Horton Katherine C, Schwalb Alvaro, Harker Martin J, Goscé Lara, Venero-Garcia Elena, O'Brien Lily, Gun Arkaprabha, Sumner Tom, McQuaid C Finn, Clark Rebecca A, Prys-Jones Tomos O, Bakker Roel, Liu Yiran E, Kubjane Mmamapudi, Lienhardt Christian, White Richard G, Houben Rein M G J
TB Modelling Group, TB Centre, LSHTM, London, UK.
Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, LSHTM, London, UK.
medRxiv. 2025 Sep 4:2025.09.02.25334943. doi: 10.1101/2025.09.02.25334943.
While a range of interventions exist for tuberculosis prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment, their potential population impact and cost-effectiveness are seldom directly compared, or evaluated between settings with different background TB epidemiology and structural drivers.
We calibrated a deterministic TB model to epidemiological indicators in Brazil, India, and South Africa. We implemented seven interventions across countries focusing on prevention, screening and diagnosis, and treatment of TB, as well as TB screening in prisons in Brazil and nutritional supplementation in India. We standardised scale-up (2025-2030), coverage (80% of target population), and strength of evidence for epidemiological impact using published efficacy data. We estimated epidemiological impact and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed as costs per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted by 2050.
Only three interventions prevented >10% of incident TB episodes by 2050: vaccination (median 15-28% across countries), symptom-agnostic community-wide screening (32-38%) and screening in prisons (23%). The impact of other interventions was more limited, ranging from 0% (shortened drug-susceptible treatment) to 5% (nutritional supplementation). ICERs varied widely by intervention and setting. Shortened drug-resistant treatment was cost-saving across settings, with the next lowest ICERs for prison screening in Brazil (72 USD/DALY) and nutritional supplementation in India (167 USD/DALY). Within each country, both low-cost community-wide screening and TB vaccine campaigns had lower USD/DALY than TB preventive treatment.
Interventions with meaningful epidemiological impact can also be cost-effective, but need to target populations beyond clinic-diagnosed individuals or their households. Achieving such potential requires a priority shift in funding, policy and product development.
虽然存在一系列用于结核病预防、筛查、诊断和治疗的干预措施,但它们对人群的潜在影响和成本效益很少被直接比较,或在具有不同结核病流行背景和结构驱动因素的环境之间进行评估。
我们根据巴西、印度和南非的流行病学指标校准了一个确定性结核病模型。我们在各国实施了七项干预措施,重点是结核病的预防、筛查和诊断、治疗,以及巴西监狱中的结核病筛查和印度的营养补充。我们使用已发表的疗效数据对扩大规模(2025 - 2030年)、覆盖率(目标人群的80%)以及对流行病学影响的证据强度进行了标准化。我们估计了流行病学影响和增量成本效益比(ICER),以2050年避免的每残疾调整生命年(DALY)成本来表示。
到2050年,只有三项干预措施预防了超过10%的新发结核病病例:疫苗接种(各国中位数为15 - 28%)、无症状社区范围筛查(32 - 38%)和监狱筛查(23%)。其他干预措施的影响较为有限,范围从0%(缩短药物敏感治疗)到5%(营养补充)。ICER因干预措施和环境的不同而有很大差异。缩短耐药治疗在所有环境下都是节省成本的,其次是巴西监狱筛查(72美元/DALY)和印度营养补充(167美元/DALY)的ICER最低。在每个国家,低成本的社区范围筛查和结核病疫苗接种运动的美元/DALY都低于结核病预防性治疗。
具有显著流行病学影响的干预措施也可能具有成本效益,但需要针对诊所诊断个体或其家庭以外的人群。要实现这种潜力,需要在资金、政策和产品开发方面进行优先转变。