Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 24(1): 857, 2024 Jul 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39075487

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 vaccination programme in South Africa was rolled out in February 2021 via five delivery channels- hospitals, primary healthcare (PHC), fixed, temporary, and mobile outreach channels. In this study, we estimated the financial and economic costs of the COVID-19 vaccination programme in the first year of roll out from February 2021 to January 2022 and one month prior, in one district of South Africa, the West Rand district. METHODS: Financial and economic costs were estimated from a public payer's perspective using top-down and ingredient-based costing approaches. Data were collected on costs incurred at the national level and from the West Rand district. Total cost and cost per COVID-19 vaccine dose were estimated for each of the five delivery channels implemented in the district. In addition, we estimated vaccine delivery costs which we defined as total cost exclusive of vaccine procurement costs. RESULTS: Total financial and economic costs were estimated at US$8.5 million and US$12 million, respectively; with a corresponding cost per dose of US$15.31 (financial) and US$21.85 (economic). The two biggest total cost drivers were vaccine procurement which contributed 73% and 51% to total financial and economic costs respectively, and staff time which contributed 10% and 36% to total financial and economic costs, respectively. Total vaccine delivery costs were estimated at US$2.1 million (financial) and US$5.7 million (economic); and the corresponding cost per dose at US$3.84 (financial) and US$10.38 (economic). Vaccine delivery cost per dose (financial/economic) was estimated at US$2.93/12.84 and US$2.45/5.99 in hospitals and PHCs, respectively, and at US$7.34/20.29, US$3.96/11.89 and US$24.81/28.76 in fixed, temporary and mobile outreach sites, respectively. Staff time was the biggest economic cost driver for vaccine delivery in PHCs and hospitals while per diems and staff time were the biggest economic cost drivers for vaccine delivery in the three outreach delivery channels. CONCLUSION: This study offers insights for budgeting and planning of COVID-19 vaccine delivery in South Africa's public healthcare system. It also provides input for cost-effectiveness analyses to guide future strategies for maximizing vaccination coverage in the country.


Assuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Programas de Imunização , Humanos , África do Sul/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/economia , Vacinas contra COVID-19/economia , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Programas de Imunização/economia , Programas de Imunização/organização & administração , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Cost Eff Resour Alloc ; 20(1): 69, 2022 Dec 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36510230

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is an incurable haematological malignancy that is associated with a high probability of relapse. The survival of relapsed patients has been greatly improved by the development of novel drugs such as lenalidomide and bortezomib. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of these drugs as second-line treatment for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients in the South African public health care system. METHODS: We modelled 3 treatment strategies for second-line RRMM treatment: dexamethasone (standard of care), bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX) from the South African public health perspective. For each strategy we modelled a hypothetical cohort of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients using a three-state Markov model over a 15-year time horizon. Efficacy and utilization data were obtained from the MM009/010 and APEX trials and external studies. Price and cost data were from local sources and presented in 2021 South African Rands. Outcomes were reported in quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for BORT and LEN/DEX and compared to a local cost-effectiveness threshold of R38 500 per DALY averted using the assumption that 1 DALY averted is equal to 1 QALY gained. A budget impact analysis was conducted to evaluate the financial impact of the introduction of BORT and LEN/DEX, respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainties. RESULTS: The modelled total costs of DEX, BORT and LEN/DEX were estimated to be R8 312, R234 996 and R1 135 323, respectively. DEX treatment provided 1.14 QALYs while BORT and LEN/DEX treatments provided 1.49 and 2.22 QALYs, respectively. The ICER of BORT versus DEX was R654 649 and that of LEN/DEX versus BORT was R1 225 542. Both BORT and LEN/DEX treatments were not cost-effective relative to a cost-effectiveness threshold of R38 500 per DALY averted. Both BORT and LEN/DEX significantly increase the 1 year budget-cost of RRMM treatment. CONCLUSION: Both BORT and LEN/DEX treatments are unlikely to be cost-effective strategies for second-line treatment of RRMM in South Africa. The results indicate that the drug prices of lenalidomide and bortezomib are key drivers of value for money. Price reductions could potentially make BORT more cost-effective.

3.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 653677, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34268321

RESUMO

Introduction: In the HOSENG trial (NCT03598686), the secondary distribution of oral self-tests for persons absent or refusing to test during a home-based HIV testing campaign in rural Lesotho resulted in an increase in testing coverage of 21% compared to a testing campaign without secondary distribution. This study aims to determine the per patient costs of both HOSENG trial arms. Method: We conducted a micro-costing study to estimate the cost of home-based HIV testing with (HOSENG intervention arm) and without (HOSENG control arm) secondary self-test distribution from a provider's perspective. A mixture of top-down and bottom-up costing was used. We estimated both the financial and economic per patient costs of each possible testing cascade scenario. The costs were adjusted to 2018 US$. Results: The overall provider cost for delivering the home-based HIV testing with secondary distribution was US$36,481 among the 4,174 persons enumerated and 3,094 eligible for testing in the intervention villages compared to US$28,620 for 3,642 persons enumerated and 2,727 eligible for testing in the control. The cost per person eligible for testing was US$11.79 in the intervention vs. US$10.50 in the control. This difference was mainly driven by the cost of distributed oral self-tests. The cost per person tested was, however, lower in intervention villages (US$15.70 vs. US$22.15) due to the higher testing coverage achieved through self-test distribution. The cost per person confirmed new HIV+ was US$889.79 in the intervention and US$753.17 in the control. Conclusion: During home-based HIV testing in Lesotho, the secondary distribution of self-tests for persons absent or refusing to test during the visit reduced the costs per person tested and thus presents a promising add-on for such campaigns. Trial Registration:https://ClinicalTrials.gov/, identifier: NCT03598686.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA