Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38117825›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2023

Economic evaluation of novel Mycobacterium tuberculosis specific antigen-based skin tests for detection of TB infection: A modelling study.

Lara Goscé, Kasim Allel, Yohhei Hamada, Alexei Korobitsyn, Nazir Ismail, Saima Bashir, Claudia M Denkinger, Ibrahim Abubakar, Peter J White, Molebogeng X Rangaka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
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.

Lara GoscéInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2392-6271
Kasim AllelInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2144-7181
Yohhei HamadaInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9845-4267
Alexei KorobitsynUnit for Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment, Care and Innovation, Global Tuberculosis Programme, World Health Organization, Genève, Switzerland.
Nazir IsmailUnit for Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment, Care and Innovation, Global Tuberculosis Programme, World Health Organization, Genève, Switzerland.
Saima BashirDivision of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine at University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4558-9432
Claudia M DenkingerDivision of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine at University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7216-7067
Ibrahim AbubakarInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Peter J WhiteMRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis and NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Modelling and Health Economics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Molebogeng X RangakaInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence on the economic impact of novel skin tests for tuberculosis infection (TBST) is scarce and limited by study quality. We used estimates on the cost-effectiveness of the use of TBST compared to current tuberculosis infection (TBI) tests to assess whether TBST are affordable and feasible to implement under different country contexts. A Markov model parametrised to Brazil, South Africa and the UK was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of three TBI testing strategies: (1) Diaskintest (DST), (2) TST test, and (3) IGRA QFT test. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses over unit costs and main parameters were performed. Our modelling results show that Diaskintest saves $5.60 and gains 0.024 QALYs per patient and $8.40, and 0.01 QALYs per patient in Brazil, compared to TST and IGRA respectively. In South Africa, Diaskintest is also cost-saving at $4.39, with 0.015 QALYs per patient gained, compared to TST, and $64.41, and 0.007 QALYs per patient, compared to IGRA. In the UK, Diaskintest saves $73.33, and gaines 0.0351 QALYs per patient, compared to TST. However, Diaskintest, compared to IGRA, showed an incremental cost of $521.45 (95% CI (500.94-545.07)) per QALY, below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $20.223 per QALY. Diaskintest potentially saves costs and results in greater health gains than the TST and IGRA tests in Brazil and South Africa. In the UK Diaskintest would gain health but also be more costly. Our results have potential external validity because TBST remained cost-effective despite extensive sensitivity analyses.

Identifiers

PMID38117825
PMCPMC10732392

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.