Relationship between socioeconomic status and risk of sexually transmitted infections in Uganda: Multilevel analysis of a nationally representative survey.

Socioeconomic status (SES) appears to have positive and negative associations with sexually transmitted infection (STI) risk in resource-limited settings, but few studies have evaluated nationally representative data. We assessed multiple SES measures and their effect on STI risk. We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS 2011). The primary outcome (STI risk) was self-reported STIs and/or symptoms in the prior 12 months. We examined associations between multiple SES measures and STI risk using a mixed-effects Poisson regression model. The results showed that of the 9256 sexually active individuals, 7428 women and 1828 men were included in the analysis. At an individual level, middle wealth quintile and disposable income were associated with STI risk, whereas being in the richest wealth quintile was protective. Residence in wealthier regions (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 3.92, 3.62, and 2.75, for Central, Western, and Eastern regions; p < 0.01) was associated with increased STI risk. Regional level analysis revealed stochastic variability of STI risk across geographical region (variance 0.03; p = 0.01). The bilateral association between SES and STI risk underscores the need for multi-sectoral interventions to address the upstream effects of poverty on STI risk and downstream effects of STIs on health and economic productivity.

Cost effectiveness analysis of clinically driven versus routine laboratory monitoring of antiretroviral therapy in Uganda and Zimbabwe.

BACKGROUND: Despite funding constraints for treatment programmes in Africa, the costs and economic consequences of routine laboratory monitoring for efficacy and toxicity of antiretroviral therapy (ART) have rarely been evaluated. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in the DART trial (ISRCTN13968779). Adults in Uganda/Zimbabwe starting ART were randomised to clinically-driven monitoring (CDM) or laboratory and clinical monitoring (LCM); individual patient data on healthcare resource utilisation and outcomes were valued with primary economic costs and utilities. Total costs of first/second-line ART, routine 12-weekly CD4 and biochemistry/haematology tests, additional diagnostic investigations, clinic visits, concomitant medications and hospitalisations were considered from the public healthcare sector perspective. A Markov model was used to extrapolate costs and benefits 20 years beyond the trial. RESULTS: 3316 (1660LCM;1656CDM) symptomatic, immunosuppressed ART-naive adults (median (IQR) age 37 (32,42); CD4 86 (31,139) cells/mm(3)) were followed for median 4.9 years. LCM had a mean 0.112 year (41 days) survival benefit at an additional mean cost of $765 [95%CI:685,845], translating into an adjusted incremental cost of $7386 [3277,dominated] per life-year gained and $7793 [4442,39179] per quality-adjusted life year gained. Routine toxicity tests were prominent cost-drivers and had no benefit. With 12-weekly CD4 monitoring from year 2 on ART, low-cost second-line ART, but without toxicity monitoring, CD4 test costs need to fall below $3.78 to become cost-effective (<3xper-capita GDP, following WHO benchmarks). CD4 monitoring at current costs as undertaken in DART was not cost-effective in the long-term. CONCLUSIONS: There is no rationale for routine toxicity monitoring, which did not affect outcomes and was costly. Even though beneficial, there is little justification for routine 12-weekly CD4 monitoring of ART at current test costs in low-income African countries. CD4 monitoring, restricted to the second year on ART onwards, could be cost-effective with lower cost second-line therapy and development of a cheaper, ideally point-of-care, CD4 test.