Alice A Zwerling1, Maitreyi Sahu, Lucky G Ngwira, McEwen Khundi, Tina Harawa, Elizabeth L Corbett, Richard E Chaisson, David W Dowdy. 1. *Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; †Malawi-Liverpool Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Blantyre, Malawi; ‡London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; and §Johns Hopkins Center for Tuberculosis Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: New tools, including light-emitting diode (LED) fluorescence microscopy and the molecular assay Xpert MTB/RIF, offer increased sensitivity for tuberculosis (TB) in persons with HIV but come with higher costs. Using operational data from rural Malawi, we explored the potential cost-effectiveness of on-demand screening for TB in low-income countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. DESIGN AND METHODS: Costs were empirically collected in 4 clinics and in 1 hospital using a microcosting approach, through direct interview and observation from the national TB program perspective. Using decision analysis, newly diagnosed persons with HIV were modeled as being screened by 1 of the 3 strategies: Xpert, LED, or standard of care (ie, at the discretion of the treating physician). RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness of TB screening among persons newly diagnosed with HIV was largely determined by 2 factors: prevalence of active TB among patients newly diagnosed with HIV and volume of testing. In facilities screening at least 50 people with a 6.5% prevalence of TB, or at least 500 people with a 2.5% TB prevalence, Xpert is likely to be cost-effective. At lower prevalence-including that observed in Malawi-LED microscopy may be the preferred strategy, whereas in settings of lower TB prevalence or small numbers of eligible patients, no screening may be reasonable (such that resources can be deployed elsewhere). CONCLUSIONS: TB screening at the point of HIV diagnosis may be cost-effective in low-income countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, but only if a relatively large population with high prevalence of TB can be identified for screening.
OBJECTIVE: New tools, including light-emitting diode (LED) fluorescence microscopy and the molecular assay Xpert MTB/RIF, offer increased sensitivity for tuberculosis (TB) in persons with HIV but come with higher costs. Using operational data from rural Malawi, we explored the potential cost-effectiveness of on-demand screening for TB in low-income countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. DESIGN AND METHODS: Costs were empirically collected in 4 clinics and in 1 hospital using a microcosting approach, through direct interview and observation from the national TB program perspective. Using decision analysis, newly diagnosed persons with HIV were modeled as being screened by 1 of the 3 strategies: Xpert, LED, or standard of care (ie, at the discretion of the treating physician). RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness of TB screening among persons newly diagnosed with HIV was largely determined by 2 factors: prevalence of active TB among patients newly diagnosed with HIV and volume of testing. In facilities screening at least 50 people with a 6.5% prevalence of TB, or at least 500 people with a 2.5% TB prevalence, Xpert is likely to be cost-effective. At lower prevalence-including that observed in Malawi-LED microscopy may be the preferred strategy, whereas in settings of lower TB prevalence or small numbers of eligible patients, no screening may be reasonable (such that resources can be deployed elsewhere). CONCLUSIONS: TB screening at the point of HIV diagnosis may be cost-effective in low-income countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, but only if a relatively large population with high prevalence of TB can be identified for screening.
Authors: J W Mellors; A Muñoz; J V Giorgi; J B Margolick; C J Tassoni; P Gupta; L A Kingsley; J A Todd; A J Saah; R Detels; J P Phair; C R Rinaldo Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1997-06-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Stephen D Lawn; Katharina Kranzer; David J Edwards; Matthew McNally; Linda-Gail Bekker; Robin Wood Journal: AIDS Date: 2010-06-01 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Edward J Mills; Celestin Bakanda; Josephine Birungi; Keith Chan; Nathan Ford; Curtis L Cooper; Jean B Nachega; Mark Dybul; Robert S Hogg Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-07-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: M A Espinal; S J Kim; P G Suarez; K M Kam; A G Khomenko; G B Migliori; J Baéz; A Kochi; C Dye; M C Raviglione Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-05-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lawrence C Long; Mhairi Maskew; Alana T Brennan; Constance Mongwenyana; Cynthia Nyoni; Given Malete; Ian Sanne; Matthew P Fox; Sydney Rosen Journal: AIDS Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Anil Pooran; Grant Theron; Lynn Zijenah; Duncan Chanda; Petra Clowes; Lawrence Mwenge; Farirai Mutenherwa; Paul Lecesse; John Metcalfe; Hojoon Sohn; Michael Hoelscher; Alex Pym; Jonny Peter; David Dowdy; Keertan Dheda Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Hyejeong Shin; Lucky G Ngwira; Austin Tucker; Richard E Chaisson; Elizabeth L Corbett; David W Dowdy Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2020-02-28 Impact factor: 3.918
Authors: Susanne Mueller-Using; Torsten Feldt; Fred Stephen Sarfo; Kirsten Alexandra Eberhardt Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: T I Armina Padmasawitri; Gerardus W Frederix; Bachti Alisjahbana; Olaf Klungel; Anke M Hövels Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 3.240