACF and an equal number of randomly selected patients detected through PCF. Direct (medical and non-medical) and indirect costs due to TB diagnosis were collected through patient interviews at their residence. We defined costs due to TB diagnosis as 'catastrophic' if the total costs (direct and indirect) due to TB diagnosis exceeded 20% of annual pre-TB household income. We used concentration curves and indices to assess the extent of inequity.ResultsWhen compared with patients detected through PCF (n = 231), ACF patients (n = 234) incurred lower median total costs (US$ 4.6 and 20.4, p < 0.001). The prevalence of catastrophic costs in ACF and PCF was 10.3 and 11.5% respectively. Adjusted analysis showed that patients detected through ACF had a 32% lower prevalence of catastrophic costs relative to PCF [adjusted prevalence ratio (95% CI): 0.68 (0.69, 0.97)]. The concentration indices (95% CI) for total costs in both ACF [-0.15 (-0.32, 0.11)] and PCF [-0.06 (-0.20, 0.08)] were not significantly different from the line of equality and each other. The concentration indices (95% CI) for catastrophic costs in both ACF [-0.60 (-0.81, -0.39)] and PCF [-0.58 (-0.78, -0.38)] were not significantly different from each other: however, both the curves had a significant distribution among the poorest quintiles.ConclusionACF among marginalised and vulnerable populations reduced total costs and prevalence of catastrophic costs due to TB diagnosis, but could not address inequity.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) End TB Strategy has established a milestone to reduce the number of tuberculosis (TB)- affected households facing catastrophic costs to zero by 2020. The role of active case finding (ACF) in reducing patient costs has not been determined globally. This study therefore aimed to compare costs incurred by TB patients diagnosed through ACF and passive case finding (PCF), and to determine the prevalence and intensity of patient-incurred catastrophic costs in Nepal.MethodsThe study was conducted in two districts of Nepal: Bardiya and Pyuthan (Province No. 5) between June and August 2018. One hundred patients were included in this study in a 1:1 ratio (PCF: ACF, 25 consecutive ACF and 25 consecutive PCF patients in each district). The WHO TB patient costing tool was applied to collect information from patients or a member of their family regarding indirect and direct medical and non-medical costs. Catastrophic costs were calculated based on the proportion of patients with total costs exceeding 20% of their annual household income. The intensity of catastrophic costs was calculated using the positive overshoot method. The chi-square and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare proportions and costs. Meanwhile, the Mantel Haenszel test was performed to assess the association between catastrophic costs and type of diagnosis.ResultsNinety-nine patients were interviewed (50 ACF and 49 PCF). Patients diagnosed through ACF incurred lower costs during the pre-treatment period (direct medical: USD 14 vs USD 32, P =?0.001; direct non-medical: USD 3 vs USD 10, P =?0.004; indirect, time loss: USD 4 vs USD 13, P <? 0.001). The cost of the pre-treatment and intensive phases combined was also lower for direct medical (USD 15 vs USD 34, P =?0.002) and non-medical (USD 30 vs USD 54, P =?0.022) costs among ACF patients. The prevalence of catastrophic direct costs was lower for ACF patients for all thresholds. A lower intensity of catastrophic costs was also documented for ACF patients, although the difference was not statistically significant.ConclusionsACF can reduce patient-incurred costs substantially, contributing to the End TB Strategy target. Other synergistic policies, such as social protection, will also need to be implemented to reduce catastrophic costs to zero among TB-affected households.

Project description:BackgroundActive case finding (ACF) for tuberculosis (TB) is a key strategy to reduce diagnostic delays, expedite treatment, and prevent transmission.ObjectiveOur objective was to identify the populations, settings, screening and diagnostic approaches that optimize coverage (proportion of those targeted who were screened) and yield (proportion of those screened who had active TB) in ACF programs.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive search to identify studies published from 1980-2016 that reported the coverage and yield of different ACF approaches. For each outcome, we conducted meta-analyses of single proportions to produce estimates across studies, followed by meta-regression to identify predictors. Findings. Of 3,972 publications identified, 224 met criteria after full-text review. Most individuals who were targeted successfully completed screening, for a pooled coverage estimate of 93.5%. The pooled yield of active TB across studies was 3.2%. Settings with the highest yield were internally-displaced persons camps (15.6%) and healthcare facilities (6.9%). When compared to symptom screening as the reference standard, studies that screened individuals regardless of symptoms using microscopy, culture, or GeneXpert®MTB/RIF (Xpert) had 3.7% higher case yield. In particular, microbiological screening (usually microscopy) as the initial test, followed by culture or Xpert for diagnosis had 3.6% higher yield than symptom screening followed by microscopy for diagnosis. In a model adjusted for use of Xpert testing, approaches targeting persons living with HIV (PLWH) had a 4.9% higher yield than those targeting the general population. In all models, studies targeting children had higher yield (4.8%-5.7%) than those targeting adults.ConclusionACF activities can be implemented successfully in various populations and settings. Screening yield was highest in internally-displaced person and healthcare settings, and among PLWH and children. In high-prevalence settings, ACF approaches that screen individuals with laboratory tests regardless of symptoms have higher yield than approaches focused on symptomatic individuals.

Project description:BackgroundThe barriers to access diagnosis and receive treatment, in addition to insufficient case identification and reporting, lead to tuberculosis (TB) spreads in communities, especially among hard-to-reach populations. This study evaluated a community-based active case finding (ACF) strategy for the detection of tuberculosis cases among high-risk groups and general population in China between 2013 and 2015.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study conducted an ACF in ten communities of Dongchuan County, located in northeast Yunnan Province between 2013 and 2015; and compared to 136 communities that had passive case finding (PCF). The algorithm for ACF was: 1) screen for TB symptoms among community enrolled residents by home visits, 2) those with positive symptoms along with defined high-risk groups underwent chest X-ray (CXR), followed by sputum microscopy confirmation. TB incidence proportion and the number needed to screen (NNS) to detect one case were calculated to evaluate the ACF strategy compared to PCF, chi-square test was applied to compare the incidence proportion of TB cases' demography and the characteristics for detected cases under different strategies. Thereafter, the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and multiple Fisher's exact test were applied to compare the incidence proportion between general population and high-risk groups. Patient and diagnostic delays for ACF and PCF were compared by Wilcoxon rank sum test.ResultsA total of 97?521 enrolled residents were visited with the ACF cumulatively, 12.3% were defined as high-risk groups or had TB symptoms. Sixty-six new TB patients were detected by ACF. There was no significant difference between the cumulative TB incidence proportion for ACF (67.7/100000 population) and the prevalence for PCF (62.6/100000 population) during 2013 to 2015, though the incidence proportion in ACF communities decreased after three rounds active screening, concurrent with the remained stable prevalence in PCF communities. The cumulative NNS were 34, 39 and 29 in HIV/AIDS infected individuals, people with positive TB symptoms and history of previous TB, respectively, compared to 1478 in the general population. The median patient delay under ACF was 1 day (Interquartile range, IQR: 0-27) compared to PCF with 30?days (IQR: 14-61).ConclusionsThis study confirmed that massive ACF was not effective in general population in a moderate TB prevalence setting. The priority should be the definition and targeting of high-risk groups in the community before the screening process is launched. The shorter time interval of ACF between TB symptoms onset and linkage to healthcare service may decrease the risk of TB community transmission. Furthermore, integrated ACF strategy in the National Project of Basic Public Health Service may have long term public health impact.

Project description:Background: Community-based active case finding (ACF) for tuberculosis (TB) implemented among marginalised and vulnerable populations in 285 districts of India resulted in reduction of diagnosis delay and prevalence of catastrophic costs due to TB diagnosis. We were interested to know whether this translated into improved treatment outcomes. Globally, there is limited published literature from marginalised and vulnerable populations on the independent effect of community-based ACF on treatment outcomes when compared to passive case finding (PCF). Objectives: To determine the relative differences in unfavourable treatment outcomes (death, loss-to-follow-up, failure, not evaluated) of ACF and PCF-diagnosed people. Methods: Cohort study involving record reviews and interviews in 18 randomly selected districts. We enrolled all ACF-diagnosed people with new smear-positive pulmonary TB, registered under the national TB programme between March 2016 and February 2017, and an equal number of randomly selected PCF-diagnosed people in the same settings. We used log binomial models to adjust for confounders. Results: Of 572 enrolled, 275 belonged to the ACF and 297 to the PCF group. The proportion of unfavourable outcomes were 10.2% (95% CI: 7.1%, 14.3%) in the ACF and 12.5% (95% CI: 9.2%, 16.7%) in the PCF group (p = 0.468). The association between ACF and unfavourable outcomes remained non-significant after adjusting for confounders available from records [aRR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.56, 1.21)]. Due to patient non-availability at their residence, interviews were conducted for 465 (81.3%). In the 465 cohort too, there was no association after adjusting for confounders from records and interviews [aRR: 1.05 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.77)]. Conclusion: We did not find significant differences in the treatment outcomes. Due to the wide CIs, studies with larger sample sizes are urgently required. Studies are required to understand how to translate the benefits of ACF to improved treatment outcomes.