Cost-Effectiveness of Improving Health Care to People with HIV in Nicaragua

A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations and Budget Impact Analyses to Inform Healthcare Decision-Making in Central America

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the quality, quantity and disease areas analysed by health economic research that inform healthcare decision-making in Central America. This study aimed to review the existing health economic evaluations (HEEs) and budget impact analyses (BIAs) evidence in Central America based on scope and reporting quality.

METHODS

HEEs and BIAs published from 2000 to April 2021 were searched in five electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature), EconLIT and OVID Global Health. Two reviewers assessed titles, abstracts and full texts of studies for eligibility. The quality appraisal for the reporting was based on La Torre and colleagues' version of the Drummond checklist and the ISPOR good practices for BIA. For each country, we correlated the number of studies by disease area with their respective burden of disease to identify under-researched health areas.

RESULTS

102 publications were eligible for this review. Ninety-four publications reported a HEE, six publications reported a BIA, and two studies reported both a HEE and a BIA. Costa Rica had the highest number of publications (n = 28, 27.5%), followed by Guatemala (n = 25, 24.5%). Cancer and respiratory infections were the most common types of disease studied. Diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney diseases, and mental disorders were under-researched relative to their disease burden in most of the countries. The overall mean quality reporting score for HEE and BIA studies were 71/119 points (60%) and 7/10 points (70%), respectively; however, these assessments were made on different scales.

CONCLUSION

In Central America, health economic research is sparse and is considered as suboptimal quality for reporting. The findings reported information useful to other low- and middle-income countries with similar advances in the application of economics to promote health policy decision-making.

Do Quality Improvement Initiatives Improve Outcomes for Patients in Antiretroviral Programs in Low- and Middle-Income Countries? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There have been a range of quality improvement (QI) and quality assurance initiatives in low- and middle-income countries to improve antiretroviral therapy (ART) treatment outcomes for people living with HIV. To date, these initiatives have not been systematically assessed and little is known about how effective, cost-effective, or sustainable these strategies are in improving clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review adhering to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42017071848), searching PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database of controlled trials for articles reporting on the effectiveness of QI and quality assurance initiatives in HIV programs in low- and middle-income countries in relation to ART uptake, retention in care, adherence, viral load suppression, mortality, and other outcomes including cost-effectiveness and long-term sustainability.

RESULTS

One thousand eight hundred sixty articles were found, of which 29 were included. QI approaches were categorized as follows: (1) health system approaches using QI methods; (2) QI learning networks including collaboratives; (3) standard-based methods that use QI tools to improve performance gaps; and (4) campaigns using QI methods. The greatest improvements were seen in ART uptake [median increase of 14.0%; interquartile range (IQR) -9.0 to 29.3], adherence [median increase of 22.0% (IQR -7.0 to 25.0)], and viral load suppression [median increase 26.0% (IQR -8.0 to 26.0)].

CONCLUSIONS

QI interventions can be effective in improving clinical outcomes; however, there was significant variability, making it challenging to identify which aspects of interventions lead to clinical improvements. Standardizing reporting and assessment of QI initiatives is needed, supported by national quality policies and directorates, and robust research.

Evidence of High Out of Pocket Spending for HIV Care Leading to Catastrophic Expenditure for Affected Patients in Lao People's Democratic Republic

BACKGROUND

The scaling up of antiviral treatment (ART) coverage in the past decade has increased access to care for numerous people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) in low-resource settings. Out-of-pocket payments (OOPs) represent a barrier for healthcare access, adherence and ART effectiveness, and can be economically catastrophic for PLWHA and their family. We evaluated OOPs of PLWHA attending outpatient and inpatient care units and estimated the financial burden for their households in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. We assumed that such OOPs may result in catastrophic health expenses in this context with fragile economical balance and low health insurance coverage.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a randomized sample of routine outpatients and a prospective survey of consecutive new inpatients at two referral hospitals (Setthathirat in the capital city, Savannaket in the province). After obtaining informed consent, PLWHA were interviewed using a standardized 82-item questionnaire including information on socio-economic characteristics, disease history and coping strategies. All OOPs occurring during a routine visit or a hospital stay were recorded. Household capacity-to-pay (overall income minus essential expenses), direct and indirect OOPs, OOPs per outpatient visit and per inpatient stay as well as catastrophic spending (greater than or equal to 40% of the capacity-to-pay) were calculated. A multivariate analysis of factors associated with catastrophic spending was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 320 PLWHA [280 inpatients and 40 outpatients; 132 (41.2%) defined as poor, and 269 (84.1%) on ART] were enrolled. Monthly median household income, essential expenses and capacity-to-pay were US$147.0 (IQR: 86-242), $126 (IQR: 82-192) and $14 (IQR: 19-80), respectively. At the provincial hospital OOPs were higher during routine visits, but three fold lower during hospitalization than in the central hospital ($21.0 versus $18.5 and $110.8 versus $329.8 respectively (p<0.01). The most notable OOPs were related to transportation and to loss of income. A total of 150 patients (46.8%; 95%CI: 41.3-52.5) were affected by catastrophic health expenses; 36 outpatients (90.0%; 95%CI: 76.3-97.2) and 114 inpatients (40.7%; 95%CI: 34.9-46.7). A total of 141 (44.0%) patients had contracted loans, and 127 (39.6%) had to sell some of their assets. In the multivariate analysis, being of Lao Loum ethnic group (Coef.-1.4; p = 0.04); being poor (Coef. -1.0; p = 0.01) and living more than 100 km away from the hospital (Coef.-1.0; p = 0.002) were positively associated with catastrophic spending. Conversely being in the highest wealth quartile (Coef. 1.6; p<0.001), living alone (Coef. 1.1; p = 0.04), attending the provincial hospital (Coef. 1.0; p = 0.002), and being on ART (Coef.1.2; p = 0.003), were negatively associated with catastrophic spending.

CONCLUSION

PLWHA's households face catastrophic OOPs that are not directly attributable to the cost of ART or to follow-up tests, particularly during a hospitalization period. Transportation, distance to healthcare and time spent at the health facility are the major contributors for OOPs and for indirect opportunity costs. Being on ART and attending the provincial hospital were associated with a lower risk of catastrophic spending. Decentralization of care, access to ART and alleviation of OOPs are crucial factors to successfully decrease the household burden of HIV-AIDS expenses.