IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0023158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Diagnostic Options for Pneumocystis Pneumonia (PCP)

Author

Listed:
  • Julie R Harris
  • Barbara J Marston
  • Nalinee Sangrujee
  • Desiree DuPlessis
  • Benjamin Park

Abstract

Background: Diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP) is challenging, particularly in developing countries. Highly sensitive diagnostic methods are costly, while less expensive methods often lack sensitivity or specificity. Cost-effectiveness comparisons of the various diagnostic options have not been presented. Methods and Findings: We compared cost-effectiveness, as measured by cost per life-years gained and proportion of patients successfully diagnosed and treated, of 33 PCP diagnostic options, involving combinations of specimen collection methods [oral washes, induced and expectorated sputum, and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)] and laboratory diagnostic procedures [various staining procedures or polymerase chain reactions (PCR)], or clinical diagnosis with chest x-ray alone. Our analyses were conducted from the perspective of the government payer among ambulatory, HIV-infected patients with symptoms of pneumonia presenting to HIV clinics and hospitals in South Africa. Costing data were obtained from the National Institutes of Communicable Diseases in South Africa. At 50% disease prevalence, diagnostic procedures involving expectorated sputum with any PCR method, or induced sputum with nested or real-time PCR, were all highly cost-effective, successfully treating 77–90% of patients at $26–51 per life-year gained. Procedures using BAL specimens were significantly more expensive without added benefit, successfully treating 68–90% of patients at costs of $189–232 per life-year gained. A relatively cost-effective diagnostic procedure that did not require PCR was Toluidine Blue O staining of induced sputum ($25 per life-year gained, successfully treating 68% of patients). Diagnosis using chest x-rays alone resulted in successful treatment of 77% of patients, though cost-effectiveness was reduced ($109 per life-year gained) compared with several molecular diagnostic options. Conclusions: For diagnosis of PCP, use of PCR technologies, when combined with less-invasive patient specimens such as expectorated or induced sputum, represent more cost-effective options than any diagnostic procedure using BAL, or chest x-ray alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie R Harris & Barbara J Marston & Nalinee Sangrujee & Desiree DuPlessis & Benjamin Park, 2011. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Diagnostic Options for Pneumocystis Pneumonia (PCP)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-1, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0023158
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023158
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023158&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0023158?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. Hyo-Ju Son & Heungsup Sung & Se Yoon Park & Taeeun Kim & Hyun Jeong Lee & Sun-Mi Kim & Yong Pil Chong & Sang-Oh Lee & Sang-Ho Choi & Yang Soo Kim & Jun Hee Woo & Sung-Han Kim, 2017. "Diagnostic performance of the (1–3)-β-D-glucan assay in patients with Pneumocystis jirovecii compared with those with candidiasis, aspergillosis, mucormycosis, and tuberculosis, and healthy volunteers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-11, November.

    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:pone00:0023158. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.