Original Article
Incremental cost-effectiveness of the second Xpert MTB/RIF assay to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis
Abstract
Background: Due to the non-homogeneity of specimens collected from tuberculosis (TB) suspects, repeated Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) may have potential clinical benefits. Incremental cost-effectiveness was analyzed for the second Xpert assay to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) and rifampicin (RIF) resistance.
Methods: Specimens were collected from 1,063 pulmonary TB (PTB) and 398 extrapulmonary TB (EPTB) suspects, who had two Xpert tests sequentially within one week. The specimens were subjected to smear, culture, Xpert and drug susceptibility testing. Incremental cost-effectiveness of the serial Xpert assays was evaluated.
Results: Among 813 Xpert-positive TB patients, 755 (92.87%) were identified by the first assay whereas the additional 58 (7.13%) were identified by the second assay. The second Xpert assay had higher incremental yield for smear-negative than for smear-positive specimens (12.07% vs. 1.84%, P<0.001), and higher incremental yield for EPTB than for PTB (10.71% vs. 4.65%, P=0.003). About 94.48% (137/145) of the RIF-resistant patients were identified by the first Xpert assay and 5.52% (8/145) were identified by the second Xpert assay. After the first assay, the incremental cost of performing a second Xpert was huge: US$22.82 vs. US$467.72 (P<0.001) and US$35.02 vs. US$291.87 (P<0.001) for PTB and EPTB, respectively. The incremental cost of performing a second Xpert is lower in smear-negative than in smear-positive group in both PTB and EPTB.
Conclusions: One Xpert assay is sufficient for smear-positive cases, and a second Xpert assay is beneficial not only for Mtb detection but also for RIF-resistant diagnosis for smear-negative TB suspects, whereas the incremental cost for the second Xpert is huge.
Methods: Specimens were collected from 1,063 pulmonary TB (PTB) and 398 extrapulmonary TB (EPTB) suspects, who had two Xpert tests sequentially within one week. The specimens were subjected to smear, culture, Xpert and drug susceptibility testing. Incremental cost-effectiveness of the serial Xpert assays was evaluated.
Results: Among 813 Xpert-positive TB patients, 755 (92.87%) were identified by the first assay whereas the additional 58 (7.13%) were identified by the second assay. The second Xpert assay had higher incremental yield for smear-negative than for smear-positive specimens (12.07% vs. 1.84%, P<0.001), and higher incremental yield for EPTB than for PTB (10.71% vs. 4.65%, P=0.003). About 94.48% (137/145) of the RIF-resistant patients were identified by the first Xpert assay and 5.52% (8/145) were identified by the second Xpert assay. After the first assay, the incremental cost of performing a second Xpert was huge: US$22.82 vs. US$467.72 (P<0.001) and US$35.02 vs. US$291.87 (P<0.001) for PTB and EPTB, respectively. The incremental cost of performing a second Xpert is lower in smear-negative than in smear-positive group in both PTB and EPTB.
Conclusions: One Xpert assay is sufficient for smear-positive cases, and a second Xpert assay is beneficial not only for Mtb detection but also for RIF-resistant diagnosis for smear-negative TB suspects, whereas the incremental cost for the second Xpert is huge.
