Systematic review of the economic impact of novel Mycobacterium tuberculosis specific antigen-based skin tests for detection of TB infection compared with tuberculin skin test and interferon-gamma release assays

The Purified Protein Derivative tuberculin skin tests (TST) and blood-based Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) specific interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA) are the currently used tests for identifying individuals with TB infection for preventive treatment. However, challenges around access and implementation have limited their use. Novel M.tb specific skin tests (TBST) such as Diaskintest, ESAT6-CFP10 (C-TST), C-Tb (also known as Cy-Tb), and DPPD may provide accurate and scalable options but evidence synthesis on their economic impact is lacking. We conducted two separate systematic reviews to compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of (1) the novel skin tests TBST (primary), and (2) TST and IGRA tests (secondary), to support WHO guideline development. We searched for articles presenting economic evaluations of the diagnostic tests using a health provider perspective and related to TB infection in humans. We considered papers written in English, Chinese or Russian. In the primary review, eight studies for novel TBST were found. One study in Brazil assessed cost-effectiveness of C-TST and Diaskintest and seven in Russia assessed the Diaskintest, while none evaluated C-Tb or DPPD. The review showed on average, Diaskintest kit costs (in 2021 USD) $1.60 (1.50 - 1.70), while full unit costs were estimated at $5.07. C-TST unit cost was $9.96. The second review found 32 articles on IGRA and/or the TST. These presented an average TST full unit cost of $37.88, and $87.81 for IGRA. Studies' quality for TBST was limited while high-quality studies were found for TST and IGRA tests. In conclusion, there is limited evidence regarding the costs and cost-effectiveness of novel TBST. Conversely, there is substantial evidence for TST and IGRA tests, but most studies were performed in high-income and low-TB burden settings and their cost-effectiveness varied between and within risk groups without clear economic consensus.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLOS Global Public Health
Published
2024-10-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0003655
Citations
9
Primary Topic
Tuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.11

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Systematic review of the economic impact of novel Mycobacterium tuberculosis specific antigen-based skin tests for detection of TB infection compared with tuberculin skin test and interferon-gamma release assays

Ibrahim Abubakar, Alexei Korobitsyn, Irina Kontsevaya, Claudia Maria Denkinger et al.
9 citations
PLOS Global Public Health
Tuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
3.11
article

Systematic review of the economic impact of novel Mycobacterium tuberculosis specific antigen-based skin tests for detection of TB infection compared with tuberculin skin test and interferon-gamma release assays

Ibrahim Abubakar, Alexei Korobitsyn, Irina Kontsevaya, Claudia Maria Denkinger, Nazir Ismail, Elena Surkova, Saima Bashir, Molebogeng Xheedha Rangaka, Ting Ting Wang, Kasim Allel, Yohhei Hamada, Lara Goscé, Wan-Hsin Liu, Peter J White, А. В. Матвеев, Liliya Eugenevna Ziganshina
article en
9 citations

Abstract

The Purified Protein Derivative tuberculin skin tests (TST) and blood-based Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) specific interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA) are the currently used tests for identifying individuals with TB infection for preventive treatment. However, challenges around access and implementation have limited their use. Novel M.tb specific skin tests (TBST) such as Diaskintest, ESAT6-CFP10 (C-TST), C-Tb (also known as Cy-Tb), and DPPD may provide accurate and scalable options but evidence synthesis on their economic impact is lacking. We conducted two separate systematic reviews to compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of (1) the novel skin tests TBST (primary), and (2) TST and IGRA tests (secondary), to support WHO guideline development. We searched for articles presenting economic evaluations of the diagnostic tests using a health provider perspective and related to TB infection in humans. We considered papers written in English, Chinese or Russian. In the primary review, eight studies for novel TBST were found. One study in Brazil assessed cost-effectiveness of C-TST and Diaskintest and seven in Russia assessed the Diaskintest, while none evaluated C-Tb or DPPD. The review showed on average, Diaskintest kit costs (in 2021 USD) $1.60 (1.50 - 1.70), while full unit costs were estimated at $5.07. C-TST unit cost was $9.96. The second review found 32 articles on IGRA and/or the TST. These presented an average TST full unit cost of $37.88, and $87.81 for IGRA. Studies' quality for TBST was limited while high-quality studies were found for TST and IGRA tests. In conclusion, there is limited evidence regarding the costs and cost-effectiveness of novel TBST. Conversely, there is substantial evidence for TST and IGRA tests, but most studies were performed in high-income and low-TB burden settings and their cost-effectiveness varied between and within risk groups without clear economic consensus.

PLOS Global Public HealthVol. 4(10)
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (RU), Kazan State Medical University (RU), Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Heidelberg University (DE), University Hospital Heidelberg (DE), Taipei Veterans General Hospital (TW), Russian New University (RU), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB), Royal Brompton Hospital (GB), World Health Organization (CH), Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education (RU), German Center for Infection Research (DE), Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (RU), Research Center Borstel - Leibniz Lung Center (DE), University College London (GB), Imperial College London (GB), University of Lübeck (DE)
National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Imperial College London, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Medical Research Council
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Tuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
3.11
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.