RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of Xpert Omni compared with Xpert MTB/Rif for point-of-care diagnosis of tuberculosis among presumptive cases in a low-resource, high burden facility. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis from the provider's perspective. SETTING: A low-resource, high tuberculosis burden district in Eastern Uganda. PARTICIPANTS: A provider's perspective was used, and thus, data were collected from experts in the field of tuberculosis diagnosis purposively selected at the local, subnational and national levels. METHODS: A decision analysis model was contracted from TreeAge comparing Xpert MTB/Rif and Xpert Omni. Cost estimation was done using the ingredients' approach. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the most influential model parameters. OUTCOME MEASURE: The outcome measure was incremental cost per additional test diagnosed expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The total cost per test for Xpert MTB/Rif was US$14.933. Cartridge and reagent kits contributed to 67% of Xpert MTB/Rif costs. Sample transport costs increased the cost per test of Xpert MTB/Rif by $1.28. The total cost per test for Xpert Omni was $16.153. Cartridge and reagent kits contributed to over 71.2% of Xpert Omni's cost per test. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for using Xpert Omni as a replacement for Xpert MTB/Rif was US$30.73 per additional case detected. There was no dominance noted in the cost-effectiveness analysis, meaning no strategy was dominant over the other. CONCLUSION: The use of Xpert Omni at the point-of-care health facility was more effective but with an increased cost compared with Xpert MTB/Rif at the centralised referral testing facility.