Cost to perform door-to-door universal sputum screening for TB in a high-burden community.

BACKGROUND: Population-based active case-finding (ACF) identifies people with TB in communities but can be costly. METHODS: We conducted an empiric costing study within a door-to-door household ACF campaign in an urban community in Uganda, where all adults, regardless of symptoms, were screened by sputum Xpert Ultra testing. We used a combination of direct observation and self-reported logs to estimate staffing requirements. Study budgets were reviewed to collect costs of overheads, equipment, and consumables. Our primary outcome was the cost per person diagnosed with TB. RESULTS: Over a 28-week period, three teams of two people collected sputum from 11,341 adults, of whom 48 (0.4%) tested positive for TB. Screening 1,000 adults required 258 person-hours of effort at a cost of US$35,000, 70% of which was for GeneXpert cartridges. The estimated cost per person screened was $36 (95% uncertainty range [95% UR] 34­38), and the cost per person diagnosed with Xpert-positive TB was $8,400 (95% UR 8,000­8,900). The prevalence of TB in the underlying community was the primary modifiable determinant of the cost per person diagnosed. CONCLUSION: Door-to-door screening can be feasibly performed at scale, but will require effective triage and identification of high-prevalence populations to be affordable and cost-effective.

The impact of time at home on potential yield of home-based TB contact investigation.

BACKGROUND: The yield of TB contact tracing is often limited by challenges in reaching individuals during the screening process. We investigated the times at which index patients and household contacts were typically at home and the potential effects of expanding the timing of home-based contact investigation.METHODS: Index patients and household contacts in Kampala, Uganda, were asked about their likely availability at different day/time combinations. We calculated the "participant identification gap" (defined as the proportion of participants who reported being home <50% of the time) during business hours only. We then estimated the incremental reduction in the participant identification gap if hours were expanded to include weekday evenings, Saturdays, and Sundays. Statistical significance was assessed using McNemar´s tests.RESULTS: Nearly half of eligible individuals (42% of index patients and 52% of contacts) were not likely to be home during contact investigation conducted only during business hours. Expanding to weekday evenings, Saturdays, and Sundays would reduce this participant identification gap to 15% among index patients and 18% among contacts - while also reducing differences by sex and employment.CONCLUSIONS: Expanding hours for conducting contact investigation or other home-based health interventions could substantially reduce the number of individuals missed and address disparities in access to care.