Publication: Rapid, Point-of-Care Diagnosis of Tuberculosis With Novel Truenat Assay: Cost-Effectiveness and Budgetary Impact Analysis for India’s Public Sector
No Thumbnail Available
Open/View Files
Date
2019-07-25
Authors
Published Version
Published Version
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.
Citation
Lee, David Jungpa. 2019. Rapid, Point-of-Care Diagnosis of Tuberculosis With Novel Truenat Assay: Cost-Effectiveness and Budgetary Impact Analysis for India’s Public Sector. Master's thesis, Harvard Medical School.
Research Data
Abstract
Background: Truenat is a novel, battery-powered molecular assay that rapidly detects tuberculosis (TB) and rifampicin-resistance. Due to its portability, it may be valuable in peripheral healthcare settings in India, the country with the largest TB burden in the world.
Methods: Using a microsimulation model, we compared four TB diagnostic strategies for HIV-negative adults with suspected TB: (1) sputum smear microscopy in designated microscopy centers (DMCs) (SSM); (2) Xpert MTB/RIF in DMCs (Xpert); (3) Truenat in DMCs (Truenat DMC); and (4) Truenat for point-of-care testing in primary healthcare facilities (Truenat POC). We projected life expectancy, costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and 5-year budget impact of deploying Truenat POC in India’s public sector. We defined a strategy “cost-effective” if its ICER was <US$990/year-of-life saved (YLS). Model inputs included: TB prevalence, 17%; sensitivity for TB detection, 89% (Xpert) and 86% (Truenat); per test cost, $12.63 (Xpert) and $13.20 (Truenat); and linkage-to-care after diagnosis, 84% (DMC) and 95% (POC). We varied these parameters in sensitivity analyses.
Results: Compared to SSM, Truenat POC increased life expectancy by 0.39 years and was cost-effective (ICER $210/YLS). Compared to Xpert, Truenat POC increased life expectancy by 0.08 years due to improved linkage-to-care, and was cost-effective (ICER $120/YLS). In sensitivity analysis, the cost-effectiveness of Truenat POC, relative to Xpert, depended on the diagnostic sensitivity of Truenat and linkage-to-care with Truenat. Deploying Truenat POC instead of Xpert increased 5-year expenditures by $270 million, due mostly to treatment costs. Limitations of our study include uncertainty in Truenat’s sensitivity for TB detection and not accounting for the “start-up” costs of implementing Truenat in the field. Findings may not be generalizable to settings of high HIV prevalence.
Conclusions: Used at the point-of-care in India, Truenat for TB diagnosis should improve linkage-to-care, increase life expectancy, and be cost-effective compared with smear microscopy or Xpert.
Description
Other Available Sources
Keywords
India, Tuberculosis, Diagnostics, Cost-effectiveness
Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service