IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1003752.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Computer-aided X-ray screening for tuberculosis and HIV testing among adults with cough in Malawi (the PROSPECT study): A randomised trial and cost-effectiveness analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Peter MacPherson
  • Emily L Webb
  • Wala Kamchedzera
  • Elizabeth Joekes
  • Gugu Mjoli
  • David G Lalloo
  • Titus H Divala
  • Augustine T Choko
  • Rachael M Burke
  • Hendramoorthy Maheswaran
  • Madhukar Pai
  • S Bertel Squire
  • Marriott Nliwasa
  • Elizabeth L Corbett

Abstract

Background: Suboptimal tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics and HIV contribute to the high global burden of TB. We investigated costs and yield from systematic HIV-TB screening, including computer-aided digital chest X-ray (DCXR-CAD). Methods and findings: In this open, three-arm randomised trial, adults (≥18 years) with cough attending acute primary services in Malawi were randomised (1:1:1) to standard of care (SOC); oral HIV testing (HIV screening) and linkage to care; or HIV testing and linkage to care plus DCXR-CAD with sputum Xpert for high CAD4TBv5 scores (HIV-TB screening). Participants and study staff were not blinded to intervention allocation, but investigator blinding was maintained until final analysis. The primary outcome was time to TB treatment. Secondary outcomes included proportion with same-day TB treatment; prevalence of undiagnosed/untreated bacteriologically confirmed TB on day 56; and undiagnosed/untreated HIV. Analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis. Cost-effectiveness analysis used a health-provider perspective. Between 15 November 2018 and 27 November 2019, 8,236 were screened for eligibility, with 473, 492, and 497 randomly allocated to SOC, HIV, and HIV-TB screening arms; 53 (11%), 52 (9%), and 47 (9%) were lost to follow-up, respectively. At 56 days, TB treatment had been started in 5 (1.1%) SOC, 8 (1.6%) HIV screening, and 15 (3.0%) HIV-TB screening participants. Median (IQR) time to TB treatment was 11 (6.5 to 38), 6 (1 to 22), and 1 (0 to 3) days (hazard ratio for HIV-TB versus SOC: 2.86, 1.04 to 7.87), with same-day treatment of 0/5 (0%) SOC, 1/8 (12.5%) HIV, and 6/15 (40.0%) HIV-TB screening arm TB patients (p = 0.03). At day 56, 2 SOC (0.5%), 4 HIV (1.0%), and 2 HIV-TB (0.5%) participants had undiagnosed microbiologically confirmed TB. HIV screening reduced the proportion with undiagnosed or untreated HIV from 10 (2.7%) in the SOC arm to 2 (0.5%) in the HIV screening arm (risk ratio [RR]: 0.18, 0.04 to 0.83), and 1 (0.2%) in the HIV-TB screening arm (RR: 0.09, 0.01 to 0.71). Incremental costs were US$3.58 and US$19.92 per participant screened for HIV and HIV-TB; the probability of cost-effectiveness at a US$1,200/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold was 83.9% and 0%. Main limitations were the lower than anticipated prevalence of TB and short participant follow-up period; cost and quality of life benefits of this screening approach may accrue over a longer time horizon. Conclusions: DCXR-CAD with universal HIV screening significantly increased the timeliness and completeness of HIV and TB diagnosis. If implemented at scale, this has potential to rapidly and efficiently improve TB and HIV diagnosis and treatment. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03519425. In a randomised trial, Peter MacPherson and colleagues investigate the costs, timeliness, and completeness of computer-aided X-ray screening for tuberculosis and HIV testing in adults with cough in Malawi.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Peter MacPherson & Emily L Webb & Wala Kamchedzera & Elizabeth Joekes & Gugu Mjoli & David G Lalloo & Titus H Divala & Augustine T Choko & Rachael M Burke & Hendramoorthy Maheswaran & Madhukar Pai & S, 2021. "Computer-aided X-ray screening for tuberculosis and HIV testing among adults with cough in Malawi (the PROSPECT study): A randomised trial and cost-effectiveness analysis," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(9), pages 1-17, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003752
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003752
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003752
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003752&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003752?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander P. L. Martindale & Carrie D. Llewellyn & Richard O. Visser & Benjamin Ng & Victoria Ngai & Aditya U. Kale & Lavinia Ferrante Ruffano & Robert M. Golub & Gary S. Collins & David Moher & Melis, 2024. "Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003752. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.