Cost-effectiveness of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube versus tuberculin skin test for diagnosis and treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in primary health care workers in Brazil.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis from the public health system perspective, comparing five strategies for Latent Tuberculosis Infection (LTBI) diagnosis in primary health care workers in Brazil.
DESIGN: Analytical model for decision making, characterized by cost-effectiveness analysis.
SETTING: Primary Care Level, considering primary health care workers in Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: An analytical model for decision making, characterized by a tree of probabilities of events, was developed considering a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 primary health care workers, using the software TreeAge Pro™ 2013 to simulate the clinical and economic impacts of new diagnostic technology (QuantiFERON®-TB Gold in-Tube) versus the traditional tuberculin skin test.
METHODS: This model simulated five diagnostic strategies for LTBI in primary health care workers (HCW) in Brazil: tuberculin skin testing using ≥5 mm cut-off, tuberculin skin testing ≥10 mm cut-off, QuantiFERON®-TB Gold in-Tube, tuberculin skin testing using ≥5 mm cut-off confirmed by QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube if TST positive, tuberculin skin testing using ≥10 mm cut-off confirmed by QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube if TST positive. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures are the number of individuals correctly classified by the test and the number of Tuberculosis cases avoided.
RESULTS: The most cost-effective strategy was the tuberculin skin test considering ≥10mm cut-off. The isolated use of the QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube revealed the strategy of lower efficiency with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$ 146.05 for each HCW correctly classified by the test.
CONCLUSIONS: The tuberculin skin test using ≥10 mm cut-off was the most cost-effective strategy in the diagnosis of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in primary health care works in Brazil.

Introduction

Health Care Workers (HCWs) are one of the most vulnerable groups to infection by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) [1]. The resurgence of tuberculosis (TB) in the world, between the 1980s and 1990s, was accompanied by many nosocomial outbreaks, with several deaths of these professionals[2, 3]. Thus, TB screening tests in these workers are considered essential for identification of latent and active disease in an effort to reduce transmission in health services[4].

According to estimates from the World Health Organization (WHO), 10.0 million people (range, 9.0–11.1 million) developed TB disease in 2017 and 1.6 million death due to TB occurred[5].Despite the decline in the incidence and mortality rates of the disease, one-third of the world population has Latent Tuberculosis Infection (LTBI)[6]. This situation may have improved, as up-to-date estimates indicate that about a quarter of the world's population is infected, corresponding to 1.7 billion people[7]. To achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of eliminating this endemic disease by 2050 is necessary to diagnose and to treat the disease with new approaches.

A strategy indicated to increase control is by detection and treatment of LTBI[8] because infected persons have a 10% risk to develop active TB during life[9]; this risk can be reduced with the use of isoniazid (INH) preventive therapy.

In Brazil, the Ministry of Health (MOH) reported 72,788 new cases of TB in 2018, with an incidence rate of 34.8/100,000 inhabitants. Although an average annual decrease of 1.0% was observed between 2009 and 2018, the incidence coefficient increased in 2017 and 2018 compared to 2014–2016, indicating the need to improve control measures in Brazil[10]. TB mortality is also declining. In 2001, the mortality rate for the country was 3.1 deaths/100,000 inhabitants, falling to 2.2/100,000 inhabitants in 2016 and 2017 [10]. Despite the decrease in the number of cases, Brazil is ranked among the 30 high TB burden countries by the WHO, which account for 80% of TB worldwide[11].

The identification of people with LTBI is considered by WHO as a priority in controlling disease[8], especially in developing countries where the incidence of the active disease has shown a reduction. In Brazil, the National Tuberculosis Control Program (NTCP) includes health professionals in the category of highest risk[12] due to their occupational exposure[4]. Similarly to the Brazilian medical associations[13] and the WHO[14], the NTCP recommended measures to reduce the risk of transmission of the infection in centers for tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment in the country.

The tuberculin skin test (TST), standard method commonly used for the diagnosis of LTBI, has low cost. However, it is limited by low specificity due to false-positive results in populations vaccinated with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) or infected with Nontuberculous Mycobacteria (NTM), not overcome by using higher cut-offs as test positivity criteria. Another difficulty of this test is the need for repeated visits to the health system for their achievement and reading, influencing adherence to screening[15-18].

In order to address the challenges posed by the TST, a new diagnostic technology has been introduced as tests for LTBI, the interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA). These require only one visit to the clinic, with results available within a short period of time (24 hours) and are not subject to the subjectivity of reading. One of these tests based on antigen detection in whole blood is QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QTF-GIT), an in vitro immunoassay using an ensemble of peptides simulating the ESAT-6, CFP-10 and TB7.7 (p4) proteins[16-19]. This assay, the only IGRA that is already approved by the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) for marketing and use in Brazil, has high sensitivity and specificity and differentiates LTBI of immune response to vaccination and infection by NTM[20-22]. Despite the requirement for laboratory infrastructure, equipment and supplies are expensive[15, 22, 23], its use for this indication was evaluated as cost-effective in various locations and incorporated into TB control guidelines in some developed countries[24, 25].

In Brazil, a study published in 2013[26] assessed the cost-effectiveness in the public health system perspective, comparing three strategies for the diagnosis of LTBI in immunocompetent adults who were close contacts of TB cases: TST, QFT-GIT, and QFT-GIT in individuals with a positive TST. Contrary to the results of studies conducted in other countries, the TST strategy was more cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$ 16 per case of TB prevented. Gaps persist in the literature, especially with regard to its use in specific populations, such as HCWs. There is also a lack of economy studies for evaluating the effectiveness of these tests in health professionals of countries with high load and wide coverage for BCG, such as Brazil.

Thus, conducting economic analysis of diagnostic methods for LTBI in primary HCWs is timely and relevant and can support decision-making processes related to the incorporation of the new test in the country. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TST versus QFT-GIT in the diagnosis and treatment of LTBI in primary HCWs, in the perspective of the Brazilian Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde–SUS), comparing five strategies that include the QFT-GIT, distinct cut-off points for TST and sequential use of the two tests.

Methods

Model structure

A cost-effectiveness evaluation was conducted considering a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 HCWs of both sexes working in primary care.

An analytical model for decision making, characterized by a tree of probabilities of events, was developed using the Tree-Age ProTM 2013 (TreeAge Software Inc, Williamstown, MA, USA) to simulate the natural history of LTBI, clinical outcomes and economic impacts of the new diagnostic technology (QFT-GIT) versus the traditional TST. This model simulated five diagnostic strategies for detection and treatment of LTBI: (1) TST using a ≥5 mm cut-off point, which is recommended by the National Tuberculosis Control Program in asymptomatic adults contacts; (2) TST using a ≥10 mm cut-off point, which is currently recommended by the NTCP for the management of latent infection in health care workers; (3) QFT-GIT test; (4) TST with a ≥5 mm cut-off point, followed by QFT-GIT when TST test positive; and (5) TST with a cut-off point of ≥10 mm, followed by QFT-GIT when the TST was positive, a strategy that has proven to be more cost-effective in some countries of TB high burden[25, 27] and that has been recommended by some guidelines[24, 28, 29]. Fig 1 and Fig 2 show the analytical decision model developed.

Fig 1

Decision tree for diagnosis of Latent TB Infection (LTBI).

Fig 2

Decision tree for diagnosis of Latent TB Infection (LTBI) (continued from Fig 1).

Notes: (A) LTBI treatment, (B) LTBI No treatment, (C) No LTBI treatment.

Patient and public involvement

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted considering a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 HCWs of both sexes working in primary care; patients and/or public were not involved.

Measures of effectiveness

Two measures of effectiveness were chosen. The first refers to the number of individuals correctly classified as with infection and was calculated by the sum of truepositives and true negatives, considering the prevalence of LTBI estimated for HCWs. The other measure is the number of TB cases avoided from diagnosis of LTBI and its preventive treatment with INH.

The time horizon of the study was restricted to one year.

Model assumptions

The strategies simulated in the analytical model are based on the screening process and treatment of the TB recommended by the WHO[14], the Brazilian Society of Pulmonology and Phthisiology[13], and the NTCP[30].

The trajectory of health primary care professionals was modeled by submitting each screening strategy study and clinical consequences of treatment decisions that resulted from this. For each of the strategies tested, probabilities of infection and detection LTBI were estimated considering whether the infection was recent or remote (≥2 years). In professionals where infection had been detected, the risk of active TB was modeled with and without treatment of the infection. Adherence to treatment and risks of preventive therapy were also considered with INH for 6 months as recommended by NTCP.

As a reference case, complete adherence to treatment was considered and associated risks were limited to severe hepatotoxicity; there was still the possibility of death by Drug-Induced Liver Injury (DILI). Finally, mortality and treatment effectiveness in patients with active TB were considered.

Whereas the simulation model of the natural history of LTBI consists of a simplification of reality, some assumptions have been made, taking as a reference the coherence with clinical and epidemiological knowledge available. Thus, this study assumed that: (a) all HCWs were asymptomatic, without active TB; (b) there were no HIV-infected individuals; (c) 20% of HCWs with LTBI and positive TST had recent infection; (d) all professionals diagnosed with LTBI received prophylactic treatment with isoniazid prescription after clinical examination and X-rays of the chest, excluding diagnosis of active TB; (e) all cases of active TB and LTBI would be sensitive to antituberculosis drugs; and (f) HCWs who developed DILI would complete only three months of treatment and this time therapy was associated with an increased risk of progression of LTBI to active disease, compared to those with complete treatment.

Model parameters

Clinical, epidemiological and test accuracy parameters derived from original articles, systematic reviews and studies conducted in Brazil on the technologies; they are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Clinical and epidemiological parameters, accuracy of tests and cost parameters used in the model.

Clinical and Epidemiological Parameters	Base-Case Probability	Rangea	Source
Prevalence of LTBI	0.40	0.36–0.44	INATA
Probability of recent LTBI	0.20	0.05–0.50	Estimated
Probability of return to TST reading	0.96	0.95–0.98	INATA
Adherence to LTBI treatment (6 months)b	0.53	0.47–0.78	Jasmer, 2002[41]; LoBue, 2003[42]; Trajman et al., 2010[31]; Horsburgh Jr, 2010[43]; IUAT, 1982[32]
Efficacy of LTBI treatment (6 months)	0.65	0.50–0.93	IUAT, 1982[32]; Khan, 2002[44]; Comstock, 1999[45]
Efficacy of LTBI treatment (3 months)	0.21	0.10–0.31	IUAT, 1982[32]; Khan, 2002[44]; Comstock, 1999[45]
Probability of DILI related to LTBI treatment	0.001	0.00001–0.01	Nolan et al., 1999[46]; Steele, 1991[47]; Fountain, 2005[48]; Saukkonen et al., 2006[49]; Linas et al., 2011[50]
Probability of hospitalization due to DILI	0.00015	0.00010–0.00020	Saukkonen et al, 2006[49]; Leung et al., 2011[51]; Nolan et al., 1999[46]
Probability of deaths by DILI	0.00001	0.000001–0.0003	Millard, 1996[52];Salpeter et al., 1997[53]; Saukkonen et al., 2006[49]; Leung et al., 2011[51]
Evolution of recent LTBI to TB, with complete treatment for LTBI	0.005	0.0047–0.015	IUAT Trial, 1982[32]
Evolution of recent LTBI to TB, with partial treatment for LTBI	0.0113	0.0094–0.015	IUAT Trial, 1982[32]
Evolution of recent LTBI to TB, without treatment for LTBI	0.08	0.05–0.10	Pai, 2008[35]; Vynnycky E, Fine PE, 1997[34]; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2014[54]
Evolution of remote LTBI to TB, without treatment for LTBI	0.04	0.025–0.05	D’Arcy, 1972[35]; Vynnycky E, Fine PE, 1997[34]; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2014[54]
Accuracy of Test Parameters	Base-Case Probability	Rangea	Source
TST sensitivity (.≥ 5 mm)	0.82	0.68–0.97	Diel et al., 2007[55]
TST specificity (.≥ 5 mm)	0.61	0.35–0.79	Diel et al., 2007[55]; Lee et al. 2006[56]
TST sensitivity (.≥ 10 mm)	0.77	0.55–0.95	Menzies, 2007[17]; Pai, 2008[35]
TST specificity (.≥ 10 mm)	0.59	0.43–0.73	Pai, 2008[35]; Diel, 2011[37]
QFT-GIT sensitivity	0.78	0.54–0.82	Pai, 2008[35]; Menzies, 2007[17]; Diel, 2010[39]; Zwerling, 2012[36]
QFT-GIT specificity	0.98	0.96–0.99	Menzies, 2007[17]; Pai, 2008[35]; Diel, 2009[38]; Diel, 2010[39]; Diel 2011[37] Zwerling, 2012[36]
Probability of indeterminate QFT-GIT result	0.05	0.02–0.09	Shahidi, 2012[57]; Metcalfe, 2011[58]
Cost Parameters	Base-Case Value (US$)	Rangea	Source
Costs Related to LTBI Diagnosis	12.55	8.29–16.81
Initial medical consultation	8.51	4.25–12.76	MOH/SIGTAP
Chest radiograph	4.04	-	MOH/SIGTAP
Costs Related to Active TB Diagnosis	16.12	6.04–18.12
Initial medical consultation	8.51	4.25–12.76	MOH/SIGTAP
Chest radiograph	4.04	-	MOH/SIGTAP
Sputum smear	3.57	1.79–5.36	MOH/SIGTAP
Cost of QFT-GIT:	39.00	31.77–47.66	Estimated
Human Resources c	2.24	1.79–2.68
QFT-GIT test kit	33.88	27.10–40.65
Consumablesd	1.81	1.81–2.71
Equipmente	1.07	1.07–1.60
Cost of TST:	7.62	6.96–9.54	Estimated
Human resourcesf	2.12	1.48–2.54
PPD RT23 2 UT/1.5 ml	4.14	4.14–4.97
Consumablesg	1.31	1.31–1.97
Equipmenth	0.05	0.02–0.05
Cost of Complete LTBI Treatment (6 months)	42.66	30.69–59.76
Isoniazid (300 mg/day)	5.95	-	MOH/NTBP
Blood count	3.50	1.75–5.24	MOH/SIGTAP
Serum dosage GOT	1.71	0.85–5.13	MOH/SIGTAP
Serum dosage GPT	1.71	0.85–5.13	MOH/SIGTAP
Medical consultation	29.79	21.28–38.30	MOH/SIGTAP
Cost of Partial LTBI Treatment (3 months)	35.90	28.19–43.62
Isoniazid (300 mg/day)	4.25	-	MOH/NTBP
Blood count	5.25	3.50–6.99	MOH/SIGTAP
Serum dosage GOT	2.56	1.71–3.42	MOH/SIGTAP
Serum dosage GPT	2.56	1.71–3.42	MOH/SIGTAP
Medical consultation	21.28	17.02–25.53	MOH/SIGTAP
Cost of DILI	254.63	184.90–294.05
Costs of hospitalization	239.20	177.19–265.78	MOH/SIGTAP
Medical consultation	8.51	4.25–12.76	MOH/SIGTAP
Blood count	3.50	1.75–5,25	MOH/SIGTAP
Serum dosage GOT	1.71	0.85–5.13	MOH/SIGTAP
Serum dosage GPT	1.71	0.85–5.13	MOH/SIGTAP
Cost of Death by DILIi	432.88	216.44–650.59
Costs of hospitalization in ICU IIIi	432.88	216.44–650.59	MOH/SIGTAP
Cost of Active TB Treatment (6 months)	77.27	49.65–102.21
RHZE scheme (2 months)	13.44	-	MOH/NTBP
RHZ scheme (4 months)	8.18	-	MOH/NTBP
Medical consultation	29.79	12.76–34.04	MOH/SIGTAP
Sputum smear	12.51	5.36–12.51	MOH/SIGTAP
Chest radiograph	4.04	4.04–8.08	MOH/SIGTAP
Culture for sputum smear	2.39	2.39–10.43	MOH/SIGTAP
Blood count	3.50	1.75–5.25	MOH/SIGTAP
Serum dosage GOT	1.71	0.85–5.13	MOH/SIGTAP
Serum dosage GPT	1.71	0.85–5.13	MOH/SIGTAP

Caption: DILI–Drug Induced Liver Disease, LTBI–Latent Tuberculosis Infection; PPD–purified protein derivative; RHZE—Rifampicin, Isoniazid, Pyrazinamide and Ethambutol; RHZ—Rifampicin, Isoniazid, Pyrazinamide; TST–Tuberculosis Skin Test; QFT-GIT–QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube; SIGTAP–Procedure Table Management System, medications and OPM of SUS; SIASG–General Services Management System; TB–Tuberculosis; GOT–glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase/aspartate aminotransferase; GPT–glutamate pyruvate transaminase/alanine aminotransferase; NTBP–National Tuberculosis Program; MOH–Brazilian Ministry of Health.

Notes:

a–Assumes that individuals had adherence to LTBI treatment with INH 300 mg/day.

b–The parameter variation range was set based on the upper and lower limits in relation to the reference case.

c–Nursing staff time, laboratory technician time

d–Gloves, needles, tourniquet, cotton, alcohol, box for syringes, eppendorf, cryotube, color-coded insert (red and blue), DNA Free Pyrogen (200 μl–sterile and with filter), D1000 Diamond®Tipack 100–1000 μl (sterile and with filter)

e–incubator, centrifuge, microplate washer, microplate reader, computer, printer

f–Nursing staff time

g–Gloves, cotton, alcohol, syringes with needles, box for syringes, thermic box and ice bag

h–Fridge, thermometer with alarm, millimeter ruler

i–It was considered that the cost of ICU type III was for severe hepatotoxicity. US$ 1.00 = R$ 2.35 (mean exchange rate in 2014).

Clinical and epidemiological parameters

The estimated prevalence of LTBI was obtained from the partial results of the Brazilian study “INATA: Infecção e Adoecimento por Tuberculose entre Profissionais de Saúde da Atenção Básica” (INATA: Infection and Illness by Tuberculosis among Primary Health Care Workers). This survey, conducted from January 2011 to December 2013, assessed the prevalence of LTBI in primary care professionals. The sample included 708 health professionals, with 20–70 years, selected from cities with high Tb incidence from the five geographical regions: Manaus (93.3/100,000), Salvador (62.3/100,000), Cuiabá (116.5/100,000), Vitória (46.2/100,000) and Porto Alegre (99.5/100,000) [10], submitted to diagnostic tests TST and QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube. The overall prevalence estimated of LTBI, based on TST ≥10 mm cut-off point, was 0.40 (95% CI 0.36–0.44).

The proportion of professionals who returned to the TST reading used in the reference case was 0.96 (INATA Project finding) and as limits of the variation range (0.95–0.98) corresponding the highest and lowest proportion of returns from the municipalities of the research (data based on personal correspondence with project INATA coordinator).

Adherence rates to treatment used in the reference case based on the results of the Brazilian site of a multicenter randomized controlled clinical study, which investigated the predictors of adherence to treatment of LTBI in adults[31]; range of values used in the sensitivity analysis were obtained from the literature. Estimates of treatment adherence rate in health workers diagnosed as LTBI by QTF were not available in the literature at the time of the study, and the same parameter and range above were used.

LTBI treatment efficacy was based on the trial conducted by the International Union Against Tuberculosis (The Union) to evaluate the effect of prophylactic regimens with isoniazid[32]. The results of the schemes were used with duration of three and six months, with the values applied in reference case corresponding for all participants. The Union trial[32] also estimated the rates of progress to active TB after complete (6 months) and partial (3 months) treatment of LTBI.

The probability of progression of LTBI to active TB in individuals without treatment varies according to their age and post-exposure time to MTb. Classic studies of tuberculosis on progression findings were used[33], including those that evaluated the age effect on disease risk[34].

The probability of occurrence of DILI as well as hospitalization and death due to this condition also had international literature as source. DILI parameters took into account serious hepatotoxicity only.

Test accuracy parameters

The proportion of undetermined results for strategies that included sequential or QFT-GIT alone was obtained from the literature, taking into account adult and HIV-uninfected subjects.

The parameters of test accuracy were drawn from systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies published by Menzies[17], Pai[35], Zwerling[36] and Diel[37-39].

Cost parameters

The costs of screening and treatment of LTBI were analyzed from the perspective of the Brazilian Health System as responsible for financing the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis in Brazil. All costs were converted to U.S. dollars (US$) at the rate of 2.35 reais/1 US$, the average conversion rate for 2014. No discount was applied because of the short horizon of the study (one year). There was no inflation rate adjustment.

Direct medical costs related to the detection of cases of LTBI examined by diagnostic strategies were assessed, as well as those arising from assistance to detected cases and losses within each approach.

Until the preparation of this paper, the QFT-GIT was not incorporated into the SUS payment procedures tables. Moreover, currently, TST costs are covered in the basic care actions for TB control. Thus, an estimate of costs of these two exams was made to fill the model used. For cost estimates, stages of the production process of the two procedures were identified based on the observation of 164 TST tests and 640 QFT-GIT assays performed from January to March 2013, in the Laboratory of Immunology (LI) of the Center Infectious Diseases at the Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo. This study quantified all supplies used in the production of the tests and then assigned monetary values to them based on effective consumption or on estimate of the cost of items under service provider’s perspective[40].

This study also considered the costs of supplies (consumption of reagents and materials, as examination gloves, needles syringes, tourniquet, cotton, alcohol, box for syringes), and of equipment (fridge for purified protein derivative–PPD–storage, thermometer with alarm, millimeter ruler for reading PPD, incubator, centrifuge, microplate washer, microplate reader, computer, printer) and the necessary human resources (nurses and laboratory technicians). Financial and accounting data for valuation of supplies and resources used were obtained from the LI and Health Department of the Municipality of Vitória/Espírito Santo.

In addition to the cost of the tests, the cost of screening for LTBI included two medical appointments and a chest X-ray when the TST or QFT-GIT was positive, for active TB exclusion. The number of appointments involved in this exclusion of diagnosis varied in the sensitivity analysis (SA) from one to three appointments to the lower and upper limit, respectively, considering the tests performed.

Isoniazid used to treat LTBI and the quadruple regimen used to treat active TB are centrally purchased by the Brazilian Ministry of Health and dispensed free of charge to patients according to NTBP recommendations. The complete treatment costs for LTBI included INH regimen with 300 mg/day for six months, and seven medical monitoring visits and three additional tests of hepatotoxicity control: blood count; glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase/aspartate aminotransferase (GOT); and glutamic pyruvic transaminase/alanine aminotransferase (GPT). In the sensitivity analysis, the number of follow-up medical consultations varied around two for less or for more from the values of the reference case, and the number of complementary tests ranged from one to three tests for the lower and upper limit, respectively, considering the clinical evolution of the individual.

The partial treatment costs for LTBI were considered for those who developed hepatotoxicity and did not complete the prophylactic therapy. The regimen included costs with INH 300 mg/day for three months, five medical consultations and three additional tests as mentioned above. Medical monitoring visits and tests varied in sensitivity analysis for one less and one more of the values of the reference case.

Also, cases of severe DILI incurred in hospitalization costs, valued by the code “Treatment of Liver Diseases” present in the Brazilian Hospital Information System table, with a 35% increase in values related to professional care in hospitals considered as Type II Urgency.

Also, cases with severe DILI incurred in hospitalization costs, valued by the code “Treatment of Liver Diseases” present in the Brazilian Hospital Information System (SIH-SUS) table, with a 35% increase in values related to professional and service charges in hospitals considered as Hospital Type II Urgency. In the sensitivity analysis, these values varied to the following extremes: 50% increase, equivalent to hospitalization in Hospital Type III Urgency, for the upper limit; and base value of the hospitalization to the lower limit.

In cases of DILI that evolved to death, costs equivalent to two daily hospitalizations to the intensive care unit adult (ICU III) were included, ranging from 1 to 3 in sensitivity analysis. For those who survived, monitoring costs of severe DILI were also included, resulting in the increase of doctors’ visits (varying from one to three consultations in the SA), and two blood count testings, GOT and GPT (ranging from one to three tests in the SA).

For active TB treatment costs that could arise from the screening for LTBI, the basic quadruple regimen recommended by the NTBP was used for six months (rifampicin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide and ethambutol daily for two months, followed by rifampicin, isoniazid and pyrazinamide daily for 4 months). The costs added were related to seven doctor’s appointments (varying from three to eight in the SA), five smears (ranging from three to seven), three chest x-ray examinations (ranging from one to seven), complete blood count, two GOT and GPT tests (SA: 1–3), and one sputum culture.

In line with the public health system perspective adopted, the costs of medical appointments, monitoring tests, and hospitalizations were valued according to the payment tables of procedures present in the Brazilian Health System (SIGTAP–Sistema de Gerenciamento da Tabela de Procedimentos, Medicamentos e OPM do SUS), considering the tables valid in March 2013. The cost parameters are shown in Table 1.

Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER)

The comparative efficiency of the diagnostic alternatives for LTBI was measured by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, defined as the ratio between the additional cost of the strategy and the clinical effectiveness (estimated for each of the two measures of interest defined above) compared to alternative lower cost-effectiveness ratio. This ratio corresponds to the division of the cost for the observed effect, as set forth below.

For each of the outcome measures two analytical approaches were performed. In one, the TST with ≥10 mm cut-off point was chosen as the base strategy because this cut-off is currently recommended by NTBP in management and decision-making concerning health professionals. In the other, due to possible changes in cut-off points of TST for LTBI diagnosis in health workers, ICER of all strategies is also calculated with each other, from the hierarchy of strategies according to their costs. Dominated strategies (less effective and more costly) and those with weak or extended dominance were eliminated.

No discount was applied due to the short horizon of the study, as recommended in the Brazilian Methodological Guidelines for Economic Evaluation Studies of Health Technologies[59].

Sensitivity analysis

Usually, mathematical models incorporate some degree of uncertainty related to the established assumptions and the necessity of assigning values to different parameters necessary to simulate the evolution of the modeled cohort. Sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate the model results considering alternative scenarios to the reference case. To this end, deterministic univariate analysis was performed.

Tornado Diagram was developed to assess the impact of the measures, by varying the following parameters: prevalence of LTBI; risk of progression of recent and remote LTBI to active TB; sensitivity and specificity of TST and QFT-GIT; adherence to treatment of LTBI; efficacy of treatment with INH for LTBI; LTBI and TB treatment costs; costs of TST and QFT-GIT. The variations in the range used are shown in Table 1.

This economic analysis held for aggregate secondary data available in public databases or information coming from literature required no prior approval by the Institutional Review Board (IRB)[30]. The data for the INATA study, approved by the IRB of UFES under number 007/10 were obtained with the authorization of Coordinator of Project–Prof. Ethel Leonor Noia Maciel.

Results

Base case

Number of individuals correctly classified by the tests

TST represented the lowest cost strategy, whereas the single use of the new QFT-GIT technology for LTBI diagnosis in the population of HCWs was that accounted for higher costs for the public health system. In contrast, the number of individuals correctly classified by the QFT-GIT was the highest, substantially surpassing the other.

The most cost-effective strategy corresponded to the use of TST with the cut-off point recommended currently (≥10 mm) by NTBP for the management of suspect of LTBI among HCWs, at a cost of US$ 4.70 per individual classified correctly (Table 2). The minimal additional cost represented by the use of TST with ≥5 mm cut-off point or more (US$ 1.25) requires further exploration in the sensitivity analysis. Incorporating the unique use of QFT-GIT use alone would result in an additional cost of more than US$ 50.07 compared to the diagnostic strategy currently recommended by the Brazilian Program (Table 2).

Table 2

Cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for diagnosis of Latent Tuberculosis Infection using the number of individuals correctly classified by the tests as measure of effectiveness.

Strategies	Total Cost (US$)		Incremental Cost (US$)		Effectiveness	Incremental Effectiveness		Cost/ individuals correctly classified (US$)		ICER (US$)
Comparison of diagnostic strategies for LTBI in relation to the strategy TST≥10mma
TST≥10 mm		30,084.47		_			6,395		_		4.70	_
TST≥5 mm		30,471.02		386.55			6,704		309		4.54	1.25
TST≥5 mm/QFT-GIT		46,897.44		16,812.97			8,222		1,827		5.70	9.20
TST≥10 mm/QFT-GIT		47,376.73		17,292.26			8,069		1,674		5.87	dominated
QFT-GIT		160,531.88		130,447.41			9		2,605		17.83	50.07
Comparison of diagnostic strategies for LTBI in relation to each otherb
TST≥10 mm		30,084.47		_			6,395		_		4.70	_
TST≥5 mm		30,471.02		386.55			6,704		309		4.54	1.25
TST≥5 mm/QFT-GIT		46,897.44		16,426.42			8,222		1,518		5.70	10.82
TST≥10 mm/QFT-GIT		47,376.73		479.29			8,069		-153		5.87	dominated
QFT-GIT		160,531.88		113,634.44			9		778		17.83	146.05

Caption: ICER–Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio; LTBI–Latent Tuberculosis Infection; QFT-GIT–QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube; TST–Tuberculosis Skin Test.

Notes:

a ICER is estimated in relation to TST strategy with a ≥10 mm cut-off point, only the dominated strategy was demarcated without removing it from the table.

b ICER is estimated by comparison of the diagnosis strategies for LTBI with each other; Incremental Costs were calculated by the difference between the cost of the strategy and the cost of its previous strategy. Incremental Effectiveness was calculated by the difference between the effectiveness of the strategy and the effectiveness of its previous strategy. US$ 1.00 = R$ 2.35 (mean exchange rate in 2014).

The sequential use of the QFT after TST with ≥10 mm cut-off point is dominated (higher cost and lower effectiveness). The strategy with single use of TST≥10 mm continued representing the most cost-effective strategy. Again, minimal differences were found in additional cost by individuals classified with TST ≥5 mm. The single use of the QFT-GIT was the strategy of lower efficiency, with an additional cost by professional correctly classified of over US$ 146.05 (Table 2).

Number of cases of active tuberculosis avoided

TST with ≥10 mm cut-off point was the most cost-effective strategy for LTBI diagnosis. The TST strategy using the ≥5mm cut-off has slightly higher effectiveness compared to the ≥10 mm cut-off, at the cost of over US$ 77.00 per additional case avoided. Strategies using QFT-GIT were dominated due to its higher cost and lower effectiveness (Table 3).

Table 3

Cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for diagnosis of Latent Tuberculosis Infection using the number of cases of active tuberculosis avoided as measure of effectiveness.

Diagnostic Strategies	Total Cost (US$)	Incremental Cost (US$)	Effectiveness	Incremental Effectiveness	Cost/ individuals correctly classified (US$)	ICER (US$)
Comparison of diagnostic strategies for LTBI in relation to the strategy TST≥10 mma
TST ≥10 mm	30,084.47	_	3,881	_	7.75	_
TST ≥5 mm	30,471.02	386.55	3,886	5	7.84	77.31
TST ≥5 mm/QFT-GIT	46,897.44	16,812.97	3,869	-12	12.12	dominated
TST ≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	47,376.73	17,292.26	3,865	-16	12.25	dominated
QFT-GIT	160,531.88	130,447.41	3,884	3	41.33	dominated
Comparison of diagnostic strategies for LTBI in relation to each other b
TST ≥10 mm	30,084.47	_	3,881	_	7.75	_
TST ≥5 mm	30,471.02	386.55	3,886	5	7.84	77.31
TST ≥5 mm/QFT-GIT	46,897.44	16,426.42	3,869	-17	12.12	dominated
TST ≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	47,376.73	479.29	3,865	-4	12.25	dominated
QFT-GIT	160,531.88	130,060.86	3,884	-2	41.33	dominated

Caption: ICER–Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio; LTBI–Latent Tuberculosis Infection; QFT-GIT–QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube; TST–Tuberculosis Skin Test.

Notes:

a–The ICER was estimated based on TST strategy with the ≥10 mm cut-off point, only the dominated strategy was demarcated, without removing it from the table.

b–The ICER was estimated by comparing LTBI diagnostic strategies with each other. Incremental Costs was calculated by the difference between the cost of the strategy and the cost of its previous strategy and Incremental Effectiveness calculated by the difference between the effectiveness of the strategy and the effectiveness of its previous strategy. US$ 1.00 = R$ 2.35 (mean exchange rate in 2014).

As in the previous analysis, the LTBI diagnosis with TST with ≥10 mm and ≥5 mm cut-off points corresponded to lower cost and more effective approaches, although the first strategy proves to be more cost-effective. The single use of the QFT-GIT has an incremental cost of over US$ 130 thousand dollars, with less effectiveness regarding the number of TB cases avoided with TST with ≥5 mm cut-off point (Table 3).

Tornado diagrams were developed to examine the the variables that most impacted the results of the decision models. Regardless of the assessed outcome measure, the parameters that showed a greater impact on the ratio of cost-effectiveness were the rate of adherence to LTBI treatment, the cost of LTBI treatment with INH for 6 months, and the prevalence of recent LTBI. (Figs 3 and 4). Costs of TST and costs of LTBI diagnosis also influenced the results. Other variables did not substantially affect the results.

Fig 3

Sensitivity analysis in Tornado chart: Number of individuals correctly classified by the tests.

Fig 4

Sensitivity analysis in Tornado chart: Number of cases of active tuberculosis avoided.

Given the lack of information on adherence rate after LTBI diagnosis with QTF-GIT, bivariate sensitivity analysis was performed simulating different adhesion probabilities for the examined tests (ranging from 0.43 to 0.78), with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained consistently favorable to TST with 10mm cut-off point for both outcomes studied. Equally favorable results for the ≥10mm TST-based screening strategy were observed in bivariate analysis performed with QTF GIF at its lower cost limit and strategies using TST at the upper threshold.

Considering the outcome measure number of individuals correctly classified by the tests, the strategy corresponding to TST with 5mm cut-off point becomes the most cost-effective when TST sensitivity for 10mm cut-off increases to the upper limit of the range. In this situation, even experiencing a growth in the number of individuals correctly classified (from 6,395 to 7,090), the associated costs increase substantially. Changes are also observed in the most cost-effective strategy when the sensitivity of the TST with ≥5 mm cut-off point is reduced to the lower limit of the variation parameter range. Although the costs are reduced by US$ 2,413.67, there is a difference of 541 individuals correctly classified (Table 4). For all other variables, the strategy currently recommended by the NTBP of using ≥10mm TST is the most cost-effective.

Table 4

Univariate sensitivity analysis of the comparison of diagnostic strategies for Latent Tuberculosis Infection in relation to TST≥10 mm strategy, considering as outcome measure the number of individuals correctly classified and the number of active tuberculosis cases averted by the diagnostic tests for Latent Tuberculosis Infection.

Diagnostic Strategies	Total Cost (US$)	Incremental Cost (US$)	Effectiveness	Incremental Effectiveness	ICER (US$)
Number of individuals correctly classified by the tests
Base Case
TST≥10 mm	30,084.47	_	6,395	_	_
TST≥5 mm	30,471.02	386.55	6,704	309	1.25
TST≥5 mm/QFT-GIT	46,897.44	16,426.42	8,222	1,518	10.82
TST≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	47,376.73	479.29	8,069	-153	dominated
QFT-GIT	160,531.88	113,155.15	9	931	121.54
TST sensitivity with ≥10 mm cut-off point = 55%
TST ≥10 mm	27,132.40	_	5,545	_	_
TST ≥5 mm	30,471.01	3,338.61	6,704	1,159	2.88
TST ≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	42,753.92	12,282.91	7,406	702	17.49
TST ≥5 mm/QFT-GIT	46,897.44	4,143.52	8,222	816	5.07
QFT-GIT	160,531.88	113,634.44	9	778	146.05
TST sensitivity with ≥10 mm cut-off point = 95%
TST ≥5 mm	30,471.01	_	6,704	_	_
TST≥10 mm	34,028.57	3,557.56	7,09	386	9.21
TST ≥5 mm/QFT-GIT	46,897.44	12,868.87	8,222	1,132	11.36
TST ≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	53,097.51	6,200.07	8,612	390	15.89
QFT-GIT	160,531.88	107,434.37	9	388	276.89
TST sensitivity with ≥5 mm cut-off point = 68%
TST ≥5 mm	28,057.35	_	6,163	_	_
TST ≥10 mm	30,084.47	2,027.12	6,395	232	8.73
TST ≥5 mm/QFT-GIT	43,278.68	13,194.21	7,8	1,405	9.39
TST ≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	47,376.73	4,098.05	8,069	269	15.23
QFT-GIT	160,531.88	113,155.15	9	931	121.54
TST sensitivity with ≥5 mm cut-off point = 97%
TST ≥10 mm	30,084.47	_	6,395	_	_
TST ≥5 mm	33,980.72	3,896.25	7,284	889	4.38
TST ≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	47,376.73	13,396.01	8,069	785	17.06
TST ≥5 mm/QFT-GIT	51,947.96	4,571.23	8,674	605	7.55
QFT-GIT	160,531.88	108,583.92	9	326	333,07
Number of cases of active tuberculosis avoided
Base Case
TST ≥10 mm	30,084.47	_	3,881	_	_
TST ≥5 mm	30,471.02	386.55	3,886	5	77.31
TST ≥5 mm/QFT-GIT	46,897.44	16,426.42	3,869	-17	dominated
TST ≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	47,376.73	479.29	3,865	-4	dominated
QFT-GIT	160,531.88	113,155.15	3,884	19	5,955.53
TST sensitivity with ≥10 mm cut-off point = 55%
TST ≥10 mm	27,132.40	_	3,86	_	_
TST ≥5 mm	30,471.01	3,338.61	3,886	26	128.40
TST ≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	42,758.17	12,287.16	3,849	-37	dominated
TST ≥5 mm/QFT-GIT	46,897.44	4,139.27	3,869	20	206.96
QFT-GIT	160,531.88	113,634.44	3,884	15	7,575.62
TST sensitivity with ≥10 mm cut-off point = 95%
TST ≥5 mm	30,471.01	_	3,886	_	_
TST ≥10 mm	34,028.57	3,557.56	3,898	12	296.46
TST ≥5 mm/QFT-GIT	46,897.44	12,868.87	3,869	-29	dominated
TST ≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	53,097.51	6,200.07	3,878	9	688.89
QFT-GIT	160,531.88	107,434.37	3,884	6	17,905.72
TST sensitivity with ≥5 mm cut-off point = 68%
TST ≥5 mm	28,057.35	_	3,872	_	_
TST ≥10 mm	30,084.47	2,027.12	3,881	9	225.23
TST ≥5 mm/QFT-GIT	43,278.67	13,194.20	3,858	-23	dominated
TST ≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	47,376.73	4,098.06	3,865	7	585.43
QFT-GIT	160,531.88	113,155.15	3,884	19	5,955.53
TST sensitivity with ≥5 mm cut-off point = 97%
TST ≥10 mm	30,084.47	_	3,881	_	_
TST ≥5 mm	33.980.72	3,896.25	3,9	19	205.06
TST ≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	47,376.73	13,396.01	3,865	-35	dominated
TST ≥5mm/QFT-GIT	51,947.96	4,571.23	3,88	15	304.74
QFT-GIT	160,531.88	108,583.92	3,884	4	27,145.98
TST specificity with ≥10 mm cut-off point = 43%
TST ≥5 mm	30,471.01	_	3,886	_	_
TST ≥10 mm	37,527.68	7,056.67	3,881	-5	dominated
TST ≥5 mm/QFT-GIT	46,897.44	9,369.76	3,869	-12	dominated
TST ≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	67,776.09	20,878.65	3,865	-4	dominated
QFT-GIT	160,531.88	92,755.79	3,884	19	4,881.88
TST specificity with ≥10 mm cut-off point = 73%
TST ≥10 mm	27,764.41	_	3,881	_	_
TST ≥5 mm	30,471.01	2,706.60	3,886	5	541.32
TST ≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	37,190.45	6,719.44	3,865	-21	dominated
TST ≥5 mm/QFT-GIT	46,897.44	9,706.99	3,869	4	2,426.74
QFT-GIT	160,531.88	113,634.44	3,884	15	7,575.62
TST specificity with ≥5 mm cut-off point = 35%
TST≥10 mm	30,084.47	-	3,881	0	-
TST≥5 mm	44,123.57	14,039.09	3,886	5	2,807.82
TST≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	47,376.73	3,253.17	3,865	-21	dominated
TST≥5 mm/QFT-GIT	82,892.72	38,769.16	3,869	-17	dominated
QFT-GIT	160,531.90	116,408.30	3,884	-2	dominated
TST specificity with ≥5 mm cut-off point = 79%
TST≥5 mm	28,925.61	-	3,886	0	_
TST≥10 mm	30,084.47	1,158.86	3,881	-5	dominated
TST≥5 mm/QFT-GIT	36,428.17	7,502.55	3,869	-17	dominated
TST≥10 mm/QFT-GIT	47,376.73	18,451.12	3,865	-21	dominated
QFT-GIT	160,531.90	131,606.30	3,884	-2	dominated

Caption: ICER–Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio; LTBI–Latent Tuberculosis Infection; QFT-GIT–QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube; TST–Tuberculosis Skin Test.

Regarding the number of new TB cases avoided, it was observed that the main variables that altered the cost-effectiveness ratio were reduced the sensitivity of ≥5 mm TST (0.82 to 0.68) and reducing the specificity of ≥10mm TST (0.59 to 0.43). In both cases, the change in the most cost-effective strategy was the result of a substantial increase in costs, especially those resulting from therapeutic intervention and its consequences in terms of severe DILI, hospitalization, and death. For any variation in the probability of returning to TST reading, the results were in agreement with the reference case, i.e. TST with 10 mm cut-off was the most cost-effective strategy. The same applies to variations in all other parameters of the model.

Discussion

A cost-effectiveness model, using TST and QFT-GIT tests, was developed to assess the costs and effectiveness of five strategies for diagnosis and treatment of LTBI among primary HCWs at risk of tuberculosis. Our results of this research showed the strategy based on TST with 10 mm cut-off point as the most cost-effective at a cost of US$ 4.70 per case correctly classified and US$ 7.75 per case of active tuberculosis avoided.

The most favorable result to the TST was consistent with the findings of two studies. The study conducted by Steffen et al.[26] was carried out considering the Brazilian public system health, however, the authors used TB contacts as their study sample, which is why the researchers had lower prevalence of LTBI (0.35, range from 0.20 to 0.65). Three strategies for LTBI diagnosis were examined in this cost-effectiveness analysis, using a decision-analytic model: TST with cut-off of ≥5 mm, QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) and TST-positive results confirmed by QFT-GIT (TST + / QFT-GIT). The outcome measure used was the number of cases of tuberculosis avoided in two years, and the accuracy parameters of the tests were similar to the present study. The costs of tests examined in the Steffen’s study, however, were higher than the values used here, US$ 10.56 for the TST (versus US$ 7.62) and US$ 48.26 for the QFT-GIT (versus the US$ 39.00). TST proved to be the most cost-effective strategy (US$ 16.021/case averted). Mancuso et al.[60] examined the cost-effectiveness of nine different screening strategies for LTBI in U.S. military recruits, including TST, T-SPOT®.TB, QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube alone and combinations of these tests with universal testing or based on of risk assessment questionnaires. The cut-off point used for the TST is not clear. The sensitivity and specificity parameters used were, respectively, 0.77 (0.70–0.99) and 0.99 (0.95–1.00). The health outcome measured in this analysis was cases of active TB prevented. The societal perspective was taken over a 20-year analytic horizon, with discount in future costs at 3% annually. Targeted testing using TST was slightly more cost-effective than targeted testing using either QTF-GIT or T-SPOT, but these estimates were very sensitive to changes in model assumptions.

Results of our study differ from other previous cost-effectiveness analyzes, which were favorable to QTF-GIT. Diel et al.[55] already indicated that the combination of the QFT-G assay following the TST screening of close-contacts at a cutoff induration size of 5 mm was more cost-effective in Germany, followed by the QFT-GIT strategy alone. Kowada and Marra showed that in populations vaccinated with BCG, single use of QFT-GIT assay was the most cost-effective strategy for TB contacts in Japan and Canada, respectively[61, 62]. The study by de Perio et al.[63] also examined the cost-effectiveness of the new IGRA in detecting LTBI in health professionals, comparing QFT-G, QFT-GIT, and TST in TB low-incidence countries. Their results pointed out that both IGRAs were more effective and less costly than the TST, whether or not the HCW had been previously vaccinated with BCG. Their findings, however, are not suitable for comparison to the present paper due to, among other things, the type of model and perspective (Markov state-transition decision analytic model using the societal perspective) and the measure of effectiveness used (QALYs). Other significant differences include the fact that it was conducted in a country with low incidence of tuberculosis and focused on hospital health workers.

The inclusion of IGRAs has advanced the diagnosis of tuberculosis significantly and has been recommended in recent years as a potential replacement for the TST[4, 24]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend the use of IGRA in all circumstances in which TST is currently used, including in health professionals[64]. In contrast, a guideline published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2006, in the United Kingdom, recommends its use as a sequential test, restrictively to individuals at risk of LTBI (children, people who are immunocompromised or at risk of immunosuppression and people from countries with a high incidence of TB) and in those with positive results for TST[28]. The Canadian guidelines on IGRAs have not recommended their use for serial testing of HCWs[65, 66], indicating that its use of IGRAs for routine screening of HCWs remains a controversy matter.

Regarding the increasing use of the QFT in developed countries and their use in the private sector of Brazilian health, it is still bought by high costs in the international market.

It is well known that IGRAs have higher sensitivity and specificity than TST[35, 38], leads to lower false-positive results and avoids unnecessary treatment of LTBI[67], and do not produce booster phenomenon. This assay require only a single visit to the health service for its realization and may increase adherence to isoniazid treatment by health professionals[68].

However, the QFT-GIT trial is more expensive than the TST test (US$ 39.00 vs. US$ 7.62). Even when the model is simulated with the upper limit of the cost of TST range (US$ 9.54), and the cost of IGRA at its lowest estimated value (US$ 31.77), this strategy continues to be the most cost-effective for the diagnosis of LTBI among health professionals for both health outcomes studied, because the cost differences between the two tests are very wide. The significant difference in the cost of testing and the high prevalence of latent tuberculosis in Brazil are factors that may explain the absence of favorable cost-effectiveness to the QTF, regardless of whether used alone or sequentially. In addition, the variation of the QTF-GIT accuracy measures did not make the strategies related to this technology more cost-effective under any circumstances. In turn, changes in TST accuracy parameters produce a change in the cut-off points for the TST that are more cost-effective.

For this analysis, the use of isoniazid prophylaxis was defined for six months because it is the recommended regimen according to current guidelines in Brazil[30] and is considered preferable in relation to cost-effectiveness[69]. Although efficacy results of LTBI treatment according to the duration of the preventive regimen are scarce in the literature, a Union trial indicated that increasing the treatment time from six to 12 months does not substantially increases efficacy but reduces therapy adherence[32].

It is important to note that the overall cost of LTBI treatment has the costs of DILI incorporated. The literature shows that hepatotoxicity associated with the treatment of LTBI with INH is not an ordinary event, especially regarding severe disease[46-48]. Since the probability of severe adverse reactions in the treated population is small, the impact of the DILI on overall costs was minor. Moreover, the overall costs of treating LTBI were reduced due to the shorter period of treatment.

It is well known that IGRAs have higher sensitivity and specificity than TST[35, 38], do not produce booster phenomenon and require only a single visit to the health service for its realization. However, the variation of the IGRAs accuracy measures did not make the strategies related to this technology more cost-effective under any circumstances. In turn, changes in TST accuracy parameters produce a change in the cut-off points for the TST that are more cost-effective.

The prevalence of LTBI was a parameter that often proves to be relevant in previous studies, usually estimated based on latent infection surveys using TST in HCWs with wide variation in results[70-80]. In the present study, the prevalence of LTBI was estimated by INATA survey (a study in primary health units in all regions of Brazil), and its range (36 to 44%) was used in the sensitivity analysis, without impacting the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis.

Some limitations of this study should be discussed. Even using results of a national survey, to consider a single source for the parameter of LTBI prevalence in HCW can be regarded as a study limitation. Costs for repeated TST in the case of lost reading were not considered, but the rate of no return was estimated as less than 5%.

The assumption is that all cases of active TB and LTBI were sensitive to antituberculosis drugs used because multidrug-resistant tuberculosis prevalence is still low (lower than 1,5%) in Brazil. In this evaluation, we decided to use intermediate outcomes and a short time horizon, reinforcing the importance of further studies that incorporate more finalistic outcomes such as survival and quality of life. TST has been used for over a century and has shown benefits in the treatment of LTBI in situations in which the TST positive is well defined[81, 82]. However, it is worth noting that the training for TST is time-consuming, complex and can generate additional costs that were not considered in this study. Despite the clarity of a simplified test algorithm, the convenience of fewer return visits and the clinical benefits of fewer false-positive results (avoids costs of treatment of LTBI unnecessary), IGRAs still have gaps to detect recent infection of TB[83], and show a large difference in costs between TST≥10 mm and QFT-GIT strategies.

The current analysis suggests that the TST constitutes the LTBI screening strategy as cost-effective in the Brazilian scene, even after a significant reduction in QFT-GIT costs and despite the high number of patients undergoing treatment for LTBI. Further studies on cost-effectiveness of this new technology are needed.

CHEERS.

Researcher Checklist.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

17 Jul 2019

PONE-D-19-15042

Cost-Effectiveness of QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube Versus Tuberculin Skin Test for Diagnosis and Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Primary Health Care Workers in Brazil

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Braga,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Aug 31 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frederick Quinn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This was an interesting and informative study comparing cost effectiveness of 5 strategies for diagnosis of latent TB in health care workers in Brazil. The evaluation was based on a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 HCW. Outcomes evaluated included number of individuals correctly classified and number of TB cases avoided. The conclusions of the study were that TST with a ≥10 mm cutoff was the most cost saving strategy for diagnosis of latent TB in this population.

Overall: The text is a bit difficult to read with some issues with word order, etc that I believe are a byproduct of the translation to English. I would suggest having a native English speaker edit the manuscript if possible.

Minor points:

Authors use both 10 mm and ≥10 mm throughout the manuscript. ≥10 mm should be used consistently.

Line 49: Suggest editing to say “preventing active disease” or “identification of latent and active disease in an effort to reduce transmission”

Lines 51-53: Suggest updating to more recent statistics.

Lines 118-122: This text is repetitive with the figure legends and unnecessary.

Line 129: Please edit title of Figure 2 so that it is not identical to the title of Figure 1.

373-375: The effectiveness of all strategies in regard to number of tuberculosis cases avoided is very similar. Is the difference between the strategies statistically significant? Mention should be made of the closeness of all strategies for this measure of outcome effectiveness.

Line 440: “…the change in the most cost-effective strategy was a result of the substantial increase in costs.” Suggest describing which costs were increased.

Line 494: define STF

Table 1: I do not understand the calculation for “Cost of Complete LTBI Treatment(6months)”, “Cost of Partial LTBI Treatment (3 months)” or “Cost of Active TB Treatment”. Why do line items for the drug(s) used for treatment have “(month)” beside them? Does this mean that this is the cost for one month? If so, the calculations for the total cost of treatment are incorrect since the values have only been included once. If these values actually represent the cost of drug for the entire duration of treatment why do they have “(month)” beside them?

Discussion: There is no discussion of the comparable results for all the tests for number of cases avoided.

Other Suggestions:

• I think that the addition of number-needed-to treat (the number of people treated for LTBI to prevent an active TB case) for each strategy would be an interesting and valuable addition to the study.

• Authors mention that adherence to LTBI treatment by HCW is low due to the known false-positivity rate of TST. Is the adherence rate to LTBI treatment for individuals diagnosed with QFT known or can it be realistically estimated? Would it be possible to do a cost calculation for TST vs QFT using different adherence rates for each test? This could be really important since the rate of adherence to LTBI treatment was one of the most impactful variables in the cost effectiveness calculations and would also likely impact number of active TB cases avoided.

Reviewer #2: The paper present interesting data investigating the cost effectiveness of QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube and Tuberculin Skin Test for Diagnosis and Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Primary Health Care Workers in Brazil. The method section is well explained, however the result and discussion sections need to be restructured in a better way.

The tables in the results section (especially table 4) are too large, they need to be presented in a more efficient way. a summarizing table can be used and the rest of the data can be attached to the paper as supporting information.

The manuscript need to be English edited in a very detailed way. Many of the sentences are too long and contain grammar and formulation mistakes.

Some suggestions and comments below:

Line 59: add more recent statistics

Line 65: is considered as a priority by WHO in controlling the disease ??

Line 138: do you mean true positives and true negatives?

Line 181: cut-off

184-185: data based on...

351-352: column 2 in table 2, is it the total cost, if so mention it

453: what do you mean by study contacts?

471: are you comparing the study results to other studies performed outside of Brazil? if so, find a good way to make the transition between this paragraph and the previous one

549-550: this paragraph is out of context, you will need to develop it further and find a way to link it to the previous paragraph (or you can delete it)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

15 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-15042

Cost-Effectiveness of QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube Versus Tuberculin Skin Test for Diagnosis and Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Primary Health Care Workers in Brazil

Dear Editors,

The authors are grateful for the suggestions of the reviewers, who point out as very important for the manuscript improvement.

Please also be advised that changes and additions to version 2 text are marked as requested and an unmarked version of revised paper without tracked changes has been included (labeled 'Manuscript').

A summary of the changes made in response to the requests is provided below to facilitate the evaluation of the achievement.

Regards,

Jose Ueleres Braga

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1:

This was an interesting and informative study comparing cost effectiveness of 5 strategies for diagnosis of latent TB in health care workers in Brazil. The evaluation was based on a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 HCW. Outcomes evaluated included number of individuals correctly classified and number of TB cases avoided. The conclusions of the study were that TST with a ≥10 mm cutoff was the most cost saving strategy for diagnosis of latent TB in this population.

Overall:

The text is a bit difficult to read with some issues with word order, etc that I believe are a byproduct of the translation to English. I would suggest having a native English speaker edit the manuscript if possible.

R.: Yes. We reviewed the entire manuscript with a native English speaker, looking to correct the issues identified.

Minor points:

Authors use both 10 mm and ≥10 mm throughout the manuscript. ≥10 mm should be used consistently.

R.: We agree. We replace the expression 10mm with ≥10mm when used to classify individuals by Mtb infection status.

Line 49: Suggest editing to say “preventing active disease” or “identification of latent and active disease in an effort to reduce transmission”

R.: The text of the manuscript was modified to comply with the suggestion made by the reviewer.

Lines 51-53: Suggest updating to more recent statistics.

R.: The text has been modified to include the latest tuberculosis statistics in Brazil and worldwide, with appropriate replacement in the reference section.

Lines 118-122: This text is repetitive with the figure legends and unnecessary.

R.: We agree with the reviewer's comment and the text has been rewritten to eliminate the pointed repetition.

Line 129: Please edit title of Figure 2 so that it is not identical to the title of Figure 1.

R.: We agree. The titles of figures 1 and 2 have been edited to clarify what is in place. Unnecessary repetitions when displayed in text were deleted.

373-375: The effectiveness of all strategies in regard to number of tuberculosis cases avoided is very similar. Is the difference between the strategies statistically significant? Mention should be made of the closeness of all strategies for this measure of outcome effectiveness.

R.: We agree. The manuscript was revised to highlight the closeness of the effectiveness values. No statistical tests were applied to compare these figures

Line 440: “…the change in the most cost-effective strategy was a result of the substantial increase in costs.” Suggest describing which costs were increased.

R.: The text was rewritten to include the suggestion of the reviewer.

Line 494: define STF

R.: We apologize for the typo. The correct acronym is QTF

Table 1: I do not understand the calculation for “Cost of Complete LTBI Treatment(6months)”, “Cost of Partial LTBI Treatment (3 months)” or “Cost of Active TB Treatment”. Why do line items for the drug(s) used for treatment have “(month)” beside them? Does this mean that this is the cost for one month? If so, the calculations for the total cost of treatment are incorrect since the values have only been included once. If these values actually represent the cost of drug for the entire duration of treatment why do they have “(month)” beside them?

R.: We appreciate the remark. The values in table 1 correspond to the total cost of treatment. The term “month” has been removed to avoid misunderstanding.

Discussion:

There is no discussion of the comparable results for all the tests for number of cases avoided.

R.: The discussion section has been rewritten and this aspect has been covered.

Other Suggestions:

• I think that the addition of number-needed-to treat (the number of people treated for LTBI to prevent an active TB case) for each strategy would be an interesting and valuable addition to the study.

R.: We welcome the suggestion, but understand that the epidemiological measures used are considered appropriate for this cost-effectiveness study.

• Authors mention that adherence to LTBI treatment by HCW is low due to the known false-positivity rate of TST. Is the adherence rate to LTBI treatment for individuals diagnosed with QFT known or can it be realistically estimated? Would it be possible to do a cost calculation for TST vs QFT using different adherence rates for each test? This could be really important since the rate of adherence to LTBI treatment was one of the most impactful variables in the cost effectiveness calculations and would also likely impact number of active TB cases avoided.

R.: There were no published studies on adherence to LTBI treatment after QTF screening at the time of development of the current study. A literature search to answer the reviewer found few updated studies addressing treatment adherence rate after QTF testing, and their values are compatible with the parameters assumed in this study. A bivariate sensitivity analysis was performed considering different adherence rates after diagnosis when each test was used, and its result did not indicate a change in the conclusion, in favor of the TST strategy with 10mm cut-off. There were insignificant changes in the number of active TB cases avoided by applying different LTBI treatment adherence rates according to the diagnostic strategy employed.

Reviewer #2:

The paper present interesting data investigating the cost effectiveness of QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube and Tuberculin Skin Test for Diagnosis and Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Primary Health Care Workers in Brazil. The method section is well explained, however the result and discussion sections need to be restructured in a better way.

The tables in the results section (especially table 4) are too large, they need to be presented in a more efficient way. a summarizing table can be used and the rest of the data can be attached to the paper as supporting information.

The manuscript need to be English edited in a very detailed way. Many of the sentences are too long and contain grammar and formulation mistakes.

R.: Thanks for the suggestion, we've reformatted tables to make your look cleaner. However, we believe it would be relevant for the reader to keep part of the information present in the manuscript in its original format. Following the suggestions we also rewrote the result and discussion sections to make the content clearer. Finally, the manuscript was reviewed by a native American to minimize errors with the use of the English language.

Some suggestions and comments below:

Line 59: add more recent statistics

R.: The text has been modified to include the latest tuberculosis statistics in Brazil and worldwide, with appropriate replacement in the reference section.

Line 65: is considered as a priority by WHO in controlling the disease ??

R.: Yes. WHO considers the identification of LTBI and its treatment in priority groups as an important strategy for disease control, and this view holds in the latest report available (2018).

Line 138: do you mean true positives and true negatives?

R.: Yes. The text has been modified to make it clear what was being said.

Line 181: cut-off

R.: We accept the suggestion and change the expression cutoff for cut-off throughout the text.

184-185: data based on...

R.: We apologize. The text has been corrected.

351-352: column 2 in table 2, is it the total cost, if so mention it

R.: We apologize. The text has been corrected.

453: what do you mean by study contacts?

R.: We revised the text to make it clearer..

471: are you comparing the study results to other studies performed outside of Brazil? if so, find a good way to make the transition between this paragraph and the previous one

R.: We thank the suggestion and rewrite the text, leaving separated the studies with concordant and discordant results from the evidenced in the present research.

549-550: this paragraph is out of context, you will need to develop it further and find a way to link it to the previous paragraph (or you can delete it)

R.: Thanks. We accept your suggestion.

________________________________________

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PONE-D-19-15042_15OUT2019.docx

Click here for additional data file.

31 Oct 2019

Cost-Effectiveness of QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube Versus Tuberculin Skin Test for Diagnosis and Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Primary Health Care Workers in Brazil

PONE-D-19-15042R1

Dear Dr. Braga,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Frederick Quinn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I suggest going over the manuscript again for correct English translation. Please check reference numbers throughout the manuscript for accuracy...I do not believe that the references indicated in lines 54 and 56 are the correct references for these statistics. Additionally, an analysis of the additional cost incurred by the high number of false-positives that would be inappropriately treated using the TST>=10mm strategy vs. other strategies and the total impact of this on the cost effectiveness would be beneficial.

Reviewer #2: I suggest to go through the manuscript one more time and correct the typos (e.g: 145-146: treatment of TB....)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

7 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-15042R1

Cost-Effectiveness of QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube Versus Tuberculin Skin Test for Diagnosis and Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Primary Health Care Workers in Brazil

Dear Dr. Braga:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Frederick Quinn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE