ABSTRACT
Introduction Resource constraints in LMICs limit TB contact investigation despite evidence its benefits outweigh costs, with increased efficiency when compared with intensified case finding (ICF). However, there is limited data on the yield and cost per TB case identified in low resource-settings. We compared the yield and cost per TB case identified for ICF and TB-CI in Uganda.
Methods A retrospective cohort study based on data from 12 Ugandan hospitals was done between April and September 2017. Two methods of TB case finding (i.e. ICF and TB-CI) were used. Regarding ICF, patients either self-reported their signs and symptoms or were prompted by health care workers, and those suspected to have TB were requested to produce a sputum sample. On the other hand, TB-CI was done by home-visiting and screening contacts of TB patients for TB; with those found with signs and symptoms requested to produce sputum samples for examination. TB yield was defined as the ratio of diagnoses to tests, and this was computed per method of diagnosis. The costs per TB case identified (medical, personnel, transportation and training) for each diagnosis method were computed using the activity-based approach, from the health care perspective. Cost data were analyzed using Windows Excel.
Results 454 index clients’ cases and 2,707 of their household contacts were investigated. Thirty-one per cent of contacts (840/2707) were found to be presumptive TB cases. A total of 7,685 tests were done, 6,967 for ICF and 718 for TB-CI. ICF had a yield of 18.62% (1297/6967) at a cost of USD $120.60 to diagnose a case of TB while TB-CI had a yield of 5.29% (38/718) at an average cost of USD $ 877.57 to diagnose a case of TB.
Conclusion Regarding case-finding, the yield of TB-CI was four-times lower and seven-times costlier compared to ICF. These findings suggest that ICF can improve TB case detection at a low cost, particularly in high TB prevalent settings.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
The study did not require ethical approval, it was part of routine care and anonymous data was used
Funding Statement
There was no funding obtained.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All the data is available, but it is mainly costing data
