Redefining and revisiting cost estimates of routine ART care in Zambia: an analysis of ten clinics

Costs and acceptability of simplified monitoring in HIV-suppressed patients switching to dual therapy: the SIMPL'HIV open-label, factorial randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical and laboratory monitoring of patients on antiretroviral therapy is an integral part of HIV care and determines whether treatment needs enhanced adherence or modification of the drug regimen. However, different monitoring and treatment strategies carry different costs and health consequences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The SIMPL'HIV study was a randomised trial that assessed the non-inferiority of dual maintenance therapy. The co-primary outcome was a comparison of costs over 48 weeks of dual therapy with standard antiretroviral therapy and the costs associated with a simplified HIV care approach (patient-centred monitoring [PCM]) versus standard, tri-monthly routine monitoring. Costs included outpatient medical consultations (HIV/non-HIV consultations), non-medical consultations, antiretroviral therapy, laboratory tests and hospitalisation costs. PCM participants had restricted immunological and blood safety monitoring at weeks 0 and 48, and they were offered the choice to complete their remaining study visits via a telephone call, have medications delivered to a specified address, and to have blood tests performed at a location of their choice. We analysed the costs of both strategies using invoices for medical consultations issued by the hospital where the patient was followed, as well as those obtained from health insurance companies. Secondary outcomes included differences between monitoring arms for renal function, lipids and glucose values, and weight over 48 weeks. Patient satisfaction with treatment and monitoring was also assessed using visual analogue scales.

RESULTS

Of 93 participants randomised to dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and 94 individuals to combination antiretroviral therapy (median nadir CD4 count, 246 cells/mm3; median age, 48 years; female, 17%),patient-centred monitoring generated no substantial reductions or increases in total costs (US$ -421 per year [95% CI -2292 to 1451]; p = 0.658). However, dual therapy was significantly less expensive (US$ -2620.4 [95% CI -2864.3 to -2331.4]) compared to standard triple-drug antiretroviral therapy costs. Approximately 50% of participants selected one monitoring option, one-third chose two, and a few opted for three. The preferred option was telephone calls, followed by drug delivery. The number of additional visits outside the study schedule did not differ by type of monitoring. Patient satisfaction related to treatment and monitoring was high at baseline, with no significant increase at week 48.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-centred monitoring did not reduce costs compared to standard monitoring in individuals switching to dual therapy or those continuing combined antiretroviral therapy. In this representative sample of patients with suppressed HIV, antiretroviral therapy was the primary factor driving costs, which may be reduced by using generic drugs to mitigate the high cost of lifelong HIV treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03160105.

Determining cost and placement decisions for moderate complexity NAATs for tuberculosis drug susceptibility testing

BACKGROUND

Access to drug resistant testing for tuberculosis (TB) remains a challenge in high burden countries. Recently, the World Health Organization approved the use of several moderate complexity automated nucleic acid amplification tests (MC-NAAT) that have performance profiles suitable for placement in a range of TB laboratory tiers to improve drug susceptibility tests (DST) coverage.

METHODS

We conducted cost analysis of two MC-NAATs with different testing throughput: Lower Throughput (LT, < 24 tests per run) and Higher Throughput (HT, upto 90+ tests per run) for placement in a hypothetical laboratory in a resource limited setting. We used per-test cost as the main indicator to assess 1) drivers of cost by resource types and 2) optimized levels of annual testing volumes for the respective MC-NAATs.

RESULTS

The base-case per test cost of $18.52 (range: $13.79 - $40.70) for LT test and $15.37 (range: $9.61 - $37.40) for HT test. Per test cost estimates were most sensitive to the number of testing days per week, followed by equipment costs and TB-specific workloads. In general, HT NAATs were cheaper at all testing volume levels, but at lower testing volumes (less than 2,000 per year) LT tests can be cheaper if the durability of the testing system is markedly better and/or procured equipment costs are lower than that of HT NAAT.

CONCLUSION

Assuming equivalent performance and infrastructural needs, placement strategies for MC-NAATs need to be prioritized by laboratory system's operational factors, testing demands, and costs.

Multicomponent strategy with decentralised molecular testing for tuberculosis in Uganda: a cost and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Decentralised molecular testing for tuberculosis could reduce missed diagnoses and losses to follow-up in high-burden settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost and cost-effectiveness of the Xpert Performance Evaluation for Linkage to Tuberculosis Care (XPEL-TB) study strategy, a multicomponent strategy including decentralised molecular testing for tuberculosis, in Uganda.

METHODS

We conducted a costing and cost-effectiveness analysis nested in a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of onsite (decentralised) versus hub-and-spoke (centralised) testing for tuberculosis with Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert) in 20 community health centres in Uganda. We collected empirical data on the cost of the XPEL-TB strategy (decentralised Xpert testing, workflow redesign, and performance feedback) and routine tuberculosis testing (onsite smear microscopy with specimen transport for centralised Xpert testing) from the health system perspective. Time-and-motion studies were performed to estimate activity-based service costs. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as the incremental cost (2019 US$) per tuberculosis diagnosis and per 14-day treatment initiation.

FINDINGS

The XPEL-TB study ran from Oct 22, 2018, to March 1, 2020. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes were assessed from Dec 1, 2018, to Nov 30, 2019 and included 4867 women and 3139 men. On a per-test basis, the cost of decentralised ($20·46, range $17·85-25·72) and centralised ($18·20, range $16·58-24·25) Xpert testing was similar. However, decentralised testing resulted in more patients receiving appropriate Xpert testing, so the per-patient cost of decentralised testing was higher: $20·28 (range $17·68-25·48) versus $9·59 (range $7·62-14·34). The XPEL-TB strategy was estimated to cost $1332 (95% uncertainty range $763-5558) per incremental tuberculosis diagnosis and $687 ($501-1207) per incremental patient initiating tuberculosis treatment within 14 days. Cost-effectiveness was reduced in sites performing fewer than 150-250 tests annually.

INTERPRETATION

The XPEL-TB strategy facilitated higher rates of Xpert testing for tuberculosis at a similar per-test cost and modest incremental cost per tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment initiation. Decentralised Xpert testing, with appropriate implementation supports, should be scaled up to clinics with sufficient testing volume to support a single-module device.

FUNDING

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Efficiency of TB service provision in the public and private health sectors in Ethiopia

BACKGROUND: The Ethiopian Government has identified efficiency of TB services as a key priority in planning and budgeting. Understanding the magnitude and sources of inefficiencies is key to ensuring value for money and improved service provision, and a requirement from donors to justify resource needs. This study identifies the cost of providing a wide range of TB services in public and private facilities in Ethiopia.METHODS: Financial and economic unit costs were estimated from a health provider´s perspective, and collected retrospectively in 26 health facilities using both top-down (TD) and bottom-up (BU) costing approaches for each TB service output. Capacity inefficiency was assessed by investigating the variation between TD and BU unit costs where the factor was 2.0 or more.RESULTS: Overall, TD unit costs were two times higher than BU unit costs. There was some variation across facility ownership and level of care. Unit costs in urban facilities were on average 3.8 times higher than in rural facilities.CONCLUSION: We identified some substantial inefficiencies in staff, consumable and capital inputs. Addressing these inefficiencies and rearranging the TB service delivery modality would be important in ensuring the achievement of the country´s End TB strategy.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive tuberculosis case finding strategy in Zambia

Introduction

Active-case finding (ACF) programs have an important role in addressing case detection gaps and halting tuberculosis (TB) transmission. Evidence is limited on the cost-effectiveness of ACF interventions, particularly on how their value is impacted by different operational, epidemiological and patient care-seeking patterns.

Methods

We evaluated the costs and cost-effectiveness of a combined facility and community-based ACF intervention in Zambia that utilized mobile chest X-ray with computer-aided reading/interpretation software and laboratory-based Xpert MTB/RIF testing. Programmatic costs (in 2018 US dollars) were assessed from the health system perspective using prospectively collected cost and operational data. Cost-effectiveness of the ACF intervention was assessed as the incremental cost per TB death averted over a five-year time horizon using a multi-stage Markov state-transition model reflecting patient symptom-associated care-seeking and TB care under ACF compared to passive care.

Results

Over 18 months of field operations, the ACF intervention costed $435 to diagnose and initiate treatment for one person with TB. After accounting for patient symptom-associated care-seeking patterns in Zambia, we estimate that this one-time ACF intervention would incrementally diagnose 407 (7,207 versus 6,800) TB patients and avert 502 (611 versus 1,113) TB-associated deaths compared to the status quo (passive case finding), at an incremental cost of $2,284 per death averted over the next five-year period. HIV/TB mortality rate, patient symptom-associated care-seeking probabilities in the absence of ACF, and the costs of ACF patient screening were key drivers of cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions

A one-time comprehensive ACF intervention simultaneously operating in public health clinics and corresponding catchment communities can have important medium-term impact on case-finding and be cost-effective in Zambia. The value of such interventions increases if targeted to populations with high HIV/TB mortality, substantial barriers (both behavioral and physical) to care-seeking exist, and when ACF interventions can optimize screening by achieving operational efficiency.

Determining the value of TB active case-finding: current evidence and methodological considerations

Active case-finding (ACF) is an important component of the End TB Strategy. However, ACF is resource-intensive, and the economics of ACF are not well-understood. Data on the costs of ACF are limited, with little consistency in the units and methods used to estimate and report costs. Mathematical models to forecast the long-term effects of ACF require empirical measurements of the yield, timing and costs of case detection. Pragmatic trials offer an opportunity to assess the cost-effectiveness of ACF interventions within a 'real-world´ context. However, such analyses generally require early introduction of economic evaluations to enable prospective data collection on resource requirements. Closing the global case-detection gap will require substantial additional resources, including continued investment in innovative technologies. Research is essential to the optimal implementation, cost-effectiveness, and affordability of ACF in high-burden settings. To assess the value of ACF, we must prioritize the collection of high-quality data regarding costs and effectiveness, and link those data to analytical models that are adapted to local settings.