A novel community health worker tool outperforms WHO clinical staging for assessment of antiretroviral therapy eligibility in a resource-limited setting

Cost and quality of life analysis of HIV self-testing and facility-based HIV testing and counselling in Blantyre, Malawi

BACKGROUND

HIV self-testing (HIVST) has been found to be highly effective, but no cost analysis has been undertaken to guide the design of affordable and scalable implementation strategies.

METHODS

Consecutive HIV self-testers and facility-based testers were recruited from participants in a community cluster-randomised trial ( ISRCTN02004005 ) investigating the impact of offering HIVST in addition to facility-based HIV testing and counselling (HTC). Primary costing studies were undertaken of the HIVST service and of health facilities providing HTC to the trial population. Costs were adjusted to 2014 US$ and INT$. Recruited participants were asked about direct non-medical and indirect costs associated with accessing either modality of HIV testing, and additionally their health-related quality of life was measured using the EuroQol EQ-5D.

RESULTS

A total of 1,241 participants underwent either HIVST (n = 775) or facility-based HTC (n = 446). The mean societal cost per participant tested through HIVST (US$9.23; 95 % CI: US$9.14-US$9.32) was lower than through facility-based HTC (US$11.84; 95 % CI: US$10.81-12.86). Although the mean health provider cost per participant tested through HIVST (US$8.78) was comparable to facility-based HTC (range: US$7.53-US$10.57), the associated mean direct non-medical and indirect cost was lower (US$2.93; 95 % CI: US$1.90-US$3.96). The mean health provider cost per HIV positive participant identified through HIVST was higher (US$97.50) than for health facilities (range: US$25.18-US$76.14), as was the mean cost per HIV positive individual assessed for anti-retroviral treatment (ART) eligibility and the mean cost per HIV positive individual initiated onto ART. In comparison to the facility-testing group, the adjusted mean EQ-5D utility score was 0.046 (95 % CI: 0.022-0.070) higher in the HIVST group.

CONCLUSIONS

HIVST reduces the economic burden on clients, but is a costlier strategy for the health provider aiming to identify HIV positive individuals for treatment. The provider cost of HIVST could be substantially lower under less restrictive distribution models, or if costs of oral fluid HIV test kits become comparable to finger-prick kits used in health facilities.

Diagnostic accuracy of the WHO clinical staging system for defining eligibility for ART in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that HIV-positive adults with CD4 count ≤500 cells/mm(3) initiate antiretroviral therapy (ART). In many countries of sub-Saharan Africa, CD4 count is not widely available or consistently used and instead the WHO clinical staging system is used to determine ART eligibility. However, concerns have been raised regarding its discriminatory ability to identify patients eligible to start ART. We therefore reviewed the accuracy of WHO stage 3 or 4 assessment in identifying ART eligibility according to CD4 count thresholds for ART initiation.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and Global Health databases and conference abstracts using a comprehensive strategy for studies that compared the results of WHO clinical staging with CD4 count thresholds. Studies performed in sub-Saharan Africa and published in English between 1998 and 2013 were eligible for inclusion according to our predefined study protocol. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality and risk of bias using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were derived for each CD4 count threshold and hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curves were plotted.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including 25,032 participants from 14 countries. Most studies assessed individuals attending ART clinics prior to treatment initiation. WHO clinical stage 3 or 4 disease had a sensitivity of 60% (95% CI: 45-73%, Q=914.26, p<0.001) and specificity of 73% (95% CI: 60-83%, Q=1439.43, p<0.001) for a CD4 threshold of ≤200 cells/mm(3) (11 studies); sensitivity and specificity for a threshold of CD4 count ≤350 cells/mm(3) were 45% (95% CI: 26-66%, Q=1607.31, p<0.001) and 85% (95% CI: 69-93%, Q=896.70, p<0.001), respectively (six studies). For the threshold of CD4 count ≤500 cells/mm(3) sensitivity was 14% (95% CI: 13-15%) and specificity was 95% (95% CI: 94-96%) (one study).

CONCLUSIONS

When used for individual treatment decisions, WHO clinical staging misses a high proportion of individuals who are ART eligible by CD4 count, with sensitivity falling as CD4 count criteria rises. Access to accurate, accessible, robust and affordable CD4 count testing methods will be a pressing need for as long as ART initiation decisions are based on criteria other than seropositivity.