Systematic review of the economic impact of novel Mycobacterium tuberculosis specific antigen-based skin tests for detection of TB infection compared with tuberculin skin test and interferon-gamma release assays

The Purified Protein Derivative tuberculin skin tests (TST) and blood-based Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) specific interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA) are the currently used tests for identifying individuals with TB infection for preventive treatment. However, challenges around access and implementation have limited their use. Novel M.tb specific skin tests (TBST) such as Diaskintest, ESAT6-CFP10 (C-TST), C-Tb (also known as Cy-Tb), and DPPD may provide accurate and scalable options but evidence synthesis on their economic impact is lacking. We conducted two separate systematic reviews to compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of (1) the novel skin tests TBST (primary), and (2) TST and IGRA tests (secondary), to support WHO guideline development. We searched for articles presenting economic evaluations of the diagnostic tests using a health provider perspective and related to TB infection in humans. We considered papers written in English, Chinese or Russian. In the primary review, eight studies for novel TBST were found. One study in Brazil assessed cost-effectiveness of C-TST and Diaskintest and seven in Russia assessed the Diaskintest, while none evaluated C-Tb or DPPD. The review showed on average, Diaskintest kit costs (in 2021 USD) $1.60 (1.50 – 1.70), while full unit costs were estimated at $5.07. C-TST unit cost was $9.96. The second review found 32 articles on IGRA and/or the TST. These presented an average TST full unit cost of $37.88, and $87.81 for IGRA. Studies’ quality for TBST was limited while high-quality studies were found for TST and IGRA tests. In conclusion, there is limited evidence regarding the costs and cost-effectiveness of novel TBST. Conversely, there is substantial evidence for TST and IGRA tests, but most studies were performed in high-income and low-TB burden settings and their cost-effectiveness varied between and within risk groups without clear economic consensus. © 2024 Goscé et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Авторы
Goscé L. , Allel K. , Hamada Y. , Surkova E. , Kontsevaya I. , Wang T.T. , Liu W.-H. , Matveev A. , Ziganshina L.E. , Korobitsyn A. , Ismail N. , Bashir S. , Denkinger C.M. , Abubakar I. , White P.J. , Rangaka M.X.
Издательство
Public Library of Science
Номер выпуска
10
Язык
Английский
Статус
Опубликовано
Номер
e0003655
Том
4
Год
2024
Организации
  • 1 Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
  • 2 Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, TB Modelling Group, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
  • 3 Department of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
  • 4 Royal Brompton Hospital, Part of Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust London, London, United Kingdom
  • 5 Division of Clinical Infectious Diseases, Research Center Borstel, Borstel, Germany
  • 6 German Center for Infection Research, Braunschweig, Germany
  • 7 Respiratory Medicine and International Health, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
  • 8 Faculty of Medicine, Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
  • 9 Department of Pediatrics, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
  • 10 Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapy Named After Acad. B. Ye. Votchal, Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education, Moscow, Russian Federation
  • 11 Cochrane Russia, Centre for Knowledge Translation, Russian Medical Academy for Continuing Professional Education, the Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russian Federation
  • 12 Department of Pharmacology, Kazan Medical University, Kazan, Russian Federation
  • 13 Department of General and Clinical Pharmacology, RUDN University, Moscow, Russian Federation
  • 14 Unit for Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment, Care and Innovation, Global Tuberculosis Programme, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
  • 15 Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
  • 16 Faculty of Medicine, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis and NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Modelling and Health Economics, School of Public Health, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
Цитировать
Поделиться

Другие записи