Comparative cost analysis of point-of-care versus laboratory-based testing to initiate and monitor HIV treatment in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: The number of people living with HIV (PLHIV) in need of treatment monitoring in low-and-middle-income countries has been rapidly expanding, placing an increasing burden on laboratories. Promising new point-of-care (POC) test have the potential to reduce laboratory workloads, but the implementation cost is uncertain. We sought to estimate the costs of decentralized POC testing compared to centralized laboratory testing for PLHIV initiating treatment in South Africa. METHODS: We conducted a microcosting analyses comparing clinic-based POC testing to centralized laboratory testing for HIV viral load, creatinine, and CD4 count monitoring. We completed time-and-motion studies to assess staff time for sample collection and processing. Instrument costs were estimated assuming five-year lifespans and we applied a 3% annual discount rate. Total costs and cost per patient were estimated over a five-year period: the first year of ART initiation and four years of routine HIV monitoring, following World Health Organization ART monitoring guidelines. RESULTS: We estimated that per-patient costs of POC HIV viral load, CD4, and creatinine tests were USD $25, $11, and $9, respectively, assuming a clinic volume of 50 patients initiated per month. At centralized laboratories, per-patient costs of POC HIV viral load, CD4, and creatinine tests were USD $26, $6, $3. Total monitoring costs of all testing over a 5-year period was $45 higher for POC testing compared to centralized laboratory testing ($210 vs $166). CONCLUSIONS: POC testing for HIV care and treatment can be feasibly implemented within clinics in South Africa, particularly those with larger patient volumes. POC HIV viral load costs are similar to lab-based testing while CD4 count and creatinine testing are more costly as POC tests. Our cost estimates are useful to policymakers in planning resource allocation and can inform cost-effectiveness analyses of POC testing.

Protocol for a randomised controlled implementation trial of point-of-care viral load testing and task shifting: the Simplifying HIV TREAtment and Monitoring (STREAM) study.

INTRODUCTION: Achieving the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS 90-90-90 targets requires models of HIV care that expand antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage without overburdening health systems. Point-of-care (POC) viral load (VL) testing has the potential to efficiently monitor ART treatment, while enrolled nurses may be able to provide safe and cost-effective chronic care for stable patients with HIV. This study aims to demonstrate whether POC VL testing combined with task shifting to enrolled nurses is non-inferior and cost-effective compared with laboratory-based VL monitoring and standard HIV care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The STREAM (Simplifying HIV TREAtment and Monitoring) study is an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled implementation trial. HIV-positive adults, clinically stable at 6 months after ART initiation, will be recruited in a large urban clinic in South Africa. Approximately 396 participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive POC HIV VL monitoring and potential task shifting to enrolled nurses, versus laboratory VL monitoring and standard South African HIV care. Initial clinic follow-up will be 2-monthly in both arms, with VL testing at enrolment, 6 months and 12 months. At 6 months (1 year after ART initiation), stable participants in both arms will qualify for a differentiated care model involving decentralised ART pickup at community-based pharmacies. The primary outcome is retention in care and virological suppression at 12 months from enrolment. Secondary outcomes include time to appropriate entry into the decentralised ART delivery programme, costs per virologically suppressed patient and cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared with standard care. Findings will inform the scale up of VL testing and differentiated care in HIV-endemic resource-limited settings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the University of KwaZulu-Natal Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (BFC296/16) and University of Washington Institutional Review Board (STUDY00001466). Results will be presented at international conferences and published in academic peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03066128; Pre-results.