Cost-effectiveness of active case-finding of household contacts of pulmonary tuberculosis patients in a low HIV, tuberculosis-endemic urban area of Lima, Peru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the cost-effectiveness (CE) of an active case-finding (ACF) programme for household contacts of tuberculosis (TB) cases enrolled in first-line treatment to routine passive case-finding (PCF) within an established national TB programme in Peru. Decision analysis was used to model detection of TB in household contacts through: (1) self-report of symptomatic cases for evaluation (PCF), (2) a provider-initiated ACF programme, (3) addition of an Xpert MTB/RIF diagnostic test for a single sputum sample from household contacts, and (4) all strategies combined. CE was calculated as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of US dollars per disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. Compared to PCF alone, ACF for household contacts resulted in an ICER of $2155 per DALY averted. The addition of the Xpert MTB/RIF diagnostic test resulted in an ICER of $3275 per DALY averted within a PCF programme and $3399 per DALY averted when an ACF programme was included. Provider-initiated ACF of household contacts in an urban setting of Lima, Peru can be highly cost-effective, even including costs to seek out contacts and perform an Xpert/MTB RIF test. ACF including Xpert MTB/RIF was not cost-effective if TB cases detected had high rates of default from treatment or poor outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".