Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in resource-limited settings: A cost analysis study of diagnostic tests using different Ag-RDTs and RT-PCR technologies in Mozambique.

Early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is fundamental to reduce the risk of community transmission and mortality, as well as public sector expenditures. Three years after the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there are still gaps on what is known regarding costs and cost drivers for the major diagnostic testing strategies in low- middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to estimate the cost of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis of symptomatic suspected patients by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) in Mozambique. We conducted a retrospective cost analysis from the provider's perspective using a bottom-up, micro-costing approach, and compared the direct costs of two nasopharyngeal Ag-RDTs (Panbio and Standard Q) against the costs of three nasal Ag-RDTs (Panbio, COVIOS and LumiraDx), and RT-PCR. The study was undertaken from November 2020 to December 2021 in the country's capital city Maputo, in four healthcare facilities at primary, secondary and tertiary levels of care, and at one reference laboratory. All the resources necessary for RT-PCR and Ag-RDT tests were identified, quantified, valued, and the unit costs per test and per facility were estimated. Our findings show that the mean unit cost of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis by nasopharyngeal Ag-RDTs was MZN 728.00 (USD 11.90, at 2020 exchange rates) for Panbio and MZN 728.00 (USD 11.90) for Standard Q. For diagnosis by nasal Ag-RDTs, Panbio was MZN 547.00 (USD 8.90), COVIOS was MZN 768.00 (USD 12.50), and LumiraDx was MZN 798.00 (USD 13.00). Medical supplies expenditures represented the main driver of the final cost (>50%), followed by personnel and overhead costs (mean 15% for each). The mean unit cost regardless of the type of Ag-RDT was MZN 714.00 (USD 11.60). Diagnosis by RT-PCR cost MZN 2,414 (USD 39.00) per test. Our sensitivity analysis suggests that focussing on reducing medical supplies costs would be the most cost-saving strategy for governments in LMICs, particularly as international prices decrease. The cost of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using Ag-RDTs was three times lower than RT-PCR testing. Governments in LMICs can include cost-efficient Ag-RDTs in their screening strategies, or RT-PCR if international costs of such supplies decrease further in the future. Additional analyses are recommended as the costs of testing can be influenced by the sample referral system.

Achieving malaria testing and treatment targets for children under five in Mozambique: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The entire population of Mozambique is at risk for malaria, which remains one of the leading causes of death. The 2017-2022 National Malaria Strategic Plan focuses on reducing malaria morbidity and mortality in high- and low-transmission areas. This study aimed to estimate the costs and health benefits of six variations of the World Health Organization's "test-and-treat" strategy among children under five. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed that estimates the costs and health outcomes for children under five. Data on probabilities, costs, weights for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on peer-reviewed, grey literature, and primary data analysis of the 2018 Malaria Indicator Survey. Six scenarios were compared to the status quo and calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per QALY gained, DALY averted, and life saved. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to understand the effect of parameter uncertainty on the findings. RESULTS: In the base case, reaching the target of 100% testing with rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs; Scenario 1) is more cost-effective than improving the testing rate alone by 10% (Scenario 2). Achieving a 100% (Scenario 3) or a 10% increase in treatment rate (Scenario 4) have ICERs that are lower than Scenarios 1 and 2. Both Scenarios 5 and 6, which represent combinations of Scenarios 1-4, have lower ICERs than their constituent strategies on their own, which suggests that improvements in treatment are more cost-effective than improvements in testing alone. These results held when DALYs averted or lives saved were used as health outcomes. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost-effectiveness of Scenarios 1-6 are subject sensitive to parameter uncertainty, though Scenarios 4 and 5 are the optimal choice when DALYs averted or QALYs gained were used as the measure of health outcomes across all cost-effectiveness thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Improving testing rates alone among children at risk for malaria has the potential to improve health but may not be the most efficient use of limited resources. Instead, small or large improvements in treatment, whether alone or in conjunction with improvements in testing, are the most cost-effective strategies for children under five in Mozambique.

Cost-effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination in Mozambique.

INTRODUCTION: Rotavirus is one of the most common cause of severe gastroenteritis in children, with the largest mortality burden in low- and middle-income countries. To prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis, Mozambique introduced ROTARIX® vaccine in 2015, however, its cost-effectiveness has never been established in the country. In 2018, additional vaccines became available globally. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of the recently introduced ROTARIX in Mozambique and compares the cost-effectiveness of ROTARIX®, ROTAVAC®, and ROTASIIL® to inform future use. METHODS: We used a decision-support model to calculate the potential cost-effectiveness of vaccination with ROTARIX compared to no vaccination over a five-year period (2016-2020) and to compare the cost-effectiveness of ROTARIX, ROTAVAC, and ROTASIIL to no vaccination and to each other over a ten-year period (2021-2030). The primary outcome was the incremental cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted from a government perspective. We assessed uncertainty through sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2020, we estimate the vaccine program with ROTARIX cost US$12.3 million, prevented 4,628 deaths, and averted US$3.1 million in healthcare costs. The cost per DALY averted was US$70. From 2021 to 2030, we estimate all three vaccines could prevent 9,000 deaths and avert US$7.8 million in healthcare costs. With Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (Gavi) support, ROTARIX would have the lowest vaccine program cost (US$31 million) and 98 % probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 0.5x GDP per capita. Without Gavi support, ROTASIIL would have the lowest vaccine program cost (US$75.8 million) and 30 % probability of being cost-effective at the same threshold. CONCLUSION: ROTARIX vaccination had a substantial public health impact in Mozambique between 2016 and 2020. ROTARIX is currently estimated to be the most cost-effective product, but the choice of vaccine should be re-evaluated as more evidence emerges on the price, incremental delivery cost, wastage, and impact associated with each of the different rotavirus vaccines.

A cost analysis to address issues of budget constraints on the implementation of the indoor residual spray programme in two districts of Maputo Province, Mozambique.

BACKGROUND: It is frequently said that funding is essential to ensure optimal results from a malaria intervention control. However, in recent years, the capacity of the government of Mozambique to sustain the operational cost of indoor residual spraying (IRS) is facing numerous challenges due to restrictions of the Official Development Assistance. The purpose of the study was to estimate the cost of IRS operationalization in two districts of Maputo Province (Matutuíne and Namaacha) in Mozambique. The evidence produced in this study intends to provide decision-makers with insight into where they need to pay close attention in future planning in order to operationalize IRS with the existent budget in the actual context of budget restrictions. METHODS: Cost information was collected retrospectively from the provider perspective, and both economic and financial costs were calculated. A "one-way" deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: The average economic costs totaled US$117,351.34, with an average economic cost per household sprayed of US$16.35, and an average economic cost per person protected of US$4.09. The average financial cost totaled US$69,174.83, with an average financial cost per household sprayed and per person protected of US$9.84 and US$2.46, respectively. Vehicle, salary, and insecticide costs were the greatest contributors to overall cost in the economic and financial analysis, corresponding to 52%, 17%, and 13% in the economic analysis and 21%, 27%, and 22% in the financial analysis, respectively. The sensitivity analysis was adapted to a range of ± (above and under) 25% change. There was an approximate change of 14% in the average economic cost when vehicle costs were decreased by 25%. In the financial analysis, the average financial cost was lowered by 7% when salary costs were decreased by 25%. CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, the current cost analysis provides an impetus for the consideration of targeted IRS operationalization within the available governmental budget, by using locally-available human resources as spray operators to decrease costs and having IRS rounds be correctly timed to coincide with the build-up of vector populations.