Rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis with the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in high burden countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis

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.

Figure 1. Simplified schematic of model.

Figure 2. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

ICER “replacement of smear” compared with “in addition to smear.”

Figure 3. Selected sensitivity analyses.

Sensitivity of the model for the prevalence of tuberculosis, for the prevalence of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, and for the accuracy of clinical diagnosis. Patterns of ICERs in 2010 US$ for varying the proportion of individuals with suspected TB in the cohort who have smear-positive TB (A, D, G); for varying the proportion of new patients with TB who have multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB, B, E, H); and for varying the specificity of the clinical diagnosis of TB in the base case (C, F, I). (A, B, and C), South Africa; (E,D, and F), India; (G, H, and I), Uganda. Black lines, Xpert assay in addition to sputum smear examination; grey lines, Xpert assay as replacement of sputum smear examination. The proportion of individuals with suspected TB in the cohort who have smear-negative TB varies along with the proportion of individuals with suspected TB in the cohort who have smear-positive TB in a linear manner, depending on the HIV-infection prevalence (A, D, G; see Table 1 and Text S1). Similarly, the proportion of previously treated patients with TB who have MDR-TB varies linearly with the proportion of new patients with TB who have MDR-TB (B, E, H; see Table 1 and Text S1). The sensitivity of clinical diagnosis in the base case varies inversely with the specificity (range, 8%–80%; C, F, I).