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 NCDs 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 median cost per person screened for NCDs was $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 potentially 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 DM- and HTN screen-negative and HTN screen-positive participants. The median cost per Ag-RDT was $5.95 (IQR: $5.55-$6.25), with costs driven mainly by test kit costs. CONCLUSIONS: We show the cost of finding potentially 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.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of treatment setting for children with wasting, oedema and growth failure/faltering: A systematic review.

This systematic review aimed to address the existing evidence gaps, and guide policy decisions on the settings within which to treat infants <12 months of age with growth faltering/failure, and infants and children aged <60 months with moderate wasting or severe wasting and/or bilateral pitting oedema. Twelve electronic databases were searched for studies published before 10 December 2021. The searches yielded 16,709 records from which 31 studies were eligible and included in the review. Three studies were judged as low quality, whilst 14 were moderate and the remaining 14 were high quality. We identified very few cost and cost-effectiveness analyses for most of the models of care with the certainty of evidence being judged at very low or low. However, there were 17 cost and 6 cost-effectiveness analyses for the initiation of treatment in outpatient settings for severe wasting and/or bilateral pitting oedema in infants and children <60 months of age. From this evidence, the costs appear lowest for initiating treatment in community settings, followed by initiating treatment in community and transferring to outpatient settings, initiating treatment in outpatients then transferring to community settings, initiating treatment in outpatient settings, and lastly initiating treatment in inpatient settings. In addition, the evidence suggested that initiation of treatment in outpatient settings is highly cost-effective when compared to doing nothing or no programme implementation scenarios, using country-specific WHO GDP per capita thresholds. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $20 to $145 per DALY averted from a provider perspective, and $68 to $161 per DALY averted from a societal perspective. However, the certainty of the evidence was judged as moderate because of comparisons to do nothing/ no programme scenarios which potentially limits the applicability of the evidence in real-world settings. There is therefore a need for evidence that compare the different available alternatives.

Integration of point-of-care screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension into the COVID-19 vaccine programme in Johannesburg, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: South Africa grapples with a substantial burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), particularly type 2 diabetes (diabetes) and hypertension. However, these conditions are often underdiagnosed and poorly managed, further exacerbated by the strained primary healthcare (PHC) system and the disruptive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Integrating NCD screening with large-scale healthcare initiatives, such as COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, offers a potential solution, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We investigated the feasibility and effectiveness of this integration. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted at four government health facilities in Johannesburg, South Africa. NCD screening was incorporated into the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Participants underwent COVID-19 rapid tests, blood glucose checks, blood pressure assessments, and anthropometric measurements. Those with elevated blood glucose or blood pressure values received referrals for diagnostic confirmation at local PHC centers. RESULTS: Among 1,376 participants screened, the overall diabetes prevalence was 4.1%, combining previously diagnosed cases and newly identified elevated blood glucose levels. Similarly, the hypertension prevalence was 19.4%, comprising pre-existing diagnoses and newly detected elevated blood pressure cases. Notably, 46.1% of participants displayed waist circumferences indicative of metabolic syndrome, more prevalent among females. Impressively, 7.8% of all participants screened were potentially newly diagnosed with diabetes or hypertension. Approximately 50% of individuals with elevated blood glucose or blood pressure successfully linked to follow-up care within four weeks. CONCLUSION: Our study underscores the value of utilizing even brief healthcare interactions as opportunities for screening additional health conditions, thereby aiding the identification of previously undiagnosed cases. Integrating NCD screenings into routine healthcare visits holds promise, especially in resource-constrained settings. Nonetheless, concerted efforts to strengthen care linkage are crucial for holistic NCD management and control. These findings provide actionable insights for addressing the NCD challenge and improving healthcare delivery in LMICs.

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 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.