Back

An online, open-access, cost comparison tool for presumptive tuberculosis testing using low complexity, automated, nucleic acid amplification tests (LCaNAAT) versus near point-of-care (NPOCs) molecular tests

Samina, P.; Dewan, P.; Mertz, C.; Kohli, M.; Pai, M.

2026-02-18 infectious diseases
10.64898/2026.02.17.26346475 medRxiv
Show abstract

The world is far from achieving universal access to rapid tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics that align with World Health Organization (WHO) diagnostic standards. Although WHO-recommended molecular rapid diagnostics (mWRDs), including low-complexity automated nucleic acid amplification tests (LCaNAAT), have significantly improved TB detection, scale-up has been constrained by high capital, maintenance, and consumable costs. Recently, lower-cost, near-point-of-care nucleic acid amplification tests (NPOCs) have emerged, with attractive global-access pricing, offering the potential to expand access to rapid TB diagnosis while reducing the financial burden. To support TB program staff better understand the budget impact of using newer NPOCs as the initial TB diagnostic compared with established mWRDs, we developed a flexible cost calculator. Originally built in Microsoft Excel for Mac (version 16.91, build 24111020), it organizes key parameters in a structured input sheet using standardized labels. Separate worksheets defined diagnostic scenarios and performed calculations, with results summarized in an overview covering various costs. After validation, the model was converted into R (version 2025.09.1 + 401). The app (app.R), developed with Shiny, is now available here for free global access. Using two hypothetical country case studies, we compared current LCaNAAT- based testing strategies with scenarios in which NPOCs were implemented as the initial diagnostic test. In hypothetical Country A, there were cost savings of 43% in Scenario 1 (based on current testing trend) and 38% in Scenario 2 (based on ambitious testing goals). In hypothetical Country B, the corresponding cost differences were 55% in Scenario 1 and 40. 5% in Scenario 2. The analysis showed that countries can reach ambitious TB testing targets using NPOCs at roughly the same cost as current LCaNAAT testing. This highlights the potential of affordable molecular diagnostics to improve access to mWRDs. By reducing capital and maintenance costs, NPOCs allow TB programs to test and detect more cases within existing or slightly increased budgets, speeding up progress toward universal rapid TB diagnosis.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
9.7%
2
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
9.7%
3
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.2%
4
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 2%
6.2%
5
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.1%
6
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.1%
7
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 42%
3.0%
50% of probability mass above
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.4%
10
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
11
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
12
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.0%
13
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.0%
14
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.8%
15
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
16
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
17
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
18
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
19
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
20
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
21
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
167 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
22
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
23
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
24
JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
25
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
26
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
27
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
28
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
29
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
30
Tuberculosis
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%