Cost-effectiveness of COVID rapid diagnostic tests for patients with severe/critical illness in low- and middle-income countries: A modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for coronavirus disease (COVID) are used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to inform treatment decisions. However, to date, it is unclear when this use is cost-effective. Existing analyses are limited to a narrow set of countries and uses. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of COVID RDTs to inform the treatment of patients with severe illness in LMICs, considering real world practice. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of COVID testing across LMICs using a decision tree model, differentiating results by country income level, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevalence, and testing scenario (none, RDTs, polymerase chain reaction tests-PCRs and combinations). LMIC experts defined realistic care pathways and treatment options. Using a healthcare provider perspective and net monetary benefit approach, we assessed both intended (COVID symptom alleviation) and unintended (treatment side effects) health and economic impacts for each testing scenario. We included the side effects of corticosteroids, which are often the only available treatment for COVID. Because side effects depend both on the treatment and the patient's underlying illness (COVID or COVID-like illnesses, such as influenza), we considered the prevalence of COVID-like illnesses in our analyses. We found that SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients with severe COVID-like illness can be cost-effective in all LMICs, though only in some circumstances. High influenza prevalence among suspected COVID cases improves cost-effectiveness, since incorrectly provided corticosteroids may worsen influenza outcomes. In low- and some lower-middle-income countries, only patients with a high index of suspicion for COVID should be tested with RDTs, while other patients should be presumed to not have COVID. In some lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries, suspected severe COVID cases should almost always be tested. Further, in these settings, negative test results in patients with a high initial index of suspicion should be confirmed through PCR and, during influenza outbreaks, positive results in patients with a low initial index of suspicion should also be confirmed with a PCR. The use of interleukin-6 receptor blockers, when supported by testing, may also be cost-effective in higher-income LMICs. The cost at which they would be cost-effective in low-income countries ($162 to $406 per treatment course) is below current prices. The primary limitation of our analysis is substantial uncertainty around some of the parameters in our model due to limited data, most notably on current COVID mortality with standard of care, and insufficient evidence on the impact of corticosteroids on patients with severe influenza. CONCLUSIONS: COVID testing can be cost-effective to inform treatment of LMIC patients with severe COVID-like disease. The optimal algorithm is driven by country income level and health budgets, the level of suspicion that the patient may have COVID, and influenza prevalence. Further research to better characterize the unintended effects of corticosteroids, particularly on influenza cases, could improve decision making around the treatment of those with COVID-like symptoms in LMICs.

Costs of distributing HIV self-testing kits in Eswatini through community and workplace models.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the implementation and running costs of an HIV self-testing (HIVST) distribution program in Eswatini. HIVST kits were delivered through community-based and workplace models using primary and secondary distribution. Primary clients could self-test onsite or offsite. This study presents total running economic costs of kit distribution per model between April 2019 and March 2020, and estimates average cost per HIVST kit distributed, per client self-tested, per client self-tested reactive, per client confirmed positive, and per client initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: Distribution data and follow-up phone interviews were analysed to estimate implementation outcomes. Results were presented for each step of the care cascade using best-case and worst-case scenarios. A top-down incremental cost-analysis was conducted from the provider perspective using project expenditures. Sensitivity and scenario analyses explored effects of economic and epidemiological parameters on average costs. RESULTS: Nineteen thousand one hundred fifty-five HIVST kits were distributed to 13,031 individuals over a 12-month period, averaging 1.5 kits per recipient. 83% and 17% of kits were distributed via the community and workplace models, respectively. Clients reached via the workplace model were less likely to opt for onsite testing than clients in the community model (8% vs 29%). 6% of onsite workplace testers tested reactive compared to 2% of onsite community testers. Best-case scenario estimated 17,458 (91%) clients self-tested, 633 (4%) received reactive-test results, 606 (96%) linked to confirmatory testing, and 505 (83%) initiated ART. Personnel and HIVST kits represented 60% and 32% of total costs, respectively. Average costs were: per kit distributed US$17.23, per client tested US$18.91, per client with a reactive test US$521.54, per client confirmed positive US$550.83, and per client initiating ART US$708.60. Lower rates for testing, reactivity, and linkage to care in the worst-case scenario resulted in higher average costs along the treatment cascade. CONCLUSION: This study fills a significant evidence gap regarding costs of HIVST provision along the client care cascade in Eswatini. Workplace and community-based distribution of HIVST accompanied with effective linkage to care strategies can support countries to reach cascade objectives.

Provider and female client economic costs of integrated sexual and reproductive health and HIV services in Zimbabwe.

A retrospective facility-based costing study was undertaken to estimate the comparative cost per visit of five integrated sexual and reproductive health and HIV (human immuno-deficiency virus) services (provider perspective) within five clinic sites. These five clinics were part of four service delivery models: Non-governmental-organisation (NGO) directly managed model (Chitungwiza and New Africa House sites), NGO partner managed site (Mutare site), private-public-partnership (PPP) model (Chitungwiza Profam Clinic), and NGO directly managed outreach (operating from New Africa House site. In addition client cost exit interviews (client perspective) were conducted among 856 female clients exiting integrated services at three of the sites. Our costing approach involved first a facility bottom-up costing exercise (February to April 2015), conducted to quantify and value each resource input required to provide individual SRH and HIV services. Secondly overhead financial expenditures were allocated top-down from central office to sites and then respective integrated service based on pre-defined allocation factors derived from both the site facility observations and programme data for the prior 12 months. Costs were assessed in 2015 United States dollars (USD). Costs were assessed for HIV testing and counselling, screening and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, tuberculosis screening with smear microscopy, family planning, and cervical cancer screening and treatment employing visual inspection with acetic acid and cervicography and cryotherapy. Variability in costs per visit was evident across the models being highest for cervical cancer screening and cryotherapy (range: US$6.98-US$49.66). HIV testing and counselling showed least variability (range; US$10.96-US$16.28). In general the PPP model offered integrated services at the lowest unit costs whereas the partner managed site was highest. Significant client costs remain despite availability of integrated sexual and reproductive health and HIV services free of charge in our Zimbabwe study setting. Situating services closer to communities, incentives, transport reimbursements, reducing waiting times and co-location of sexual and reproductive health and HIV services may help minimise impact of client costs.

The effect on HIV transmission and cost-effectiveness of programmes for female sex workers in East, Central, and Southern Africa: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: HIV prevalence and incidence has declined in East, Central, and Southern Africa (ECSA), but remains high among female sex workers (FSWs). Sex worker programmes have the potential to considerably increase access to HIV testing, prevention, and treatment. We aimed to quantify these improvements by modelling the potential effect of sex worker programmes at two different intensities on HIV incidence and key health outcomes, and assessed the programmes' potential cost-effectiveness in order to help inform HIV policy decisions. METHODS: Using a model previously used to review policy decisions in ECSA, we assumed a low-intensity sex worker programme had run from 2010 until 2023; this resulted in care disadvantages among FSWs being reduced, and also increased testing, condom use, and willingness to take pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). After 2023, three policy options were considered: discontinuation, continuation, and a scale-up of the programme to high-intensity, which would have a broader reach, and higher influences on condom use, antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence, testing, and PrEP use. Outputs of the key outcomes (the percentage of FSWs who were diagnosed with HIV, on ART, and virally suppressed; the percentage of FSWs with zero condomless partners, and HIV incidence) were compared in 2030. The maximum cost for a sex worker programme to be cost-effective was calculated over a 50-year time period and in the context of 10 million adults. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a health-care perspective; costs and disability-adjusted life-years were both discounted to present US$ values at 3% per annum. FINDINGS: Compared with continuing a low-intensity sex worker programme until 2030, discontinuation of the programme was calculated to result in a lower percentage of FSWs diagnosed (median 88·75% vs 91·37%; median difference compared to continuation of a low-intensity programme [90% range] 2·03 [-4·49 to 10·98]), a lower percentage of those diagnosed currently taking ART (86·35% vs 88·89%; 2·38 [-3·69 to 13·42]), and a lower percentage of FSWs on ART with viral suppression (87·49% vs 88·96%; 1·17 [-6·81 to 11·53]). Discontinuation of a low-intensity programme also resulted in an increase in HIV incidence among FSWs from 5·06 per 100 person-years (100 p-y; 90% range 0·52 to 22·21) to 4·05 per 100 p-y (0·21 to 21·15). Conversely, comparing a high-intensity sex worker programme until 2030 with discontinuation of the programme resulted in a higher percentage of FSWs diagnosed (median 95·81% vs 88·75; median difference compared to discontinuation [90% range] 6·36 [0·60 to 18·63]), on ART (93·93 vs 86.35%; median difference 7·13 [-0·65 to 26·48]), and with viral suppression (93·21% vs 87·49; median difference 7·13 [-0·65 to 26·48]). A high-intensity programme also resulted in HIV incidence in FSWs declining to 2·23 per 100 p-y (0·00 to 14·44), from 5·06 per 100 p-y (0·52 to 22·21) if the programme was discontinued. In the context of 10 million adults over a 50-year time period and a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$500 per disability-adjusted life-year averted, $34 million per year can be spent for a high-intensity programme to be cost-effective. INTERPRETATION: A sex worker programme, even with low-level interventions, has a positive effect on key outputs for FSWs. A high-intensity programme has a considerably higher effect; HIV incidence among FSW and in the general population can be substantially reduced, and should be considered for implementation by policy makers. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust.