Rapid Diagnosis of Tuberculosis with the Xpert MTB/RIF Assay in High Burden Countries: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Anna Vassall(Academic Medical Center), Sanne van Kampen(Amsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development), Hojoon Sohn(McGill University), Joy S. Michael(Christian Medical College & Hospital), K. R. John, Saskia den Boon(University of California, San Francisco), J. Lucian Davis(University of California, San Francisco), Andrew Whitelaw(University of Cape Town), Mark P. Nicol(National Health Laboratory Service), Maria Tarcela Gler(Tropical Disease Foundation), Anar Khaliqov, Carlos Zamudio(Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia), Mark D. Perkins(Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics), Catharina Boehme(Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics), Frank Cobelens(Academic Medical Center)
PLoS Medicine
November 8, 2011
Cited by 315Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Xpert 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 FINDINGS: We 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. CONCLUSIONS: Our 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.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis