A cost-effectiveness analysis of South Africa's COVID-19 vaccination programme.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out in South Africa beginning in February 2021. In this study we retrospectively assessed the cost-effectiveness of the vaccination programme in its first two years of implementation. METHOD: We modelled the costs, expressed in 2021 US$, and health outcomes of the COVID-19 vaccination programme compared to a no vaccination programme scenario. The study was conducted from a public payer's perspective over two time-horizons - nine months (February to November 2021) and twenty-four months (February 2021 to January 2023). Health outcomes were estimated from a disease transmission model parameterised with data on COVID-19-related hospitalisations and deaths and were converted to disability adjusted life years (DALYs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted to assess parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated at US$1600 per DALY averted during the first study time horizon. The corresponding ICER for the second study period was estimated at US$1300 per DALY averted. When 85% of all excess deaths during these periods were included in the analysis, ICERs in the first and second study periods were estimated at US$1070 and US$660 per DALY averted, respectively. In the PSA, almost 100% of simulations fell below the estimated opportunity cost-based cost-effectiveness threshold for South Africa (US$2300 DALYs averted). COVID-19 vaccination programme cost per dose had the greatest impact on the ICERs. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that South Africa's COVID-19 vaccination programme represented good value for money in the first two years of rollout.

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.

A quantitative assessment of the consistency of projections from five mathematical models of the HIV epidemic in South Africa: a model comparison study.

BACKGROUND: Mathematical models are increasingly used to inform HIV policy and planning. Comparing estimates obtained using different mathematical models can test the robustness of estimates and highlight research gaps. As part of a larger project aiming to determine the optimal allocation of funding for HIV services, in this study we compare projections from five mathematical models of the HIV epidemic in South Africa: EMOD-HIV, Goals, HIV-Synthesis, Optima, and Thembisa. METHODS: The five modelling groups produced estimates of the total population, HIV incidence, HIV prevalence, proportion of people living with HIV who are diagnosed, ART coverage, proportion of those on ART who are virally suppressed, AIDS-related deaths, total deaths, and the proportion of adult males who are circumcised. Estimates were made under a "status quo" scenario for the period 1990 to 2040. For each output variable we assessed the consistency of model estimates by calculating the coefficient of variation and examining the trend over time. RESULTS: For most outputs there was significant inter-model variability between 1990 and 2005, when limited data was available for calibration, good consistency from 2005 to 2025, and increasing variability towards the end of the projection period. Estimates of HIV incidence, deaths in people living with HIV, and total deaths displayed the largest long-term variability, with standard deviations between 35 and 65% of the cross-model means. Despite this variability, all models predicted a gradual decline in HIV incidence in the long-term. Projections related to the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets were more consistent, with the coefficients of variation below 0.1 for all groups except children. CONCLUSIONS: While models produced consistent estimates for several outputs, there are areas of variability that should be investigated. This is important if projections are to be used in subsequent cost-effectiveness studies.

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.

The role of modelling and analytics in South African COVID-19 planning and budgeting.

BACKGROUND: The South African COVID-19 Modelling Consortium (SACMC) was established in late March 2020 to support planning and budgeting for COVID-19 related healthcare in South Africa. We developed several tools in response to the needs of decision makers in the different stages of the epidemic, allowing the South African government to plan several months ahead. METHODS: Our tools included epidemic projection models, several cost and budget impact models, and online dashboards to help government and the public visualise our projections, track case development and forecast hospital admissions. Information on new variants, including Delta and Omicron, were incorporated in real time to allow the shifting of scarce resources when necessary. RESULTS: Given the rapidly changing nature of the outbreak globally and in South Africa, the model projections were updated regularly. The updates reflected 1) the changing policy priorities over the course of the epidemic; 2) the availability of new data from South African data systems; and 3) the evolving response to COVID-19 in South Africa, such as changes in lockdown levels and ensuing mobility and contact rates, testing and contact tracing strategies and hospitalisation criteria. Insights into population behaviour required updates by incorporating notions of behavioural heterogeneity and behavioural responses to observed changes in mortality. We incorporated these aspects into developing scenarios for the third wave and developed additional methodology that allowed us to forecast required inpatient capacity. Finally, real-time analyses of the most important characteristics of the Omicron variant first identified in South Africa in November 2021 allowed us to advise policymakers early in the fourth wave that a relatively lower admission rate was likely. CONCLUSION: The SACMC's models, developed rapidly in an emergency setting and regularly updated with local data, supported national and provincial government to plan several months ahead, expand hospital capacity when needed, allocate budgets and procure additional resources where possible. Across four waves of COVID-19 cases, the SACMC continued to serve the planning needs of the government, tracking waves and supporting the national vaccine rollout.

What will it take for an injectable ARV to change the face of the HIV epidemic in high-prevalence countries? Considerations regarding drug costs and operations.

INTRODUCTION: The proven effectiveness of injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) is higher than that of any other HIV prevention intervention ever trialled or implemented, surpassing medical male circumcision, condoms and combination antiretroviral treatment. Based on our own analyses and experience with the South African oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) programme, we review the supply and demand side factors that would need to be in place for a successful rollout of CAB-LA, and delineate lessons for the launch of other long-acting and extended delivery (LAED) antiretroviral drugs. DISCUSSION: On the supply side, CAB-LA will have to be offered at a price that makes the drug affordable and cost-effective to low- and middle-income countries, especially those with high HIV prevalence. An important factor in lowering prices is a guaranteed market volume, which in turn necessitates the involvement of large funders, such as PEPFAR and the Global Fund, and a fairly rapid scale-up of the drug. Such a scale-up would have to involve speedy regulatory approval and WHO pre-qualification, swift integration of CAB-LA into national guidelines and planning for large enough manufacturing capacity, including the enabling of local manufacture. On the demand side, existing demand for HIV prevention products has to be harnessed and additional demand created, which will be aided by designing CAB-LA programmes at the primary healthcare or community level, and involving non-traditional outlets, such as private pharmacies and doctors' practices. CONCLUSIONS: CAB-LA could be the game changer for HIV prevention that we have been hoping for, and serve as a useful pilot for other LAEDs. A successful rollout would involve building markets of a guaranteed size; lowering the drug's price to a level possibly below the cost of production, while also lowering the cost of production altogether; harnessing, creating and sustaining demand for the product over the long term, wherever possible, in national programmes rather than single demonstration sites; and establishing and maintaining manufacturing capacity and supply chains. For this, all parties have to work together-including originator and generic manufacturers, donor organizations and other large funders, and the governments of low- and middle-income countries, in particular those with high HIV prevalence.

Secondary distribution of HIV self-test kits by HIV index and antenatal care clients: implementation and costing results from the STAR Initiative in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Partner-delivered HIV self-testing kits has previously been highlighted as a safe, acceptable and effective approach to reach men. However, less is known about its real-world implementation in reaching partners of people living with HIV. We evaluated programmatic implementation of partner-delivered self-testing through antenatal care (ANC) attendees and people newly diagnosed with HIV by assessing use, positivity, linkage and cost per kit distributed. METHODS: Between April 2018 and December 2019, antenatal care (ANC) clinic attendees and people or those newly diagnosed with HIV clients across twelve clinics in three cities in South Africa were given HIVST kits (OraQuick Rapid HIV-1/2 Antibody Test, OraSure Technologies) to distribute to their sexual partners. A follow-up telephonic survey was administered to all prior consenting clients who were successfully reached by telephone to assess primary outcomes. Incremental economic costs of the implementation were estimated from the provider's perspective. RESULTS: Fourteen thousand four hundred seventy-three HIVST kits were distributed - 10,319 (71%) to ANC clients for their male partner and 29% to people newly diagnosed with HIV for their partners. Of the 4,235 ANC clients successfully followed-up, 82.1% (3,475) reportedly offered HIVST kits to their male partner with 98.1% (3,409) accepting and 97.6% (3,328) using the kit. Among ANC partners self-testing, 159 (4.8%) reported reactive HIVST results, of which 127 (79.9%) received further testing; 116 (91.3%) were diagnosed with HIV and 114 (98.3%) initiated antiretroviral therapy (ART). Of the 1,649 people newly diagnosed with HIV successfully followed-up; 1,312 (79.6%) reportedly offered HIVST kits to their partners with 95.8% (1,257) of the partners accepting and 95.9% (1,206) reported that their partners used the kit. Among these index partners, 297 (24.6%) reported reactive HIVST results of which 261 (87.9%) received further testing; 260 (99.6%) were diagnosed with HIV and 258 (99.2%) initiated ART. The average cost per HIVST distributed in the three cities was US$7.90, US$11.98, and US$14.81, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Partner-delivered HIVST in real world implementation was able to affordably reach many male partners of ANC attendees and index partners of people newly diagnosed with HIV in South Africa. Given recent COVID-19 related restrictions, partner-delivered HIVST provides an important strategy to maintain essential testing services.

Predicted effects of the introduction of long-acting injectable cabotegravir pre-exposure prophylaxis in sub-Saharan Africa: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable cabotegravir pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is recommended by WHO as an additional option for HIV prevention in sub-Saharan Africa, but there is concern that its introduction could lead to an increase in integrase-inhibitor resistance undermining treatment programmes that rely on dolutegravir. We aimed to project the health benefits and risks of cabotegravir-PrEP introduction in settings in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: With HIV Synthesis, an individual-based HIV model, we simulated 1000 setting-scenarios reflecting both variability and uncertainty about HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa and compared outcomes for each with and without cabotegravir-PrEP introduction. PrEP use is assumed to be risk-informed and to be used only in 3-month periods (the time step for the model) when having condomless sex. We consider three groups at risk of integrase-inhibitor resistance emergence: people who start cabotegravir-PrEP after (unknowingly) being infected with HIV, those who seroconvert while on PrEP, and those with HIV who have residual cabotegravir drugs concentrations during the early tail period after recently stopping PrEP. We projected the outcomes of policies of cabotegravir-PrEP introduction and of no introduction in 2022 across 50 years. In 50% of setting-scenarios we considered that more sensitive nucleic-acid-based HIV diagnostic testing (NAT), rather than regular antibody-based HIV rapid testing, might be used to reduce resistance risk. For cost-effectiveness analysis we assumed in our base case a cost of cabotegravir-PrEP drug to be similar to oral PrEP, resulting in a total annual cost of USD$144 per year ($114 per year and $264 per year considered in sensitivity analyses), a cost-effectiveness threshold of $500 per disability-adjusted life years averted, and a discount rate of 3% per year. FINDINGS: Reflecting our assumptions on the appeal of cabotegravir-PrEP, its introduction is predicted to lead to a substantial increase in PrEP use with approximately 2·6% of the adult population (and 46% of those with a current indication for PrEP) receiving PrEP compared with 1·5% (28%) without cabotegravir-PrEP introduction across 20 years. As a result, HIV incidence is expected to be lower by 29% (90% range across setting-scenarios 6-52%) across the same period compared with no introduction of cabotegravir-PrEP. In people initiating antiretroviral therapy, the proportion with integrase-inhibitor resistance after 20 years is projected to be 1·7% (0-6·4%) without cabotegravir-PrEP introduction but 13·1% (4·1-30·9%) with. Cabotegravir-PrEP introduction is predicted to lower the proportion of all people on antiretroviral therapy with viral loads less than 1000 copies per mL by 0·9% (-2·5% to 0·3%) at 20 years. For an adult population of 10 million an overall decrease in number of AIDS deaths of about 4540 per year (-13 000 to -300) across 50 years is predicted, with little discernible benefit with NAT when compared with standard antibody-based rapid testing. AIDS deaths are predicted to be averted with cabotegravir-PrEP introduction in 99% of setting-scenarios. Across the 50-year time horizon, overall HIV programme costs are predicted to be similar regardless of whether cabotegravir-PrEP is introduced (total mean discounted annual HIV programme costs per year across 50 years is $151·3 million vs $150·7 million), assuming the use of standard antibody testing. With antibody-based rapid HIV testing, the introduction of cabotegravir-PrEP is predicted to be cost-effective under an assumed threshold of $500 per disability-adjusted life year averted in 82% of setting-scenarios at the cost of $144 per year, in 52% at $264, and in 87% at $114. INTERPRETATION: Despite leading to increases in integrase-inhibitor drug resistance, cabotegravir-PrEP introduction is likely to reduce AIDS deaths in addition to HIV incidence. Long-acting cabotegravir-PrEP is predicted to be cost-effective if delivered at similar cost to oral PrEP with antibody-based rapid HIV testing. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Cost-effectiveness of voluntary medical male circumcision for HIV prevention across sub-Saharan Africa: results from five independent models.

BACKGROUND: Voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) has been a recommended HIV prevention strategy in sub-Saharan Africa since 2007, particularly in countries with high HIV prevalence. However, given the scale-up of antiretroviral therapy programmes, it is not clear whether VMMC still represents a cost-effective use of scarce HIV programme resources. METHODS: Using five existing well described HIV mathematical models, we compared continuation of VMMC for 5 years in men aged 15 years and older to no further VMMC in South Africa, Malawi, and Zimbabwe and across a range of setting scenarios in sub-Saharan Africa. Outputs were based on a 50-year time horizon, VMMC cost was assumed to be US$90, and a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$500 was used. FINDINGS: In South Africa and Malawi, the continuation of VMMC for 5 years resulted in cost savings and health benefits (infections and disability-adjusted life-years averted) according to all models. Of the two models modelling Zimbabwe, the continuation of VMMC for 5 years resulted in cost savings and health benefits by one model but was not as cost-effective according to the other model. Continuation of VMMC was cost-effective in 68% of setting scenarios across sub-Saharan Africa. VMMC was more likely to be cost-effective in modelled settings with higher HIV incidence; VMMC was cost-effective in 62% of settings with HIV incidence of less than 0·1 per 100 person-years in men aged 15-49 years, increasing to 95% with HIV incidence greater than 1·0 per 100 person-years. INTERPRETATION: VMMC remains a cost-effective, often cost-saving, prevention intervention in sub-Saharan Africa for at least the next 5 years. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for the HIV Modelling Consortium.

The costs of interventions for type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension and cardiovascular disease in South Africa - a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: In the context of a move to universal health coverage, three separate systematic reviews were conducted to summarise available evidence on the direct costs of interventions for type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease in South Africa. METHODS: PubMed® and Web of Science was searched for literature published between 01 and 1995 and 27 October 2022. Additionally, reference and citations lists of retrieved articles and experts were consulted. We also tracked reference lists of previous, related systematic reviews. Eligible publications were cost analyses of clinical interventions targeted at adults age 15 + reporting primary estimates of in- and out-of-hospital costs from a provider perspective. Costs were extracted and converted to 2021 US dollars, and article methodological and reporting quality was appraised using the 2013 CHEERS checklist. RESULTS: Of the 600, 1,172 and 1,466 identified publications for type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease, respectively, 10, 12, and 17 met full inclusion criteria. 60% of articles reported cardiovascular disease costs, 52% were of good reporting quality, and 10%, 50%, and 39% of type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension and cardiovascular disease papers reported private-sector costs only. Hypertension drug costs ranged from $2 to $85 per person-month, while type 2 diabetes mellitus drug costs ranged between $57 and $630 per person-year (ppy). Diabetes-related complication treatment costs ranged from $55 for retinopathy treatment to $25,193 ppy for haemodialysis, while cardiovascular disease treatment costs were between $160 and $37,491 ppy. Drugs and treatment of complications were major cost drivers for hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus, while hospitalisation drove cardiovascular disease costs. CONCLUSION: The intervention costs of type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension and cardiovascular disease care have received more attention recently, particularly diabetes-related complications and cardiovascular disease. However, 39% of identified cardiovascular disease treatment costs used a private sector perspective, leaving significant research gaps in the public sector and the cheaper to treat hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus. This review fills an information gap regarding the intervention costs of these diseases in South Africa.

Relative cost-effectiveness of long-acting injectable cabotegravir versus oral pre-exposure prophylaxis in South Africa based on the HPTN 083 and HPTN 084 trials: a modelled economic evaluation and threshold analysis.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable cabotegravir, a drug taken every 2 months, has been shown to be more effective at preventing HIV infection than daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine, but its cost-effectiveness in a high-prevalence setting is not known. We aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of long-acting injectable cabotegravir compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine in South Africa, using methods standard to government planning, and to determine the threshold price at which long-acting injectable cabotegravir is as cost-effective as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine. METHODS: In this modelled economic evaluation and threshold analysis, we updated a deterministic model of the South African HIV epidemic with data from the HPTN 083 and HPTN 084 trials to evaluate the effect of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine and long-acting injectable cabotegravir provision to heterosexual adolescents and young women and men aged 15-24 years, female sex workers, and men who have sex with men. We estimated the average intervention cost, in 2021 US$, using ingredients-based costing, and modelled the cost-effectiveness of two coverage scenarios (medium or high, assuming higher uptake of long-acting injectable cabotegravir than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine throughout) and, for long-acting injectable cabotegravir, two duration subscenarios (minimum: same pre-exposure prophylaxis duration as for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine; maximum: longer duration than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine) over 2022-41. FINDINGS: Across long-acting injectable cabotegravir scenarios, 15-28% more new HIV infections were averted compared with the baseline scenario (current tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine roll-out). In scenarios with increased coverage with oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine, 4-8% more new HIV infections were averted compared with the baseline scenario. If long-acting injectable cabotegravir drug costs were equal to those of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine for the same 2-month period, the incremental cost of long-acting injectable cabotegravir to the HIV programme was higher than that of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (5-10% vs 2-4%) due to higher assumed uptake of long-acting injectable cabotegravir. The cost per infection averted was $6053-6610 (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine) and $4471-6785 (long-acting injectable cabotegravir). The cost per long-acting cabotegravir injection needed to be less than twice that of a 2-month supply of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine to remain as cost-effective, with threshold prices ranging between $9·03 per injection (high coverage; maximum duration) and $14·47 per injection (medium coverage; minimum duration). INTERPRETATION: Long-acting injectable cabotegravir could potentially substantially change HIV prevention. However, for its implementation to be financially feasible across low-income and middle-income countries with high HIV incidence, long-acting injectable cabotegravir must be reasonably priced. FUNDING: United States Agency for International Development, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Transmission reduction, health benefits, and upper-bound costs of interventions to improve retention on antiretroviral therapy: a combined analysis of three mathematical models.

BACKGROUND: In this so-called treat-all era, antiretroviral therapy (ART) interruptions contribute to an increasing proportion of HIV infections and deaths. Many strategies to improve retention on ART cost more than standard of care. In this study, we aimed to estimate the upper-bound costs at which such interventions should be adopted. METHODS: In this combined analysis, we compared the infections averted, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted, and upper-bound costs of interventions that improve ART retention in three HIV models with diverse structures, assumptions, and baseline settings: EMOD in South Africa, Optima in Malawi, and Synthesis in sub-Saharan African low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We modelled estimates over a 40-year time horizon, from a baseline of Jan 1, 2022, when interventions would be implemented, to Jan 1, 2062. We varied increment of ART retention (25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% retention), the extent to which interventions could be targeted towards individuals at risk of interrupting ART, and cost-effectiveness thresholds in each setting. FINDINGS: Despite simulating different settings and epidemic trends, all three models produced consistent estimates of health benefit (ie, DALYs averted) and transmission reduction per increment in retention. The range of estimates was 1·35-3·55 DALYs and 0·12-0·20 infections averted over the 40-year time horizon per additional person-year retained on ART. Upper-bound costs varied by setting and intervention effectiveness. Improving retention by 25% among all people receiving ART, regardless of risk of ART interruption, gave an upper-bound cost per person-year of US$2-6 in Optima (Malawi), $43-68 in Synthesis (LMICs in sub-Saharan Africa), and $28-180 in EMOD (South Africa). A maximally targeted and effective retention intervention had an upper-bound cost per person-year of US$93-223 in Optima (Malawi), $871-1389 in Synthesis (LMICs in sub-Saharan Africa), and $1013-6518 in EMOD (South Africa). INTERPRETATION: Upper-bound costs that could improve ART retention vary across sub-Saharan African settings and are likely to be similar to or higher than was estimated before the start of the treat-all era. Upper-bound costs could be increased by targeting interventions to those most at risk of interrupting ART. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Cost-effectiveness of easy-access, risk-informed oral pre-exposure prophylaxis in HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Approaches that allow easy access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), such as over-the-counter provision at pharmacies, could facilitate risk-informed PrEP use and lead to lower HIV incidence, but their cost-effectiveness is unknown. We aimed to evaluate conditions under which risk-informed PrEP use is cost-effective. METHODS: We applied a mathematical model of HIV transmission to simulate 3000 setting-scenarios reflecting a range of epidemiological characteristics of communities in sub-Saharan Africa. The prevalence of HIV viral load greater than 1000 copies per mL among all adults (HIV positive and negative) varied from 1·1% to 7·4% (90% range). We hypothesised that if PrEP was made easily available without restriction and with education regarding its use, women and men would use PrEP, with sufficient daily adherence, during so-called seasons of risk (ie, periods in which individuals are at risk of acquiring infection). We refer to this as risk-informed PrEP. For each setting-scenario, we considered the situation in mid-2021 and performed a pairwise comparison of the outcomes of two policies: immediate PrEP scale-up and then continuation for 50 years, and no PrEP. We estimated the relationship between epidemic and programme characteristics and cost-effectiveness of PrEP availability to all during seasons of risk. For our base-case analysis, we assumed a 3-monthly PrEP cost of US$29 (drug $11, HIV test $4, and $14 for additional costs necessary to facilitate education and access), a cost-effectiveness threshold of $500 per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, an annual discount rate of 3%, and a time horizon of 50 years. In sensitivity analyses, we considered a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 per DALY averted, a discount rate of 7% per annum, the use of PrEP outside of seasons of risk, and reduced uptake of risk-informed PrEP. FINDINGS: In the context of PrEP scale-up such that 66% (90% range across setting-scenarios 46-81) of HIV-negative people with at least one non-primary condomless sex partner take PrEP in any given period, resulting in 2·6% (0·9-6·0) of all HIV negative adults taking PrEP at any given time, risk-informed PrEP was predicted to reduce HIV incidence by 49% (23-78) over 50 years compared with no PrEP. PrEP was cost-effective in 71% of all setting-scenarios, and cost-effective in 76% of setting-scenarios with prevalence of HIV viral load greater than 1000 copies per mL among all adults higher than 2%. In sensitivity analyses with a $100 per DALY averted cost-effectiveness threshold, a 7% per year discount rate, or with PrEP use that was less well risk-informed than in our base case, PrEP was less likely to be cost-effective, but generally remained cost-effective if the prevalence of HIV viral load greater than 1000 copies per mL among all adults was higher than 3%. In sensitivity analyses based on additional setting-scenarios in which risk-informed PrEP was less extensively used, the HIV incidence reduction was smaller, but the cost-effectiveness of risk-informed PrEP was undiminished. INTERPRETATION: Under the assumption that making PrEP easily accessible for all adults in sub-Saharan Africa in the context of community education leads to risk-informed use, PrEP is likely to be cost-effective in settings with prevalence of HIV viral load greater than 1000 copies per mL among all adults higher than 2%, suggesting the need for implementation of such approaches, with ongoing evaluation. FUNDING: US Agency for International Development, US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Inpatient Care Costs of COVID-19 in South Africa's Public Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a devastating impact globally, with severe health and economic consequences. To prepare health systems to deal with the pandemic, epidemiological and cost projection models are required to inform budgets and efficient allocation of resources. This study estimates daily inpatient care costs of COVID-19 in South Africa, an important input into cost projection and economic evaluation models. METHODS: We adopted a micro-costing approach, which involved the identification, measurement and valuation of resources used in the clinical management of COVID-19. We considered only direct medical costs for an episode of hospitalisation from the South African public health system perspective. Resource quantities and unit costs were obtained from various sources. Inpatient costs per patient day was estimated for consumables, capital equipment and human resources for three levels of inpatient care - general wards, high care wards and intensive care units (ICUs). RESULTS: Average daily costs per patient increased with the level of care. The highest average daily cost was estimated for ICU admissions - 271 USD to 306 USD (financial costs) and ~800 USD to 830 USD (economic costs, excluding facility fee) depending on the need for invasive vs. non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Conversely, the lowest cost was estimated for general ward-based care - 62 USD to 79 USD (financial costs) and 119 USD to 278 USD (economic costs, excluding facility fees) depending on the need for supplemental oxygen. In high care wards, total cost was estimated at 156 USD, financial costs and 277 USD, economic costs (excluding facility fees). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest our costs estimates are robust to uncertainty in cost inputs. CONCLUSION: Our estimates of inpatient costs are useful for informing budgeting and planning processes and cost-effectiveness analysis in the South African context. However, these estimates can be adapted to inform policy decisions in other context.

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.

Role of data from cost and other economic analyses in healthcare decision-making for HIV, TB and sexual/reproductive health programmes in South Africa.

An increasing focus on the use of the results of cost analyses and other economic evaluations in health programme decision-making by governments, donors and technical support partners working in low- and middle-income countries is accompanied by recognition that this use is impeded by several factors, including the lack of skills, data and coordination between spheres of the government. We describe our experience generating economic evaluation data for human immunodeficiency virus, tuberculosis and sexual/reproductive health programmes in South Africa alongside the results of a series of in-depth interviews (IDIs) among decision-makers within the South African government and implementing organizations (data users) and producers of economic evaluations (data producers). We summarize results across (1) the process of implementing a new intervention; (2) barriers to the use of cost data and suggested solutions and (3) the transferability of experiences to the planned South African implementation of universal health coverage (UHC). Based on our experience and the IDIs, we suggest concrete steps towards the improvement of economic data use in the planning and the establishment of structures mandated under the transition to UHC. Our key recommendations include the following: (1) compile a publicly available and regularly updated in-country cost repository; (2) increase the availability of programmatic outcomes data at the aggregate level; (3) agree upon and implement a set of primary decision criteria for the adoption and funding of interventions; (4) combine the efforts of health economics institutions into a stringent system for health technology assessments and (5) improve the link between national and provincial planning and budgeting.

The cost and intermediary cost-effectiveness of oral HIV self-test kit distribution across 11 distribution models in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Countries around the world seek innovative ways of closing their remaining gaps towards the target of 95% of people living with HIV (PLHIV) knowing their status by 2030. Offering kits allowing HIV self-testing (HIVST) in private might help close these gaps. METHODS: We analysed the cost, use and linkage to onward care of 11 HIVST kit distribution models alongside the Self-Testing AfRica Initiative's distribution of 2.2 million HIVST kits in South Africa in 2018/2019. Outcomes were based on telephonic surveys of 4% of recipients; costs on a combination of micro-costing, time-and-motion and expenditure analysis. Costs were calculated from the provider perspective in 2019 US$, as incremental costs in integrated and full costs in standalone models. RESULTS: HIV positivity among kit recipients was 4%-23%, with most models achieving 5%-6%. Linkage to confirmatory testing and antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation for those screening positive was 19%-78% and 2%-72% across models. Average costs per HIVST kit distributed varied between $4.87 (sex worker model) and $18.07 (mobile integration model), with differences largely driven by kit volumes. HIVST kit costs (at $2.88 per kit) and personnel costs were the largest cost items throughout. Average costs per outcome increased along the care cascade, with the sex worker network model being the most cost-effective model across metrics used (cost per kit distributed/recipient screening positive/confirmed positive/initiating ART). Cost per person confirmed positive for HIVST was higher than standard HIV testing. CONCLUSION: HIV self-test distribution models in South Africa varied widely along four characteristics: distribution volume, HIV positivity, linkage to care and cost. Volume was highest in models that targeted public spaces with high footfall (flexible community, fixed point and transport hub distribution), followed by workplace models. Transport hub, workplace and sex worker models distributed kits in the least costly way. Distribution via index cases at facility as well as sex worker network distribution identified the highest number of PLHIV at lowest cost.

Costs of integrating HIV self-testing in public health facilities in Malawi, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

INTRODUCTION: As countries approach the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets, there is a need for innovative and cost-saving HIV testing approaches that can increase testing coverage in hard-to-reach populations. The HIV Self-Testing Africa-Initiative distributed HIV self-test (HIVST) kits using unincentivised HIV testing counsellors across 31 public facilities in Malawi, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe. HIVST was distributed either through secondary (partner's use) distribution alone or primary (own use) and secondary distribution approaches. METHODS: We evaluated the costs of adding HIVST to existing HIV testing from the providers' perspective in the 31 public health facilities across the four countries between 2018 and 2019. We combined expenditure analysis and bottom-up costing approaches. We also carried out time-and-motion studies on the counsellors to estimate the human resource costs of introducing and demonstrating how to use HIVST for primary and secondary use. RESULTS: A total of 41 720 kits were distributed during the analysis period, ranging from 1254 in Zimbabwe to 27 678 in Zambia. The cost per kit distributed through the primary distribution approach was $4.27 in Zambia and $9.24 in Zimbabwe. The cost per kit distributed through the secondary distribution approach ranged from $6.46 in Zambia to $13.42 in South Africa, with a wider variation in the average cost at facility-level. From the time-and-motion observations, the counsellors spent between 20% and 44% of the observed workday on HIVST. Overall, personnel and test kit costs were the main cost drivers. CONCLUSION: The average costs of distributing HIVST kits were comparable across the four countries in our analysis despite wide cost variability within countries. We recommend context-specific exploration of potential efficiency gains from these facility-level cost variations and demand creation activities to ensure continued affordability at scale.

Modelling costs of community-based HIV self-testing programmes in Southern Africa at scale: an econometric cost function analysis across five countries.

BACKGROUND: Following success demonstrated with the HIV Self-Testing AfRica Initiative, HIV self-testing (HIVST) is being added to national HIV testing strategies in Southern Africa. An analysis of the costs of scaling up HIVST is needed to inform national plans, but there is a dearth of evidence on methods for forecasting costs at scale from pilot projects. Econometric cost functions (ECFs) apply statistical inference to predict costs; however, we often do not have the luxury of collecting large amounts of location-specific data. We fit an ECF to identify key drivers of costs, then use a simpler model to guide cost projections at scale. METHODS: We estimated the full economic costs of community-based HIVST distribution in 92 locales across Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Lesotho between June 2016 and June 2019. We fitted a cost function with determinants related to scale, locales organisational and environmental characteristics, target populations, and per capita Growth Domestic Product (GDP). We used models differing in data intensity to predict costs at scale. We compared predicted estimates with scale-up costs in Lesotho observed over a 2-year period. RESULTS: The scale of distribution, type of community-based intervention, percentage of kits distributed to men, distance from implementer's warehouse and per capita GDP predicted average costs per HIVST kit distributed. Our model simplification approach showed that a parsimonious model could predict costs without losing accuracy. Overall, ECF showed a good predictive capacity, that is, forecast costs were close to observed costs. However, at larger scale, variations of programme efficiency over time (number of kits distributed per agent monthly) could potentially influence cost predictions. DISCUSSION: Our empirical cost function can inform community-based HIVST scale-up in Southern African countries. Our findings suggest that a parsimonious ECF can be used to forecast costs at scale in the context of financial planning and budgeting.

The cost effectiveness and optimal configuration of HIV self-test distribution in South Africa: a model analysis.

BACKGROUND: HIV self-testing (HIVST) has been shown to be acceptable, feasible and effective in increasing HIV testing uptake. Novel testing strategies are critical to achieving the UNAIDS target of 95% HIV-positive diagnosis by 2025 in South Africa and globally. METHODS: We modelled the impact of six HIVST kit distribution modalities (community fixed-point, taxi ranks, workplace, partners of primary healthcare (PHC) antiretroviral therapy (ART) patients), partners of pregnant women, primary PHC distribution) in South Africa over 20 years (2020-2039), using data collected alongside the Self-Testing AfRica Initiative. We modelled two annual distribution scenarios: (A) 1 million HIVST kits (current) or (B) up to 6.7 million kits. Incremental economic costs (2019 US$) were estimated from the provider perspective; assumptions on uptake and screening positivity were based on surveys of a subset of kit recipients and modelled using the Thembisa model. Cost-effectiveness of each distribution modality compared with the status-quo distribution configuration was estimated as cost per life year saved (estimated from life years lost due to AIDS) and optimised using a fractional factorial design. RESULTS: The largest impact resulted from secondary HIVST distribution to partners of ART patients at PHC (life years saved (LYS): 119 000 (scenario A); 393 000 (scenario B)). However, it was one of the least cost-effective modalities (A: $1394/LYS; B: $4162/LYS). Workplace distribution was cost-saving ($52-$76 million) and predicted to have a moderate epidemic impact (A: 40 000 LYS; B: 156 000 LYS). An optimised scale-up to 6.7 million tests would result in an almost threefold increase in LYS compared with a scale-up of status-quo distribution (216 000 vs 75 000 LYS). CONCLUSION: Optimisation-informed distribution has the potential to vastly improve the impact of HIVST. Using this approach, HIVST can play a key role in improving the long-term health impact of investment in HIVST.