IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0259056.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Costs and cost-effectiveness of Gene Xpert compared to smear microscopy for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis using real-world data from Arsi zone, Ethiopia

Author

Listed:
  • Abdene Weya Kaso
  • Alemayehu Hailu

Abstract

Background: Early diagnosis and treatment are one of the key strategies of tuberculosis control globally, and there are strong efforts in detecting and treating tuberculosis cases in Ethiopia. Smear microscopy examination has been a routine diagnostic test for pulmonary tuberculosis diagnosis in resource-constrained settings for decades. Recently, many countries, including Ethiopia, are scaling up the use of Gene Xpert without the evaluation of the cost and cost-effectiveness implications of this strategy. Therefore, this study evaluated the cost and cost-effectiveness of Gene Xpert (MTB/RIF) and smear microscopy tests to diagnosis tuberculosis patients in Ethiopia. Methods: We compared the costs and cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis diagnosis using smear microscopy and Gene Xpert among 1332 patients per intervention in the Arsi zone. We applied combinations of top-down and bottom-up costing approaches. The costs were estimated from the health providers’ perspective within one year (2017–2018). We employed “cases detected” as an effectiveness measure, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated by dividing the changes in cost and change in effectiveness. All costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were reported in 2018 US$. Results: The unit cost per test for Gene Xpert was $12.9 whereas it is $3.1 for AFB smear microscopy testing. The cost per TB case detected was $77.9 for Gene Xpert while it was $55.8 for the smear microscopy method. The cartridge kit cost accounted for 42% of the overall Gene Xpert’s costs and the cost of the reagents and consumables accounted for 41.3% ($1.3) of the unit cost for the smear microscopy method. The ICER for the Gene Xpert strategy was $20.0 per tuberculosis case detected. Conclusion: Using Gene Xpert as a routine test instead of standard care (smear microscopy) can be potentially cost-effective. In the cost scenario analysis, the price of the cartridge, the number of tests performed per day, and the life span of the capital equipment were the drivers of the unit cost of the Gene Xpert method. Therefore, Gene Xpert can be a part of the routine TB diagnostic testing strategy in Ethiopia.

Suggested Citation

  • Abdene Weya Kaso & Alemayehu Hailu, 2021. "Costs and cost-effectiveness of Gene Xpert compared to smear microscopy for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis using real-world data from Arsi zone, Ethiopia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-10, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0259056
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259056
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259056&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0259056?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:pone00:0259056. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.