Table 5.
Results of cost-effectiveness analysis of different high-risk group TB screening.
| Strategy | Cost per screening (MYR) | TB cases detected (per 1,000 screening) | Cost per TB case detected (MYR) | ICER | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCRC inmates | 40.83 | 3.2 | 12,809.08 | - | Dominant* |
| Elderly nursing home residents | 40.95 | 0.0 | na | −38.54 | Dominated** |
| ESRF | 41.01 | 4.3 | 9,456.83 | 154.02 | Ext. Dominated*** |
| Prisoner | 41.20 | 13.4 | 3,065.24 | 21.23 | Dominant* |
| Diabetes mellitus | 41.50 | 3.1 | 13,214.26 | −28.94 | Dominated** |
| Methadone clinic client | 41.63 | 0.0 | na | −32.42 | Dominated** |
| Rheumatoid arthritis | 43.34 | 0.0 | na | −159.41 | Dominated** |
| PL HIV | 43.69 | 16.8 | 2,597.00 | 735.82 | Dominant* |
| COAD | 43.76 | 5.8 | 7,590.33 | −6.81 | Dominated** |
| Smoker | 43.87 | 10.1 | 4,327.76 | −27.44 | Dominated** |
| Elderly (60 years and above) | 44.85 | 15.6 | 2,868.62 | −979.43 | Dominated** |
ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
Better outcomes, lower costs.
Worse outcomes, higher costs.
Better outcomes, lower costs but the subsequent strategy has a positive ICER.