Person:

Salomon, Joshua

Background: The Xpert MTB/RIF test enables rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) and rifampicin resistance. The World Health Organization recommends Xpert for initial diagnosis in individuals suspected of having multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) or HIV-associated TB, and many countries are moving quickly toward adopting Xpert. As roll-out proceeds, it is essential to understand the potential health impact and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies based on Xpert. Methods and findings: We evaluated potential health and economic consequences of implementing Xpert in five southern African countries—Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland—where drug resistance and TB-HIV coinfection are prevalent. Using a calibrated, dynamic mathematical model, we compared the status quo diagnostic algorithm, emphasizing sputum smear, against an algorithm incorporating Xpert for initial diagnosis. Results were projected over 10- and 20-y time periods starting from 2012. Compared to status quo, implementation of Xpert would avert 132,000 (95% CI: 55,000–284,000) TB cases and 182,000 (97,000–302,000) TB deaths in southern Africa over the 10 y following introduction, and would reduce prevalence by 28% (14%–40%) by 2022, with more modest reductions in incidence. Health system costs are projected to increase substantially with Xpert, by US$460 million (294–699 million) over 10 y. Antiretroviral therapy for HIV represents a substantial fraction of these additional costs, because of improved survival in TB/HIV-infected populations through better TB case-finding and treatment. Costs for treating MDR-TB are also expected to rise significantly with Xpert scale-up. Relative to status quo, Xpert has an estimated cost-effectiveness of US$959 (633–1,485) per disability-adjusted life-year averted over 10 y. Across countries, cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from US$792 (482–1,785) in Swaziland to US$1,257 (767–2,276) in Botswana. Assessing outcomes over a 10-y period focuses on the near-term consequences of Xpert adoption, but the cost-effectiveness results are conservative, with cost-effectiveness ratios assessed over a 20-y time horizon approximately 20% lower than the 10-y values. Conclusions: Introduction of Xpert could substantially change TB morbidity and mortality through improved case-finding and treatment, with more limited impact on long-term transmission dynamics. Despite extant uncertainty about TB natural history and intervention impact in southern Africa, adoption of Xpert evidently offers reasonable value for its cost, based on conventional benchmarks for cost-effectiveness. However, the additional financial burden would be substantial, including significant increases in costs for treating HIV and MDR-TB. Given the fundamental influence of HIV on TB dynamics and intervention costs, care should be taken when interpreting the results of this analysis outside of settings with high HIV prevalence. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Background: Many mathematical models have investigated the impact of expanding access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) on new HIV infections. Comparing results and conclusions across models is challenging because models have addressed slightly different questions and have reported different outcome metrics. This study compares the predictions of several mathematical models simulating the same ART intervention programmes to determine the extent to which models agree about the epidemiological impact of expanded ART. Methods and Findings: Twelve independent mathematical models evaluated a set of standardised ART intervention scenarios in South Africa and reported a common set of outputs. Intervention scenarios systematically varied the CD4 count threshold for treatment eligibility, access to treatment, and programme retention. For a scenario in which 80% of HIV-infected individuals start treatment on average 1 y after their CD4 count drops below 350 cells/µl and 85% remain on treatment after 3 y, the models projected that HIV incidence would be 35% to 54% lower 8 y after the introduction of ART, compared to a counterfactual scenario in which there is no ART. More variation existed in the estimated long-term (38 y) reductions in incidence. The impact of optimistic interventions including immediate ART initiation varied widely across models, maintaining substantial uncertainty about the theoretical prospect for elimination of HIV from the population using ART alone over the next four decades. The number of person-years of ART per infection averted over 8 y ranged between 5.8 and 18.7. Considering the actual scale-up of ART in South Africa, seven models estimated that current HIV incidence is 17% to 32% lower than it would have been in the absence of ART. Differences between model assumptions about CD4 decline and HIV transmissibility over the course of infection explained only a modest amount of the variation in model results. Conclusions: Mathematical models evaluating the impact of ART vary substantially in structure, complexity, and parameter choices, but all suggest that ART, at high levels of access and with high adherence, has the potential to substantially reduce new HIV infections. There was broad agreement regarding the short-term epidemiologic impact of ambitious treatment scale-up, but more variation in longer term projections and in the efficiency with which treatment can reduce new infections. Differences between model predictions could not be explained by differences in model structure or parameterization that were hypothesized to affect intervention impact.

Meyer-Rath and Over assert in another article in the July 2012 PLoS Medicine Collection, “Investigating the Impact of Treatment on New HIV Infections”, that economic evaluations of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in currently existing programs and in HIV treatment as prevention (TasP) programs should use cost functions that capture cost dependence on a number of factors, such as scale and scope of delivery, health states, ART regimens, health workers' experience, patients' time on treatment, and the distribution of delivery across public and private sectors. We argue that for particular evaluation purposes (e.g., to establish the social value of TasP) and from particular perspectives (e.g., national health policy makers) less detailed cost functions may be sufficient. We then extend the discussion of economic evaluation of TasP, describing why ART outcomes and costs assessed in currently existing programs are unlikely to be generalizable to TasP programs for several fundamental reasons. First, to achieve frequent, widespread HIV testing and high uptake of ART immediately following an HIV diagnosis, TasP programs will require components that are not present in current ART programs and whose costs are not included in current estimates. Second, the early initiation of ART under TasP will change not only patients' disease courses and treatment experiences—which can affect behaviors that determine clinical treatment success, such as ART adherence and retention—but also quality of life and economic outcomes for HIV-infected individuals. Third, the preventive effects of TasP are likely to alter the composition of the HIV-infected population over time, changing its biological and behavioral characteristics and leading to different costs and outcomes for ART.

Gretchen Stevens and colleagues present the GATHER statement, which seeks to promote good practice in the reporting of global health estimates.

Potential cost-effective barriers in cost-effectiveness studies mean that budgetary impact analyses should also be included in post-2015 Sustainable Development Goal projects says Joshua Salomon and colleagues.