Cost-effectiveness of triage testing for facility-based systematic screening of tuberculosis among Ugandan adults

Matthew Murray, Adithya Cattamanchi, Claudia Denkinger, Anja Van'T Hoog, Madhukar Pai, David Wesley Dowdy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Systematic screening is often proposed as a way to improve case finding for tuberculosis (TB), but the cost-effectiveness of specific strategies for systematic screening remains poorly studied. Methods: We constructed a Markov-based decision analytic model to analyse the cost-effectiveness of triage testing for TB in Uganda, compared against passive case detection with Xpert MTB/RIF. We assumed a triage algorithm whereby all adults presenting to healthcare centres would be screened for cough, and those with cough of at least 2 weeks would receive the triage test, with positive triage results confirmed by Xpert MTB/RIF. We adopted the perspective of the TB control sector, using a primary outcome of the cost per year of life gained (YLG) over a lifetime time horizon. Results: Systematic screening in a population with a 5% underlying prevalence of TB was estimated to cost US$610 per YLG (95% uncertainty range US$200- US$1859) with chest X-ray (CXR) (US$5 per test, specificity 0.67), or US$588 (US$221-US$1746) with C reactive protein (CRP) (US$3 per test, specificity 0.59). In addition to the cost and specificity of the triage test, cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the underlying prevalence of TB, monthly risk of mortality in people with untreated TB and the proportion of patients with TB who would be treated in the absence of systematic screening. Conclusions: To optimise the cost-effectiveness of facility-based systematic screening of TB with a triage test, it must be carried out in a high-risk population, or use triage tests that are cheaper or more specific than CXR or CRP.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere000064
JournalBMJ Global Health
Volume1
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Triage
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Tuberculosis
Cough
Costs and Cost Analysis
C-Reactive Protein
Thorax
X-Rays
Uganda
Population
Uncertainty
Delivery of Health Care
Mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Cost-effectiveness of triage testing for facility-based systematic screening of tuberculosis among Ugandan adults. / Murray, Matthew; Cattamanchi, Adithya; Denkinger, Claudia; Van'T Hoog, Anja; Pai, Madhukar; Dowdy, David Wesley.

In: BMJ Global Health, Vol. 1, No. 2, e000064, 01.01.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Murray, Matthew ; Cattamanchi, Adithya ; Denkinger, Claudia ; Van'T Hoog, Anja ; Pai, Madhukar ; Dowdy, David Wesley. / Cost-effectiveness of triage testing for facility-based systematic screening of tuberculosis among Ugandan adults. In: BMJ Global Health. 2016 ; Vol. 1, No. 2.
@article{d103120d8dce40e3bcdb57017ac755e7,
title = "Cost-effectiveness of triage testing for facility-based systematic screening of tuberculosis among Ugandan adults",
abstract = "Background: Systematic screening is often proposed as a way to improve case finding for tuberculosis (TB), but the cost-effectiveness of specific strategies for systematic screening remains poorly studied. Methods: We constructed a Markov-based decision analytic model to analyse the cost-effectiveness of triage testing for TB in Uganda, compared against passive case detection with Xpert MTB/RIF. We assumed a triage algorithm whereby all adults presenting to healthcare centres would be screened for cough, and those with cough of at least 2 weeks would receive the triage test, with positive triage results confirmed by Xpert MTB/RIF. We adopted the perspective of the TB control sector, using a primary outcome of the cost per year of life gained (YLG) over a lifetime time horizon. Results: Systematic screening in a population with a 5{\%} underlying prevalence of TB was estimated to cost US$610 per YLG (95{\%} uncertainty range US$200- US$1859) with chest X-ray (CXR) (US$5 per test, specificity 0.67), or US$588 (US$221-US$1746) with C reactive protein (CRP) (US$3 per test, specificity 0.59). In addition to the cost and specificity of the triage test, cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the underlying prevalence of TB, monthly risk of mortality in people with untreated TB and the proportion of patients with TB who would be treated in the absence of systematic screening. Conclusions: To optimise the cost-effectiveness of facility-based systematic screening of TB with a triage test, it must be carried out in a high-risk population, or use triage tests that are cheaper or more specific than CXR or CRP.",
author = "Matthew Murray and Adithya Cattamanchi and Claudia Denkinger and {Van'T Hoog}, Anja and Madhukar Pai and Dowdy, {David Wesley}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000064",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1",
journal = "BMJ Global Health",
issn = "2059-7908",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness of triage testing for facility-based systematic screening of tuberculosis among Ugandan adults

AU - Murray, Matthew

AU - Cattamanchi, Adithya

AU - Denkinger, Claudia

AU - Van'T Hoog, Anja

AU - Pai, Madhukar

AU - Dowdy, David Wesley

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Background: Systematic screening is often proposed as a way to improve case finding for tuberculosis (TB), but the cost-effectiveness of specific strategies for systematic screening remains poorly studied. Methods: We constructed a Markov-based decision analytic model to analyse the cost-effectiveness of triage testing for TB in Uganda, compared against passive case detection with Xpert MTB/RIF. We assumed a triage algorithm whereby all adults presenting to healthcare centres would be screened for cough, and those with cough of at least 2 weeks would receive the triage test, with positive triage results confirmed by Xpert MTB/RIF. We adopted the perspective of the TB control sector, using a primary outcome of the cost per year of life gained (YLG) over a lifetime time horizon. Results: Systematic screening in a population with a 5% underlying prevalence of TB was estimated to cost US$610 per YLG (95% uncertainty range US$200- US$1859) with chest X-ray (CXR) (US$5 per test, specificity 0.67), or US$588 (US$221-US$1746) with C reactive protein (CRP) (US$3 per test, specificity 0.59). In addition to the cost and specificity of the triage test, cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the underlying prevalence of TB, monthly risk of mortality in people with untreated TB and the proportion of patients with TB who would be treated in the absence of systematic screening. Conclusions: To optimise the cost-effectiveness of facility-based systematic screening of TB with a triage test, it must be carried out in a high-risk population, or use triage tests that are cheaper or more specific than CXR or CRP.

AB - Background: Systematic screening is often proposed as a way to improve case finding for tuberculosis (TB), but the cost-effectiveness of specific strategies for systematic screening remains poorly studied. Methods: We constructed a Markov-based decision analytic model to analyse the cost-effectiveness of triage testing for TB in Uganda, compared against passive case detection with Xpert MTB/RIF. We assumed a triage algorithm whereby all adults presenting to healthcare centres would be screened for cough, and those with cough of at least 2 weeks would receive the triage test, with positive triage results confirmed by Xpert MTB/RIF. We adopted the perspective of the TB control sector, using a primary outcome of the cost per year of life gained (YLG) over a lifetime time horizon. Results: Systematic screening in a population with a 5% underlying prevalence of TB was estimated to cost US$610 per YLG (95% uncertainty range US$200- US$1859) with chest X-ray (CXR) (US$5 per test, specificity 0.67), or US$588 (US$221-US$1746) with C reactive protein (CRP) (US$3 per test, specificity 0.59). In addition to the cost and specificity of the triage test, cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the underlying prevalence of TB, monthly risk of mortality in people with untreated TB and the proportion of patients with TB who would be treated in the absence of systematic screening. Conclusions: To optimise the cost-effectiveness of facility-based systematic screening of TB with a triage test, it must be carried out in a high-risk population, or use triage tests that are cheaper or more specific than CXR or CRP.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026257933&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85026257933&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000064

DO - 10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000064

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85026257933

VL - 1

JO - BMJ Global Health

JF - BMJ Global Health

SN - 2059-7908

IS - 2

M1 - e000064

ER -