IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0007341.html

Comparative cost analysis of community-based tuberculosis screening: Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) alone versus CAD with point-of-care C-reactive protein testing in South Africa and Lesotho

Author

Listed:
  • Harsh Vivek Harkare
  • Anna Verjans
  • Phillip Joseph
  • Mashaete Kamele
  • Shriya Misra
  • Mamatlakeng Keitseng
  • Mojabeng Mabeleng
  • Thandanani Madonsela
  • Alastair van Heerden
  • Johanna Kurscheid
  • Bart KM Jacobs
  • Aita Signorell
  • Fiona Vanobberghen
  • Klaus Reither
  • Irene Ayakaka
  • Shannon Bosman
  • Fabrizio Tediosi

Abstract

Community-based active case finding (ACF) for tuberculosis (TB) is recommended in high-burden settings, yet evidence on implementation costs from prospective programmatic data remains limited. We estimated and compared the costs of two community-based ACF screening approaches: Computer-Aided Detection of chest X-rays alone (CAD4TBv7 approach) and CAD4TBv7 followed by point-of-care C-reactive protein (CRP) testing within a predefined score window (CAD4TBv7-CRP approach), evaluated in a prospective, paired screen-positive trial in South Africa and Lesotho. Nested within the TB TRIAGE+ trial (September 2022-September 2024), we applied a bottom-up ingredients-based approach from a programmatic perspective to estimate economic and financial costs, separately for TB-only and integrated (TB, HIV, and non-communicable disease) screening. Uncertainty was estimated via probabilistic sensitivity analysis, while scenario analyses explored higher modelled TB prevalence (1%) and expanded screening volume (100,000 participants). Among 20,023 participants screened (6,986 in South Africa; 13,037 in Lesotho), 72 TB cases were detected under the CAD4TBv7 approach and 60 under the CAD4TBv7-CRP approach (full analysis set). For TB-only screening, the average cost per TB case detected was USD 5,454 (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 4,294–6,777) for the CAD4TBv7 approach and USD 7,486 (95% UI: 5,948–9,246) for the CAD4TBv7-CRP approach, 37% more expensive. Recurrent costs accounted for 67–72% of total costs. Personnel was the dominant cost driver in South Africa, and vehicle costs in Lesotho. Higher TB prevalence would substantially reduce the average cost per TB case detected, whereas scaling up participant numbers at the observed prevalence would not. The additional cost of CRP testing was not offset by savings from averted confirmatory tests, making the CAD4TBv7-CRP approach more expensive than CAD4TBv7 alone. CRP-based sequential screening may offer greater cost advantages in settings with lower inflammatory comorbidity burden, though this requires prospective evaluation. TB screening strategies should be tailored to local epidemiological and health-system contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Harsh Vivek Harkare & Anna Verjans & Phillip Joseph & Mashaete Kamele & Shriya Misra & Mamatlakeng Keitseng & Mojabeng Mabeleng & Thandanani Madonsela & Alastair van Heerden & Johanna Kurscheid & Bart, 2026. "Comparative cost analysis of community-based tuberculosis screening: Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) alone versus CAD with point-of-care C-reactive protein testing in South Africa and Lesotho," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(9), pages 1-12, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0007341
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0007341
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0007341
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0007341&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0007341?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0007341. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.