No abstract

The emerge of drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) strain in recent decades is hampering the efforts of the international community to eliminate the disease worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) has drafted many strategies to achieve this ambitious goal. In the very beginning, the aim was to standardize inadequate regimens used in many countries and, thereafter, evolved to tackle the social determinants which hinder TB elimination. However, following the path of narrowing the clinical vision to deal with TB, there is an increased need to personalize the treatment considering both patients and pathogen unique characteristics. In our narrative review, we report the advantages and the backwards in developing a method to implement the concept of precision medicine to the treatment of TB. In this dissertation, we highlight the importance to address different aspects of the diseases encompassing the host and pathogen features, as well as the needs to further implement an adequate follow-up based on the available resources. Nevertheless, many things may hamper the vision of precision medicine in TB, such as the complexity and the costs to develop novel compounds and the costs related to global-scale implementation of patient-centered follow-up. To achieve the ambitious goal of TB elimination, a radical change in TB treatment is needed in order to give a more comprehensive approach based both on patients' peculiarities and driven by drug susceptibility tests and whole-genome sequencing.

Background The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends that testing and treatment for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) should be undertaken in high-risk groups using either interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) or a tuberculin skin test (TST). As IGRAs are more expensive than TST, an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of IGRAs can guide decision makers on the most appropriate choice of test for different high-risk populations. This current review aimed to provide the most up to date evidence on the cost-effectiveness evidence on LTBI testing in high-risk groups—specifically evidence reporting the costs per QALY of different testing strategies. Methods A comprehensive search of databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS-EED was undertaken from 2011 up to March 2021. Studies were screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. The study quality was assessed using the Bias in Economic Evaluation Checklist (ECOBIAS). A narrative synthesis of the included studies was undertaken. Results Thirty-two studies reported in thirty-three documents were included in this review. Quality of included studies was generally high, although there was a weakness across all studies referencing sources correctly and/or justifying choices of parameter values chosen or assumptions where parameter values were not available. Inclusions of IGRAs in testing strategies was consistently found across studies to be cost-effective but this result was sensitive to underlying LTBI prevalence rates. Conclusion While some concerns remain about uncertainty in parameter values used across included studies, the evidence base since 2010 has grown with modelling approaches addressing the weakness pointed out in previous reviews but still reaching the same conclusion that IGRAs are likely to be cost-effective in high-income countries for high-risk populations. Evidence is also required on the cost-effectiveness of different strategies in low to middle income countries and countries with high TB burden.

No abstract