Ejalu, David LivingstoneIrioko, AaronKirabo, RhodaMukose, Aggrey DavidEkirapa, ElizabethKagaayi, Joseph2023-07-182023-07-182022-08-08Online ISSN: 2044-6055Print ISSN: 2044-6055doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2021-059823http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12280/3036To determine the cost-effectiveness of Xpert Omni compared with Xpert MTB/Rif for point-of-care diagnosis of tuberculosis among presumptive cases in a low-resource, high burden facility. Cost-effectiveness analysis from the provider’s perspective. Setting A low-resource, high tuberculosis burden district in Eastern Uganda. Participants A provider’s perspective was used, and thus, data were collected from experts in the field of tuberculosis diagnosis purposively selected at the local, subnational and national levels. A decision analysis model was contracted from TreeAge comparing Xpert MTB/Rif and Xpert Omni. Cost estimation was done using the ingredients’ approach. Oneway deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the most influential model parameters. Outcome measure The outcome measure was incremental cost per additional test diagnosed expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The total cost per test for Xpert MTB/Rif was US$14.933. Cartridge and reagent kits contributed to 67% of Xpert MTB/Rif costs. Sample transport costs increased the cost per test of Xpert MTB/Rif by $1.28. The total cost per test for Xpert Omni was $16.153. Cartridge and reagent kits contributed to over 71.2% of Xpert Omni’s cost per test. The incremental costeffectiveness ratio for using Xpert Omni as a replacement for Xpert MTB/Rif was US$30.73 per additional case detected. There was no dominance noted in the cost-effectiveness analysis, meaning no strategy was dominant over the other. The use of Xpert Omni at the point-of-care health facility was more effective but with an increased cost compared with Xpert MTB/Rif at the centralised referral testing facility.enArticle