Breast cancer molecular diagnostics in Rwanda: a cost-minimization study of immunohistochemistry versus a novel GeneXpert® mRNA expression assay.

Objective: To compare the financial and time cost of breast cancer biomarker analysis by immunohistochemistry with that by the Xpert® STRAT4 assay. Methods: We estimated costs (personnel, location, consumables and indirect) and time involved in breast cancer diagnosis at the Butaro Cancer Centre of Excellence, Rwanda, using time-driven activity-based costing. We performed a cost-minimization analysis to compare the cost of biomarker analysis for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 status with immunohistochemistry versus STRAT4. We performed sensitivity analyses by altering laboratory-specific parameters for the two methods. Findings: We estimated that breast cancer diagnosis in Rwanda costs 138.29 United States dollars (US$) per patient when conducting biomarker analysis by immunohistochemistry. At a realistic immunohistochemistry antibody utilization efficiency of 70%, biomarker analysis comprises 48.7% (US$ 67.33) of diagnostic costs and takes 33 min. We determined that biomarker analysis with STRAT4 yields a reduction in diagnosis cost of US$ 7.33 (10.9%; 7.33/67.33), and in pathologist and technician time of 20 min (60.6%; 20/33), per patient. Our sensitivity analysis revealed that no cost savings would be made in laboratories with antibody utilization efficiencies over 90%, or where only estrogen and/or progesterone receptor status are assessed; however, such operational efficiencies are unlikely, and more laboratories are pursuing human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 analysis as targeted therapies become increasingly available. Conclusion: Breast cancer biomarker analysis with STRAT4 has the potential to reduce the required human and capital resources in sub-Saharan African laboratories, leading to improved treatment selection and better clinical outcomes.

Design and methods for a quasi-experimental pilot study to evaluate the impact of dual active ingredient insecticide-treated nets on malaria burden in five regions in sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Vector control tools have contributed significantly to a reduction in malaria burden since 2000, primarily through insecticidal-treated bed nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying. In the face of increasing insecticide resistance in key malaria vector species, global progress in malaria control has stalled. Innovative tools, such as dual active ingredient (dual-AI) ITNs that are effective at killing insecticide-resistant mosquitoes have recently been introduced. However, large-scale uptake has been slow for several reasons, including higher costs and limited evidence on their incremental effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The present report describes the design of several observational studies aimed to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dual-AI ITNs, compared to standard pyrethroid-only ITNs, at reducing malaria transmission across a variety of transmission settings. METHODS: Observational pilot studies are ongoing in Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Rwanda, leveraging dual-AI ITN rollouts nested within the 2019 and 2020 mass distribution campaigns in each country. Enhanced surveillance occurring in select study districts include annual cross-sectional surveys during peak transmission seasons, monthly entomological surveillance, passive case detection using routine health facility surveillance systems, and studies on human behaviour and ITN use patterns. Data will compare changes in malaria transmission and disease burden in districts receiving dual-AI ITNs to similar districts receiving standard pyrethroid-only ITNs over three years. The costs of net distribution will be calculated using the provider perspective including financial and economic costs, and a cost-effectiveness analysis will assess incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for Interceptor® G2, Royal Guard®, and piperonyl butoxide ITNs in comparison to standard pyrethroid-only ITNs, based on incidence rate ratios calculated from routine data. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the dual-AI ITNs from these pilot studies will complement evidence from two contemporary cluster randomized control trials, one in Benin and one in Tanzania, to provide key information to malaria control programmes, policymakers, and donors to help guide decision-making and planning for local malaria control and elimination strategies. Understanding the breadth of contexts where these dual-AI ITNs are most effective and collecting robust information on factors influencing comparative effectiveness could improve uptake and availability and help maximize their impact.