Cost-effectiveness of resistance-guided therapy for Mycoplasma genitalium in Australia.

The recommended first-line treatment for Mycoplasma genitalium infections is azithromycin. However, the prevalence of macrolide resistance for M. genitalium has increased to more than 50% worldwide. In 2013, Australia introduced a resistance-guided therapy (RGT) strategy to manage M. genitalium infections. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of the RGT approach compared to no RGT (i.e., without macrolide resistance profile test) in women, men who have sex with men (MSM), and men who have sex with women (MSW) in Australia. We constructed dynamic transmission models of M. genitalium infections in women, MSM, and MSW in Australia, each with a population of 100,000. These models compared the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained between RGT and no RGT scenarios from a healthcare perspective over ten years. All costs are reported in 2022 Australian dollars (Australian $). In our model, RGT is cost saving in women and MSM, with the incremental net monetary benefit of $1.3 million and $17.9 million, respectively. In MSW, the RGT approach is not cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -$106.96 per QALY gained. RGT is cost saving compared to no RGT for M. genitalium infections in women and MSM, supporting its adoption as the national management strategy for these two population groups.

Supply-side readiness to deliver HIV testing and treatment services in Indonesia: Going the last mile to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

INTRODUCTION: Despite national efforts to integrate Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission (PMTCT) of HIV services into antenatal care in Indonesia, the rate of mother-to-child transmission of HIV remains the highest in the world. A range of barriers to uptake and long-term engagement in care have been identified, but far less is known about health system preparedness to deliver PMTCT of HIV services. This study explored supply-side barriers to the delivery of PMTCT services in Indonesia and whether these factors are associated with the uptake of antenatal HIV testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An ecological analysis was undertaken, linking data from the World Bank Quality Service and Delivery Survey (2016) with routine data from Indonesia's HIV and AIDS case surveillance system and district health profile reports (2016). Supply-side readiness scores-generated from a readiness index that measures overall structural capacity and is often used as proxy for quality of care-were adapted from the WHO Service Availability and Readiness Assessment and presented by sector and geographic area. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis was used to explore factors associated with the uptake of antenatal HIV testing in public facilities. RESULTS: In general, public facilities scored more highly in most inputs compared to private facilities. Facilities located in urban areas also scored more highly in the majority of inputs compared to ones in rural areas. Readiness scores were lowest for PMTCT services compared to Antenatal Care and HIV Care and Support services, especially for the availability of medicines such as zidovudine and nevirapine. The national composite readiness score for PMTCT was only 0.13 (based on a maximum score of 1) with a composite score of 0.21 for public facilities and 0.06 for private facilities. The multivariate analysis shows that the proportion of pregnant women tested for HIV was more likely to be greater than or equal to 10% in facilities with a higher readiness score and a higher number of trained counsellors available, and less likely in facilities located outside of Java-Bali and in facilities supporting a higher number of village midwives. DISCUSSION: Despite targeted efforts by the Indonesian government and multinational agencies, significant gaps exist in the delivery of PMTCT that compromise the standard of care delivered in Indonesia. Future strategies should focus on improving the availability of tests and treatment, especially in the private sector and in rural areas.

The costs of scaling up HIV and syphilis testing in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Around two-thirds of all new HIV infections and 90% of syphilis cases occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Testing is a key strategy for the prevention and treatment of HIV and syphilis. Decision-makers in LMICs face considerable uncertainties about the costs of scaling up HIV and syphilis testing. This paper synthesizes economic evidence on the costs of scaling up HIV and syphilis testing interventions in LMICs and evidence on how costs change with the scale of delivery. We systematically searched multiple databases (Medline, Econlit, Embase, EMCARE, CINAHL, Global Health and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database) for peer-reviewed studies examining the costs of scaling up HIV and syphilis testing in LMICs. Thirty-five eligible studies were identified from 4869 unique citations. Most studies were conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa (N = 17) and most explored the costs of rapid HIV in facilities targeted the general population (N = 19). Only two studies focused on syphilis testing. Seventeen studies were cost analyses, 17 were cost-effectiveness analyses and 1 was cost-benefit analysis of HIV or syphilis testing. Most studies took a modelling approach (N = 25) and assumed costs increased linearly with scale. Ten studies examined cost efficiencies associated with scale, most reporting short-run economies of scale. Important drivers of the costs of scaling up included testing uptake and the price of test kits. The 'true' cost of scaling up testing is likely to be masked by the use of short-term decision frameworks, linear unit-cost projections (i.e. multiplying an average cost by a factor reflecting activity at a larger scale) and availability of health system capacity and infrastructure to supervise and support scale up. Cost data need to be routinely collected alongside other monitoring indicators as HIV and syphilis testing continues to be scaled up in LMICs.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care testing and treatment for sexually transmitted and genital infections in pregnancy in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The economic and health burden of sexually transmitted and genital infections (henceforth, STIs) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is substantial. Left untreated, STIs during pregnancy may result in several adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. Timely diagnosis and treatment at point-of-care (POC) can potentially improve these outcomes. Despite the availability and promotion of POC diagnostics for STIs as a key component of antenatal care in LMICs, their widespread use has been limited, owing to the high economic costs faced by individuals and health systems. To date, there have been no systematic reviews which explore the cost or cost-effectiveness of POC testing and treatment of STIs in pregnancy in LMICs. The objective of this protocol is to outline the methods that will compare, synthesise and appraise the existing literature in this domain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct literature searches in MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science. To find additional literature, we will search Google Scholar and hand search reference lists of included papers. Two reviewers will independently search databases, screen titles, abstracts and full texts; when necessary a third reviewer will resolve disputes. Only cost and cost-effectiveness studies of POC testing and treatment of STIs, including syphilis, chlamydia, trichomonas, gonorrhoea and bacterial vaginosis, in pregnancy in LMICs will be included. Published checklists will be used to assess quality of reporting practices and methodological approaches. We will also assess risk of publication bias. Interstudy heterogeneity will be assessed and depending on variation between studies, a meta-analysis or narrative synthesis will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as the review will use published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed open source journal and presented at an international conference. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018109072.