Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32634140›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Drones and digital adherence monitoring for community-based tuberculosis control in remote Madagascar: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Lulua Bahrainwala, Astrid M Knoblauch, Andry Andriamiadanarivo, Mohamed Mustafa Diab, Jesse McKinney, Peter M Small, James G Kahn, Elizabeth Fair, Niaina Rakotosamimanana, Simon Grandjean Lapierre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Lulua BahrainwalaInstitute for Global Health Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Astrid M KnoblauchInstitut Pasteur de Madagascar, Ambohitrakely, Antananarivo, Madagascar.ORCID 0000-0001-5943-4362
Andry AndriamiadanarivoValBio Research Center, Ranomafana, Madagascar.
Mohamed Mustafa DiabPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Jesse McKinneyValBio Research Center, Ranomafana, Madagascar.
Peter M SmallGlobal Health Institute, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, United States of America.
James G KahnInstitute for Global Health Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Elizabeth FairInstitute for Global Health Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Niaina RakotosamimananaInstitut Pasteur de Madagascar, Ambohitrakely, Antananarivo, Madagascar.
Simon Grandjean LapierreInstitut Pasteur de Madagascar, Ambohitrakely, Antananarivo, Madagascar.ORCID 0000-0003-3646-1573

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuing tuberculosis control with current approaches is unlikely to reach the World Health Organization's objective to eliminate TB by 2035. Innovative interventions such as unmanned aerial vehicles (or drones) and digital adherence monitoring technologies have the potential to enhance patient-centric quality tuberculosis care and help challenged National Tuberculosis Programs leapfrog over the impediments of conventional Directly Observed Therapy (DOTS) implementation. A bundle of innovative interventions referred to for its delivery technology as the Drone Observed Therapy System (DrOTS) was implemented in remote Madagascar. Given the potentially increased cost these interventions represent for health systems, a cost-effectiveness analysis was indicated.

methodsA decision analysis model was created to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness of the DrOTS strategy compared to DOTS, the standard of care, in a study population of 200,000 inhabitants in rural Madagascar with tuberculosis disease prevalence of 250/100,000. A mixed top-down and bottom-up costing approach was used to identify costs associated with both models, and net costs were calculated accounting for resulting TB treatment costs. Net cost per disability-adjusted life years averted was calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed for key input variables to identify main drivers of health and cost outcomes, and cost-effectiveness.

findingsNet cost per TB patient identified within DOTS and DrOTS were, respectively, $282 and $1,172. The incremental cost per additional TB patient diagnosed in DrOTS was $2,631 and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of DrOTS compared to DOTS was $177 per DALY averted. Analyses suggest that integrating drones with interventions ensuring highly sensitive laboratory testing and high treatment adherence optimizes cost-effectiveness.

conclusionInnovative technology packages including drones, digital adherence monitoring technologies, and molecular diagnostics for TB case finding and retention within the cascade of care can be cost effective. Their integration with other interventions within health systems may further lower costs and support access to universal health coverage.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisMedication AdherenceAircraftAntitubercular AgentsDirectly Observed TherapyHumansMadagascarPrevalenceProgram EvaluationQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRoboticsTuberculosisAntitubercular Agents

Identifiers

PMID32634140
PMCPMC7340291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.