Cost analysis of GenoType® MTBDRplus and GenoType® MTBDRsl at the State Laboratory of São Paulo, Brazil.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the costs of GenoType® MTBDRplus and MTBDRsl incurred during the diagnosis of first- and second-line drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) in São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS: Mean and activity-based costs of GenoType® were calculated in a referral laboratory for TB in Brazil. RESULTS: The mean cost value and activity-based cost of GenoType® MTBDRplus were USD 19.78 and USD 35.80 and those of MTBDRsl were USD 54.25 and USD 41.85, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of GenoType® MTBDRplus was reduced owing to the high number of examinations performed and work optimization.

Cost analysis of GenoType® MTBDRplus and GenoType® MTBDRsl at the State Laboratory of São Paulo, Brazil

ABSTRACT Background: We aimed to evaluate the costs of GenoType® MTBDRplus and MTBDRsl incurred during the diagnosis of first- and second-line drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) in São Paulo, Brazil. Methods: Mean and activity-based costs of GenoType® were calculated in a referral laboratory for TB in Brazil. Results: The mean cost value and activity-based cost of GenoType® MTBDRplus were USD 19.78 and USD 35.80 and those of MTBDRsl were USD 54.25 and USD 41.85, respectively. Conclusions: The cost of GenoType® MTBDRplus was reduced owing to the high number of examinations performed and work optimization.

Cost analysis for patients with presumed pulmonary tuberculosis attended in the public health system of rio de janeiro, Brazil.

Background: In last years, few attention has given to the patient's prediagnostic costs when evaluating the introduction of new technologies for tuberculosis (TB) and in this context, this study evaluated patient's costs and cost-effectiveness incurred with TB diagnosis comparing BactecTMMGITTM960 system (MGIT) to the Löwestein-Jensen (LJ) culture in a health center and in a university hospital, in Rio de Janeiro City, Brazil. Methods: Patient's mean costs were evaluated during the diagnosis process and cost-effectiveness based on mean time in days for the adoption of appropriate clinical anti-TB treatment in two health units comparing culture by means LJ and MGIT. Results: The mean cost of LJ and MGIT in the health center was U. S. dollars (US$) 26.6 and US$ 45.13, respectively, and in university hospital was US$ 206.87 and US$ 285.48, respectively. Comparing the two approaches for TB diagnosis incurred by the patients, the incremental cost-effectiveness of MGIT compared to LJ was US$ 0.88 and US$ 4.03 per patient, respectively, to reduce the average time to adopt appropriate treatment. Conclusions: The culture method directly impacts patient costs while waiting for the correct diagnosis and contributing to aggravating costs with patients with TB.

Cost-effectiveness of Xpert®MTB/RIF in the diagnosis of tuberculosis: pragmatic study.

INTRODUCTION: The intensification of research and innovation with the creation of networks of rapid and effective molecular tests as strategies for the end of tuberculosis are essential to avoid late diagnosis and for the eradication of the disease. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Xpert®MTB/RIF (Xpert) in the diagnosis of drug-resistant tuberculosis in reference units, in scenarios with and without subsidies, and the respective cost adjustment for today. METHODS: The analyses were performed considering as criterion of effectiveness, negative culture or clinical improvement in the sixth month of follow-up. The comparison was performed using two diagnostic strategies for the drug susceptibility test (DST), BactecTMMGITTM960 System, versus Xpert. The cost effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated and dollar-corrected for American inflation (US$ 1.00 = R$ 5,29). RESULTS: Subsidized Xpert had the lowest cost of US$ 33.48 (R$67,52) and the highest incremental average efficiency (13.57), thus being a dominated analysis. After the inflation was calculated, the mean cost was DST-MGIT=US$ 74.85 (R$ 396,73) and Xpert = US$ 37.33 (R$197,86) with subsidies. CONCLUSIONS: The Xpert in the diagnosis of TB-DR in these reference units was cost-effective with subsidies. In the absence of a subsidy, Xpert in TB-DR is not characterized as cost effective. This factor reveals the vulnerability of countries dependent on international organizations' subsidy policies.

Cost-effectiveness of Xpert®MTB/RIF in the diagnosis of tuberculosis: pragmatic study

Abstract INTRODUCTION: The intensification of research and innovation with the creation of networks of rapid and effective molecular tests as strategies for the end of tuberculosis are essential to avoid late diagnosis and for the eradication of the disease. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Xpert®MTB/RIF (Xpert) in the diagnosis of drug-resistant tuberculosis in reference units, in scenarios with and without subsidies, and the respective cost adjustment for today. METHODS: The analyses were performed considering as criterion of effectiveness, negative culture or clinical improvement in the sixth month of follow-up. The comparison was performed using two diagnostic strategies for the drug susceptibility test (DST), BactecTMMGITTM960 System, versus Xpert. The cost effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated and dollar-corrected for American inflation (US$ 1.00 = R$ 5,29). RESULTS: Subsidized Xpert had the lowest cost of US$ 33.48 (R$67,52) and the highest incremental average efficiency (13.57), thus being a dominated analysis. After the inflation was calculated, the mean cost was DST-MGIT=US$ 74.85 (R$ 396,73) and Xpert = US$ 37.33 (R$197,86) with subsidies. CONCLUSIONS: The Xpert in the diagnosis of TB-DR in these reference units was cost-effective with subsidies. In the absence of a subsidy, Xpert in TB-DR is not characterized as cost effective. This factor reveals the vulnerability of countries dependent on international organizations' subsidy policies.

Cost analysis of smear microscopy and the Xpert assay for tuberculosis diagnosis: average turnaround time.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid and accurate tuberculosis detection is critical for improving patient diagnosis and decreasing tuberculosis transmission. Molecular assays can significantly increase laboratory costs; therefore, the average time and economic impact should be evaluated before implementing a new technology. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost and average turnaround time of smear microscopy and Xpert assay at a university hospital. METHODS: The turnaround time and cost of the laboratory diagnosis of tuberculosis were calculated based on the mean cost and activity based costing (ABC). RESULTS: The average turnaround time for smear microscopy was 16.6 hours while that for Xpert was 24.1 hours. The Xpert had a mean cost of USD 17.37 with an ABC of USD 10.86, while smear microscopy had a mean cost of USD 13.31 with an ABC of USD 6.01. The sensitivity of smear microscopy was 42.9% and its specificity was 99.1%, while the Xpert assay had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 96.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The Xpert assay has high accuracy; however, the turnaround time and cost of smear microscopy were lower than those of Xpert.

Genotype®MTBDRplus and Xpert®MTB/RIF in the diagnosis of tuberculosis and resistant tuberculosis: cost analysis in a tertiary referral hospital.

INTRODUCTION: The present study sought to assess the mean and activity based cost (ABC) of the laboratory diagnosis for tuberculosis through the application of conventional and molecular techniques-Xpert®MTB/RIF and Genotype®MTBDRplus-in a tertiary referral hospital in Brazil. METHODS: The mean cost and ABC formed the basis for the cost analysis of the TB laboratory diagnosis. RESULTS: The mean cost and ABC were US$ 4.00 and US$ 3.24, respectively, for a bacilloscopy; US$ 6.73 and US$ 5.27 for a Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) culture; US$ 105.42 and US$ 76.56 for a drug sensitivity test (DST)-proportions method (PM) in LJ; US$ 148.45 and US$ 136.80 for a DST-BACTECTM MGITTM 960 system; US$ 11.53 and US$ 9.89 for an Xpert®MTB/RIF; and US$ 84.21 and US$ 48.38 for a Genotype®MTBDRplus. CONCLUSIONS: The mean cost and ABC proved to be good decision-making parameters in the diagnosis of TB and MDR-TB. The effective implementation of algorithms will depend on the conditions at each location.

Cost analysis of smear microscopy and the Xpert assay for tuberculosis diagnosis: average turnaround time

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Rapid and accurate tuberculosis detection is critical for improving patient diagnosis and decreasing tuberculosis transmission. Molecular assays can significantly increase laboratory costs; therefore, the average time and economic impact should be evaluated before implementing a new technology. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost and average turnaround time of smear microscopy and Xpert assay at a university hospital. METHODS: The turnaround time and cost of the laboratory diagnosis of tuberculosis were calculated based on the mean cost and activity based costing (ABC). RESULTS: The average turnaround time for smear microscopy was 16.6 hours while that for Xpert was 24.1 hours. The Xpert had a mean cost of USD 17.37 with an ABC of USD 10.86, while smear microscopy had a mean cost of USD 13.31 with an ABC of USD 6.01. The sensitivity of smear microscopy was 42.9% and its specificity was 99.1%, while the Xpert assay had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 96.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The Xpert assay has high accuracy; however, the turnaround time and cost of smear microscopy were lower than those of Xpert.

Genotype®MTBDRplus and Xpert®MTB/RIF in the diagnosis of tuberculosis and resistant tuberculosis: cost analysis in a tertiary referral hospital

Abstract INTRODUCTION: The present study sought to assess the mean and activity based cost (ABC) of the laboratory diagnosis for tuberculosis through the application of conventional and molecular techniques-Xpert®MTB/RIF and Genotype®MTBDRplus-in a tertiary referral hospital in Brazil. METHODS: The mean cost and ABC formed the basis for the cost analysis of the TB laboratory diagnosis. RESULTS: The mean cost and ABC were US$ 4.00 and US$ 3.24, respectively, for a bacilloscopy; US$ 6.73 and US$ 5.27 for a Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) culture; US$ 105.42 and US$ 76.56 for a drug sensitivity test (DST)-proportions method (PM) in LJ; US$ 148.45 and US$ 136.80 for a DST-BACTECTM MGITTM 960 system; US$ 11.53 and US$ 9.89 for an Xpert®MTB/RIF; and US$ 84.21 and US$ 48.38 for a Genotype®MTBDRplus. CONCLUSIONS: The mean cost and ABC proved to be good decision-making parameters in the diagnosis of TB and MDR-TB. The effective implementation of algorithms will depend on the conditions at each location.

Multicenter evaluation of TB-SPRINT 59-Plex Beamedex®: accuracy and cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Molecular tests can allow the rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) and multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB). TB-SPRINT 59-Plex Beamedex® is a microbead-based assay developed for the simultaneous spoligotyping and detection of MDR-TB. The accuracy and cost evaluation of new assays and technologies are of great importance for their routine use in clinics and in research laboratories. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of TB-SPRINT at three laboratory research centers in Brazil and calculate its mean cost (MC) and activity-based costing (ABC). METHODS: TB-SPRINT data were compared with the phenotypic and genotypic profiles obtained using Bactec™ MGIT™ 960 system and Genotype® MTBDRplus, respectively. RESULTS: Compared with MGIT, the accuracies of TB-SPRINT for the detection of rifampicin and isoniazid resistance ranged from 81 to 92% and 91.3 to 93.9%, respectively. Compared with MTBDRplus, the accuracies of TB-SPRINT for rifampicin and isoniazid were 99 and 94.2%, respectively. Moreover, the MC and ABC of TB-SPRINT were USD 127.78 and USD 109.94, respectively. CONCLUSION: TB-SPRINT showed good results for isoniazid and rifampicin resistance detection, but still needs improvement to achieve In Vitro Diagnostics standards.

Clinical impact and cost analysis of the use of either the Xpert MTB Rif test or sputum smear microscopy in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

INTRODUCTION: The molecular test Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) has been recommended for use in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB); however, data on the cost of incorporating it under routine conditions in high-burden countries are scarce. The clinical impact and costs incurred in adopting the Xpert test in routine PTB diagnosis was evaluated in a prospective study conducted from November 2012 to November of 2013, in the City of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. METHODS: The diagnostic and therapeutic cascade for TB treatment was evaluated using Xpert in the first stage (S1), and sputum smear microscopy (SSM) in the second stage (S2). The mean costs associated with each diagnostic test were calculated including equipment, human resources, supplies, and infrastructure. RESULTS: We included 232 subjects with probable TB (S1 = 87; S2 = 145). The sensitivities of Xpert and SSM were 91.7% (22/24) and 79.1% (34/43), respectively. The median time between triage and TB treatment initiation in S1 (n = 24) was 14.5 days (IQR 8-28.0) and in S2 (n = 43) it was 8 days [interquartile range (IQR) 6-12.0]. The estimated mean costs per examination in S1 and S2 were US$24.61 and US$6.98, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SSM, Xpert test showed a greater sensitivity, but it also had a time delay with respect to treatment initiation and a higher mean cost per examination.

Clinical impact and cost analysis of the use of either the Xpert MTB Rif test or sputum smear microscopy in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Abstract INTRODUCTION: The molecular test Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) has been recommended for use in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB); however, data on the cost of incorporating it under routine conditions in high-burden countries are scarce. The clinical impact and costs incurred in adopting the Xpert test in routine PTB diagnosis was evaluated in a prospective study conducted from November 2012 to November of 2013, in the City of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. METHODS: The diagnostic and therapeutic cascade for TB treatment was evaluated using Xpert in the first stage (S1), and sputum smear microscopy (SSM) in the second stage (S2). The mean costs associated with each diagnostic test were calculated including equipment, human resources, supplies, and infrastructure. RESULTS: We included 232 subjects with probable TB (S1 = 87; S2 = 145). The sensitivities of Xpert and SSM were 91.7% (22/24) and 79.1% (34/43), respectively. The median time between triage and TB treatment initiation in S1 (n = 24) was 14.5 days (IQR 8-28.0) and in S2 (n = 43) it was 8 days [interquartile range (IQR) 6-12.0]. The estimated mean costs per examination in S1 and S2 were US$24.61 and US$6.98, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SSM, Xpert test showed a greater sensitivity, but it also had a time delay with respect to treatment initiation and a higher mean cost per examination.