Dataset Information

Costs and cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive tuberculosis case finding strategy in Zambia.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Active-case finding (ACF) programs have an important role in addressing case detection gaps and halting tuberculosis (TB) transmission. Evidence is limited on the cost-effectiveness of ACF interventions, particularly on how their value is impacted by different operational, epidemiological and patient care-seeking patterns.

Methods

We evaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of a combined facility and community-based ACF intervention in Zambia that utilized mobile chest X-ray with computer-aided reading/interpretation software and laboratory-based Xpert MTB/RIF testing. Programmatic costs (in 2018 US dollars) were assessed from the health system perspective using prospectively collected cost and operational data. Cost-effectiveness of the ACF intervention was assessed as the incremental cost per TB death averted over a five-year time horizon using a multi-stage Markov state-transition model reflecting patient symptom-associated care-seeking and TB care under ACF compared to passive care.

Results

Over 18 months of field operations, the ACF intervention costed $435 to diagnose and initiate treatment for one person with TB. After accounting for patient symptom-associated care-seeking patterns in Zambia, we estimate that this one-time ACF intervention would incrementally diagnose 407 (7,207 versus 6,800) TB patients and avert 502 (611 versus 1,113) TB-associated deaths compared to the status quo (passive case finding), at an incremental cost of $2,284 per death averted over the next five-year period. HIV/TB mortality rate, patient symptom-associated care-seeking probabilities in the absence of ACF, and the costs of ACF patient screening were key drivers of cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions

A one-time comprehensive ACF intervention simultaneously operating in public health clinics and corresponding catchment communities can have important medium-term impact on case-finding and be cost-effective in Zambia. The value of such interventions increases if targeted to populations with high HIV/TB mortality, substantial barriers (both behavioral and physical) to care-seeking exist, and when ACF interventions can optimize screening by achieving operational efficiency.

SUBMITTER: Jo Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8428570 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSystematic screening for active tuberculosis (TB) is a strategy which requires the health system to seek out individuals, rather than waiting for individuals to self-present with symptoms (i.e., passive case finding). Our review aimed to summarize the current economic evidence and understand the costs and cost-effectiveness of systematic screening approaches among high-risk groups and settings.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review on economic evaluations of screening for TB disease targeting persons with clinical and/or structural risk factors, such as persons living with HIV (PLHIV) or persons experiencing homelessness. We searched three databases for studies published between January 1, 2010 and February 1, 2020. Studies were included if they reported cost and a key outcome measure. Owing to considerable heterogeneity in settings and type of screening strategy, we synthesized data descriptively.ResultsA total of 27 articles were included in our review; 19/27 (70%) took place in high TB burden countries. Seventeen studies took place among persons with clinical risk factors, including 14 among PLHIV, while 13 studies were among persons with structural risk factors. Nine studies reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from US$51 to $1980 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Screening was most cost-effective among PLHIV. Among persons with clinical and structural risk factors there was limited evidence, but screening was generally not shown to be cost-effective.ConclusionsStudies showed that screening is most likely to be cost-effective in a high TB prevalence population. Our review highlights that to reach the "missing millions" TB programmes should focus on simple, cheaper initial screening tools (i.e., symptom screen and CXR) followed by molecular diagnostic tools (i.e., Xpert®) among the highest risk groups in the local setting (i.e., PLHIV, urban slums). Programmatic costs greatly impact cost-effectiveness thus future research should provide both fixed and variable costs of screening interventions to improve comparability.

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.