TY - JOUR
T1 - Informing decision-making for universal access to quality tuberculosis diagnosis in India
T2 - An economic-epidemiological model
AU - Sohn, Hojoon
AU - Kasaie, Parastu
AU - Kendall, Emily
AU - Gomez, Gabriela B.
AU - Vassall, Anna
AU - Pai, Madhukar
AU - Dowdy, David
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Author(s).
PY - 2019/8/6
Y1 - 2019/8/6
N2 - Background: India and many other high-burden countries have committed to providing universal access to high-quality diagnosis and drug susceptibility testing (DST) for tuberculosis (TB), but the most cost-effective approach to achieve this goal remains uncertain. Centralized testing at district-level hub facilities with a supporting sample transport network can generate economies of scale, but decentralization to the peripheral level may provide faster diagnosis and reduce losses to follow-up (LTFU). Methods: We generated functions to evaluate the costs of centralized and decentralized molecular testing for tuberculosis with Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), a WHO-endorsed test which can be performed at centralized and decentralized levels. We merged the cost estimates with an agent-based simulation of TB transmission in a hypothetical representative region in India to assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of each strategy. Results: Compared against centralized Xpert testing, decentralization was most favorable when testing volume at decentralized facilities and pre-treatment LTFU were high, and specimen transport network was exclusively established for TB. Assuming equal quality of centralized and decentralized testing, decentralization was cost-saving, saving a median 338,000 (interquartile simulation range [IQR] - 222,000; 889,000) per 20 million people over 10 years, in the most cost-favorable scenario. In the most cost-unfavorable scenario, decentralized testing would cost a median 3161 [IQR 2412; 4731] per disability-adjusted life year averted relative to centralized testing. Conclusions: Decentralization of Xpert testing is likely to be cost-saving or cost-effective in most settings to which these simulation results might generalize. More decentralized testing is more cost-effective in settings with moderate-to-high peripheral testing volumes, high existing clinical LTFU, inability to share specimen transport costs with other disease entities, and ability to ensure high-quality peripheral Xpert testing. Decision-makers should assess these factors when deciding whether to decentralize molecular testing for tuberculosis.
AB - Background: India and many other high-burden countries have committed to providing universal access to high-quality diagnosis and drug susceptibility testing (DST) for tuberculosis (TB), but the most cost-effective approach to achieve this goal remains uncertain. Centralized testing at district-level hub facilities with a supporting sample transport network can generate economies of scale, but decentralization to the peripheral level may provide faster diagnosis and reduce losses to follow-up (LTFU). Methods: We generated functions to evaluate the costs of centralized and decentralized molecular testing for tuberculosis with Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), a WHO-endorsed test which can be performed at centralized and decentralized levels. We merged the cost estimates with an agent-based simulation of TB transmission in a hypothetical representative region in India to assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of each strategy. Results: Compared against centralized Xpert testing, decentralization was most favorable when testing volume at decentralized facilities and pre-treatment LTFU were high, and specimen transport network was exclusively established for TB. Assuming equal quality of centralized and decentralized testing, decentralization was cost-saving, saving a median 338,000 (interquartile simulation range [IQR] - 222,000; 889,000) per 20 million people over 10 years, in the most cost-favorable scenario. In the most cost-unfavorable scenario, decentralized testing would cost a median 3161 [IQR 2412; 4731] per disability-adjusted life year averted relative to centralized testing. Conclusions: Decentralization of Xpert testing is likely to be cost-saving or cost-effective in most settings to which these simulation results might generalize. More decentralized testing is more cost-effective in settings with moderate-to-high peripheral testing volumes, high existing clinical LTFU, inability to share specimen transport costs with other disease entities, and ability to ensure high-quality peripheral Xpert testing. Decision-makers should assess these factors when deciding whether to decentralize molecular testing for tuberculosis.
KW - Cost-benefit analysis
KW - Diagnostic techniques and procedures
KW - Systems analysis
KW - Tuberculosis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070360316&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85070360316&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12916-019-1384-8
DO - 10.1186/s12916-019-1384-8
M3 - Article
C2 - 31382959
AN - SCOPUS:85070360316
SN - 1741-7015
VL - 17
JO - BMC medicine
JF - BMC medicine
IS - 1
M1 - 155
ER -