The cost of adding rapid screening for diabetes, hypertension, and COVID-19 to COVID-19 vaccination queues in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Background: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are responsible for 51% of total mortality in South Africa, with a rising burden of hypertension (HTN) and diabetes mellitus (DM). Incorporating NCD and COVID-19 screening into mass activities such as COVID-19 vaccination programs could offer significant long-term benefits for early detection interventions. However, there is limited knowledge of the associated costs and resources required. We evaluated the cost of integrating NCD screening and COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic testing (Ag-RDT) into a COVID-19 vaccination program. Methods: We conducted a prospective cost analysis at three public sector primary healthcare clinics and one academic hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa, conducting vaccinations. Participants were assessed for eligibility and recruited during May-Dec 2022. Costs were estimated from the provider perspective using a bottom-up micro-costing approach and reported in 2022 USD. Results: Of the 1,376 enrolled participants, 240 opted in to undergo a COVID-19 Ag-RDT, and none tested positive for COVID-19. 138 (10.1%) had elevated blood pressure, with 96 (70%) having no prior HTN diagnosis. 22 (1.6%) were screen-positive for DM, with 12 (55%) having no prior diagnosis. The mean and median costs per person screened for NCDs were $2.53 (SD: 3.62) and $1.70 (IQR: $1.38-$2.49), respectively. The average provider cost per person found to have elevated blood glucose levels and blood pressure was $157.99 and $25.19, respectively. Finding a new case of DM and HTN was $289.65 and $36.21, respectively. For DM and DM + HTN screen-positive participants, diagnostic tests were the main cost driver, while staff costs were the main cost driver for - and HTN screen-positive and screen-negative participants. The mean and median cost per Ag-RDT was $6.13 (SD: 0.87) and $5.95 (IQR: $5.55-$6.25), with costs driven mainly by test kit costs. Conclusions: We show the cost of finding new cases of DM and HTN in a vaccine queue, which is an essential first step in understanding the feasibility and resource requirements for such initiatives. However, there is a need for comparative economic analyses that include linkage to care and retention data to fully understand this cost and determine whether opportunistic screening should be added to general mass health activities.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of dolutegravir-based antiretroviral regimens: an economic evaluation of a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: HIV programmes world-wide currently make decisions regarding new antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens with less side-effects and higher resistance barriers, which may improve adherence and viral suppression. Economic evaluation helps inform these decisions. METHODS: We conducted an economic evaluation of three ART regimens included in the ADVANCE trial from the provider's perspective: tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/emtricitabine (FTC)+dolutegravir (DTG) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/FTC+DTG, compared with TDF/FTC/efavirenz (EFV). We used top-down and bottom-up cost analysis with resource utilization based on trial data and adjusted to emulate routine care. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of each regimen as cost per person virally suppressed or retained and per life-year saved, at 48 and 96 weeks. RESULTS: Though the DTG-based trial arms were 2% more costly than TDF/FTC/EFV, both had slightly lower cost-per-outcome ($9783 and $9929/patient virally suppressed for TDF/FTC+DTG and TAF/FTC+DTG, respectively) than TDF/FTC/EFV ($10 365). The trial cost per additional virally suppressed patient, compared with TDF/FTC/EFV, was lower in the TDF/FTC+DTG arm ($2967) compared with TAF/FTC+DTG ($3430). In routine care, cost per virally suppressed patient was estimated as similar between TDF/FTC+DTG ($426) and TDF/FTC/EFV ($424) but more costly under TAF/FTC+DTG. Similar results were seen in the cost per additional person retained across scenarios. When modelled over 20 years, TDF/FTC+DTG was more cost-effective than TAF/FTC+DTG ($10 341 vs $41 958/life-year saved). CONCLUSION: TDF/FTC+DTG had similar costs per outcome as TDF/FTC/EFV in the routine care scenario but TDF/FTC+DTG was more cost-effective when modelled over 20 years.