Bottom-up or top-down: unit cost estimation of tuberculosis diagnostic tests in India.

SETTING: Of 18 sites that participated in an implementation study of the Xpert® MTB/RIF assay in India, we selected five microscopy centres and two reference laboratories. OBJECTIVE: To obtain unit costs of diagnostic tests for tuberculosis (TB) and drug-resistant TB. DESIGN: Laboratories were purposely selected to capture regional variations and different laboratory types. Both bottom-up and the top-down methods were used to estimate unit costs. RESULTS: At the microscopy centres, mean bottom-up unit costs were respectively US$0.83 (range US$0.60-US$1.10) and US$12.29 (US$11.61-US$12.89) for sputum smear microscopy and Xpert. At the reference laboratories, mean unit costs were US$1.69 for the decontamination procedure, US$9.83 for a solid culture, US$11.06 for a liquid culture, US$29.88 for a drug susceptibility test, and US$18.18 for a line-probe assay. Top-down mean unit cost estimates were higher for all tests, and for sputum smear microscopy and Xpert these increased to respectively US$1.51 and US$13.58. The difference between bottom-up and top-down estimates was greatest for tests performed at the reference laboratories. CONCLUSION: These unit costs for TB diagnostics can be used to estimate resource requirements and cost-effectiveness in India, taking into account geographical location, laboratory type and capacity utilisation.

High sensitivity of chest radiograph reading by clinical officers in a tuberculosis prevalence survey.

BACKGROUND: Chest radiographs (CXRs) are used in tuberculosis (TB) prevalence surveys to identify participants for bacteriological examination. Expert readers are rare in most African countries. In our survey, clinical officers scored CXRs of 19 216 participants once. We assessed to what extent missed CXR abnormalities affected our TB prevalence estimate. METHODS: Two experts, a radiologist and pulmonologist, independently reviewed 1031 randomly selected CXRs, mixed with lms of confirmed TB cases. CXRs with disagreement on 'any abnormality' or 'abnormality consistent with TB' were jointly reviewed during a consensus panel. We compared the nal expert and clinical of cer classifications with bacteriologically confirmed TB as the gold standard. RESULTS: After the panel, 199 (19%) randomly selected CXRs were considered abnormal by both expert reviewers and another 82 (8%) by one reviewer. Agreement was good among the experts (κ 0.78, 95%CI 0.73-0.82) and moderate between the clinical officers and experts (κ range 0.50-0.62). The sensitivity of 'any abnormality' was 95% for the clinical officers and 83% and 81% for the respective experts. The specificities were respectively 73%, 74% and 80%. TB prevalence was underestimated by 1.5-5.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptable CXR screening can be achieved with clinical officers. Reviewing a sample of CXRs by two experts allows an assessment of prevalence underestimation.