Catastrophic costs potentially averted by tuberculosis control in India and South Africa: a modelling study

Background: The economic burden on households affected by tuberculosis through costs to patients can be catastrophic. WHO's End TB Strategy recognises and aims to eliminate these potentially devastating economic effects. We assessed whether aggressive expansion of tuberculosis services might reduce catastrophic costs. Methods: We estimated the reduction in tuberculosis-related catastrophic costs with an aggressive expansion of tuberculosis services in India and South Africa from 2016 to 2035, in line with the End TB Strategy. Using modelled incidence and mortality for tuberculosis and patient-incurred cost estimates, we investigated three intervention scenarios: improved treatment of drug-sensitive tuberculosis; improved treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; and expansion of access to tuberculosis care through intensified case finding (South Africa only). We defined tuberculosis-related catastrophic costs as the sum of direct medical, direct non-medical, and indirect costs to patients exceeding 20% of total annual household income. Intervention effects were quantified as changes in the number of households incurring catastrophic costs and were assessed by quintiles of household income. Findings: In India and South Africa, improvements in treatment for drug-sensitive and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis could reduce the number of households incurring tuberculosis-related catastrophic costs by 6–19%. The benefits would be greatest for the poorest households. In South Africa, expanded access to care could decrease household tuberculosis-related catastrophic costs by 5–20%, but gains would be seen largely after 5–10 years. Interpretation: Aggressive expansion of tuberculosis services in India and South Africa could lessen, although not eliminate, the catastrophic financial burden on affected households. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Feasibility of achieving the 2025 WHO global tuberculosis targets in South Africa, China, and India: a combined analysis of 11 mathematical models

Background: The post-2015 End TB Strategy proposes targets of 50% reduction in tuberculosis incidence and 75% reduction in mortality from tuberculosis by 2025. We aimed to assess whether these targets are feasible in three high-burden countries with contrasting epidemiology and previous programmatic achievements. Methods: 11 independently developed mathematical models of tuberculosis transmission projected the epidemiological impact of currently available tuberculosis interventions for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in China, India, and South Africa. Models were calibrated with data on tuberculosis incidence and mortality in 2012. Representatives from national tuberculosis programmes and the advocacy community provided distinct country-specific intervention scenarios, which included screening for symptoms, active case finding, and preventive therapy. Findings: Aggressive scale-up of any single intervention scenario could not achieve the post-2015 End TB Strategy targets in any country. However, the models projected that, in the South Africa national tuberculosis programme scenario, a combination of continuous isoniazid preventive therapy for individuals on antiretroviral therapy, expanded facility-based screening for symptoms of tuberculosis at health centres, and improved tuberculosis care could achieve a 55% reduction in incidence (range 31–62%) and a 72% reduction in mortality (range 64–82%) compared with 2015 levels. For India, and particularly for China, full scale-up of all interventions in tuberculosis-programme performance fell short of the 2025 targets, despite preventing a cumulative 3·4 million cases. The advocacy scenarios illustrated the high impact of detecting and treating latent tuberculosis. Interpretation: Major reductions in tuberculosis burden seem possible with current interventions. However, additional interventions, adapted to country-specific tuberculosis epidemiology and health systems, are needed to reach the post-2015 End TB Strategy targets at country level. Funding: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundatio

Cost-effectiveness and resource implications of aggressive action on tuberculosis in China, India, and South Africa: a combined analysis of nine models

Background: The post-2015 End TB Strategy sets global targets of reducing tuberculosis incidence by 50% and mortality by 75% by 2025. We aimed to assess resource requirements and cost-effectiveness of strategies to achieve these targets in China, India, and South Africa. Methods: We examined intervention scenarios developed in consultation with country stakeholders, which scaled up existing interventions to high but feasible coverage by 2025. Nine independent modelling groups collaborated to estimate policy outcomes, and we estimated the cost of each scenario by synthesising service use estimates, empirical cost data, and expert opinion on implementation strategies. We estimated health effects (ie, disability-adjusted life-years averted) and resource implications for 2016–35, including patient-incurred costs. To assess resource requirements and cost-effectiveness, we compared scenarios with a base case representing continued current practice. Findings: Incremental tuberculosis service costs differed by scenario and country, and in some cases they more than doubled existing funding needs. In general, expansion of tuberculosis services substantially reduced patient-incurred costs and, in India and China, produced net cost savings for most interventions under a societal perspective. In all three countries, expansion of access to care produced substantial health gains. Compared with current practice and conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds, most intervention approaches seemed highly cost-effective. Interpretation: Expansion of tuberculosis services seems cost-effective for high-burden countries and could generate substantial health and economic benefits for patients, although substantial new funding would be required. Further work to determine the optimal intervention mix for each country is necessary. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation