Informing decision-making for universal access to quality tuberculosis diagnosis in India: an economic-epidemiological model.

A new interesting article has been published in BMC Med. 2019 Aug 6;17(1):155. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1384-8. and titled:

Informing decision-making for universal access to quality tuberculosis diagnosis in India: an economic-epidemiological model.

Authors of this article are:

Sohn H, Kasaie P, Kendall E, Gomez GB, Vassall A, Pai M, Dowdy D.

A summary of the article is shown below:

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.

Check out the article’s website on Pubmed for more information:

[link-preview url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31382959 forceshot=true]

This article is a good source of information and a good way to become familiar with topics such as: Cost-benefit analysis;Diagnostic techniques and procedures;Systems analysis;Tuberculosis.

New Chemicals from MOLECULAR DEPOT