Costs and operation management of community outreach program for tuberculosis in tribal populations in India

Tuberculosis screening costs and cost-effectiveness in high-risk groups: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Systematic screening for active tuberculosis (TB) is a strategy which requires the health system to seek out individuals, rather than waiting for individuals to self-present with symptoms (i.e., passive case finding). Our review aimed to summarize the current economic evidence and understand the costs and cost-effectiveness of systematic screening approaches among high-risk groups and settings.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review on economic evaluations of screening for TB disease targeting persons with clinical and/or structural risk factors, such as persons living with HIV (PLHIV) or persons experiencing homelessness. We searched three databases for studies published between January 1, 2010 and February 1, 2020. Studies were included if they reported cost and a key outcome measure. Owing to considerable heterogeneity in settings and type of screening strategy, we synthesized data descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 27 articles were included in our review; 19/27 (70%) took place in high TB burden countries. Seventeen studies took place among persons with clinical risk factors, including 14 among PLHIV, while 13 studies were among persons with structural risk factors. Nine studies reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from US$51 to $1980 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Screening was most cost-effective among PLHIV. Among persons with clinical and structural risk factors there was limited evidence, but screening was generally not shown to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies showed that screening is most likely to be cost-effective in a high TB prevalence population. Our review highlights that to reach the "missing millions" TB programmes should focus on simple, cheaper initial screening tools (i.e., symptom screen and CXR) followed by molecular diagnostic tools (i.e., Xpert®) among the highest risk groups in the local setting (i.e., PLHIV, urban slums). Programmatic costs greatly impact cost-effectiveness thus future research should provide both fixed and variable costs of screening interventions to improve comparability.

Determining the value of TB active case-finding: current evidence and methodological considerations

Active case-finding (ACF) is an important component of the End TB Strategy. However, ACF is resource-intensive, and the economics of ACF are not well-understood. Data on the costs of ACF are limited, with little consistency in the units and methods used to estimate and report costs. Mathematical models to forecast the long-term effects of ACF require empirical measurements of the yield, timing and costs of case detection. Pragmatic trials offer an opportunity to assess the cost-effectiveness of ACF interventions within a 'real-world´ context. However, such analyses generally require early introduction of economic evaluations to enable prospective data collection on resource requirements. Closing the global case-detection gap will require substantial additional resources, including continued investment in innovative technologies. Research is essential to the optimal implementation, cost-effectiveness, and affordability of ACF in high-burden settings. To assess the value of ACF, we must prioritize the collection of high-quality data regarding costs and effectiveness, and link those data to analytical models that are adapted to local settings.

Framework for planning and monitoring active TB case finding interventions to meet the global targets in the COVID-19 era and beyond: South-East Asia perspective

There was an estimated 20-40% decline in tuberculosis (TB) case detection in the South-East Asia Region (SEA Region) during 2020 due to COVID-19 outbreak. This is over and above a million people with TB who were missed each year, prior to the pandemic. Active case finding (ACF) for TB has been gaining considerable interest and investment in the SEA Region and will be even more essential for finding people with TB missed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many countries in the Region have incorporated ACF activities into national strategic plans and are conducting large scale activities with varying results. ACF can reach people with TB earlier than routine approaches, can lead to increases in the numbers of people diagnosed, and is often needed for certain key populations who face stigma, social, and economic barriers. However, ACF is not a one size fits all approach, and has higher costs than routine care. So, planning interventions in consultation with relevant stakeholders including the affected communities is critical. Furthermore, continuous monitoring during the intervention and after completion is crucial as national TB programmes review progress and decide on the effective utilization of limited resources. Planning and monitoring become more relevant in the COVID-19 era because of constraints posed by resource diversion towards pandemic control. Here, we summarize different aspects of planning and monitoring of ACF approaches to inform national TB programmes and partners based on experiences in the SEA Region, as programmes look to reach those who are missed and catch-up on progress towards ending TB.

Trade-offs between cost and accuracy in active case finding for tuberculosis: A dynamic modelling analysis

BACKGROUND

Active case finding (ACF) may be valuable in tuberculosis (TB) control, but questions remain about its optimum implementation in different settings. For example, smear microscopy misses up to half of TB cases, yet is cheap and detects the most infectious TB cases. What, then, is the incremental value of using more sensitive and specific, yet more costly, tests such as Xpert MTB/RIF in ACF in a high-burden setting?

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We constructed a dynamic transmission model of TB, calibrated to be consistent with an urban slum population in India. We applied this model to compare the potential cost and impact of 2 hypothetical approaches following initial symptom screening: (i) 'moderate accuracy' testing employing a microscopy-like test (i.e., lower cost but also lower accuracy) for bacteriological confirmation and (ii) 'high accuracy' testing employing an Xpert-like test (higher cost but also higher accuracy, while also detecting rifampicin resistance). Results suggest that ACF using a moderate-accuracy test could in fact cost more overall than using a high-accuracy test. Under an illustrative budget of US$20 million in a slum population of 2 million, high-accuracy testing would avert 1.14 (95% credible interval 0.75-1.99, with p = 0.28) cases relative to each case averted by moderate-accuracy testing. Test specificity is a key driver: High-accuracy testing would be significantly more impactful at the 5% significance level, as long as the high-accuracy test has specificity at least 3 percentage points greater than the moderate-accuracy test. Additional factors promoting the impact of high-accuracy testing are that (i) its ability to detect rifampicin resistance can lead to long-term cost savings in second-line treatment and (ii) its higher sensitivity contributes to the overall cases averted by ACF. Amongst the limitations of this study, our cost model has a narrow focus on the commodity costs of testing and treatment; our estimates should not be taken as indicative of the overall cost of ACF. There remains uncertainty about the true specificity of tests such as smear and Xpert-like tests in ACF, relating to the accuracy of the reference standard under such conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that cheaper diagnostics do not necessarily translate to less costly ACF, as any savings from the test cost can be strongly outweighed by factors including false-positive TB treatment, reduced sensitivity, and foregone savings in second-line treatment. In resource-limited settings, it is therefore important to take all of these factors into account when designing cost-effective strategies for ACF.

Role of community health workers in improving cost efficiency in an active case finding tuberculosis programme: an operational research study from rural Bihar, India

OBJECTIVES

Cost-efficient active case finding (ACF) approaches are needed for their large-scale adoption in national tuberculosis (TB) programmes. Our aim was to assess if community health workers' (CHW) knowledge about families' health status can improve the cost efficiency of the ACF programme without adversely affecting the delivery of other health services for which they are responsible.

DESIGN

Quasi-experimental design.

INTERVENTIONS

We evaluated an ACF programme in the Samastipur district in Bihar, India, between July 2017 and June 2018. CHWs called Accredited Social Health Activists generated referrals of individuals at risk of TB and conducted symptom-based screening to identify patients with presumptive TB. They also helped them undergo testing and provided treatment support for confirmed TB cases.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

We compared the notification rate from the intervention region with that from a control region in the same district with similar characteristics. We analysed operational data to calculate the cost per TB case diagnosed. We used routine programmatic data from the public health system to estimate the impact on other services provided by CHWs.

FINDINGS

CHWs identified 9895 patients with presumptive TB. Of these, 5864 patients were tested for TB, and 1236 were confirmed as TB cases. Annual public case notification rate increased sharply in the intervention region from 45.8 to 105.8 per 100 000 population, whereas it decreased from 50.7 to 45.3 in the control region. There was no practically or statistically significant impact on other output indicators of the CHWs, such as institutional deliveries (-0.04%). The overall cost of the intervention was about US$134 per diagnosed case. Main cost drivers were human resources, and commodities (drugs and diagnostics), which contributed 37.4% and 32.5% of the cost, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ACF programmes that use existing CHWs in the health system are feasible, cost efficient and do not adversely affect other healthcare services delivered by CHWs.