A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness of Treating Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Implications for Resource-limited Health Systems.

Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a prevalent condition with high mortality and poor outcomes even in settings where extensive emergency care resources are available. Interventions to address OHCA have had limited success, with survival rates below 10% in national samples of high-income countries. In resource-limited settings, where scarcity requires careful priority setting, more data is needed to determine the optimal allocation of resources. Objective: To establish the cost-effectiveness of OHCA care and assess the affordability of interventions across income settings. Methods: The authors conducted a systematic review of economic evaluations on interventions to address OHCA. Included studies were (1) economic evaluations (beyond a simple costing exercise); and (2) assessed an intervention in the chain of survival for OHCA. Article quality was assessed using the CHEERs checklist and data summarised. Findings were reported by major themes identified by the reviewers. Based upon the results of the cost-effectiveness analyses we then conduct an analysis for the progressive realization of the OHCA chain of survival from the perspective of decision-makers facing resource constraints. Results: 468 unique articles were screened, and 46 articles were included for final data abstraction. Studies predominantly used a healthcare sector perspective, modeled for all patients experiencing non-traumatic cardiac OHCA, were based in the US, and presented results in US Dollars. No studies reported results or used model inputs from low-income settings. Progressive realization of the chain of survival could likely begin with investments in TOR protocols, professional prehospital defibrillator use, and CPR training followed by distribution of AEDs in high-density public locations. Finally, other interventions such as indiscriminate defibrillator placement or adrenaline use, would be the lowest priority for early investment. Conclusion: Our review found no high-quality evidence on the cost-effectiveness of treating OHCA in low-resource settings. Existing evidence can be utilized to develop a roadmap for the development of a cost-effective approach to OHCA care, however further economic evaluations using context-specific data are crucial to accurately inform prioritization of scarce resources within emergency care in these settings.

Building a framework to decolonize global emergency medicine.

Background: Global emergency medicine (GEM) is situated at the intersection of global health and emergency medicine (EM), which is built upon a history of colonial systems and institutions that continue to reinforce inequities between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) today. These power imbalances yield disparities in GEM practice, research, and education. Approach: The Global Emergency Medicine Academy (GEMA) of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine formed the Decolonizing GEM Working Group in 2020, which now includes over 100 worldwide members. The mission is to address colonial legacies in GEM and catalyze sustainable changes and recommendations toward decolonization at individual and institutional levels. To develop recommendations to decolonize GEM, the group conducted a nonsystematic review of existing literature on decolonizing global health, followed by in-depth discussions between academics from LMICs and HICs to explore implications and challenges specific to GEM. We then synthesized actionable solutions to provide recommendations on decolonizing GEM. Results: Despite the rapidly expanding body of literature on decolonizing global health, there is little guidance specific to the relatively new field of GEM. By applying decolonizing principles to GEM, we suggest key priorities for improving equity in academic GEM: (1) reframing partnerships to place LMIC academics in positions of expertise and power, (2) redirecting research funding toward LMIC-driven projects and investigators, (3) creating more equitable practices in establishing authorship, and (4) upholding principles of decolonization in the education of EM trainees from LMICs and HICs. Conclusions: Understanding the colonial roots of GEM will allow us to look more critically at current health disparities and identify inequitable institutionalized practices within our profession that continue to uphold these misguided concepts. A decolonized future of GEM depends on our recognition and rectification of colonial-era practices that shape structural determinants of health care delivery and scientific advancement.

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of emergency interventions for stroke in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability globally, with an increasing incidence in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The successful treatment of acute stroke requires an organized, efficient and well-resourced emergency care system. However, debate exists surrounding the prioritization of stroke treatment programs given the high costs of treatment and the increased incidence of hemorrhagic stroke in LMICs. Economic data is helpful to guide evidence-based priority setting in health systems development, particularly in low-resource settings where scarcity requires careful stewardship of resources. This systematic review surveys the existing evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of interventions to address acute stroke in LMIC settings. METHODS: The authors conducted a PRISMA style systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions to address acute stroke in LMICs. Five databases were systematically searched for articles, which were then reviewed for inclusion. RESULTS: Of the 153 unique articles identified, 11 met the inclusion criteria. Four studies demonstrate the heavy economic burden on patients and households due to stroke. Two studies estimate that preventive measures are more cost-effective than acute treatments. Four studies directly examine the cost-effectiveness of thrombolysis and thrombectomy in three middle-income countries (Iran, China, and Brazil) with results ranging from roughly $2578 to $34,052 (2019 USD) per quality adjusted life-year saved. These results are similar to the cost-effectiveness ratios estimated in high-income settings. Finally, one study examined a care bundle that included acute treatment elements. CONCLUSIONS: The findings reinforce the need for additional research support informed decision-making. The available evidence suggests that preventive measures should be prioritized over emergency treatment for acute stroke, particularly in settings of resource scarcity. Cost-effectiveness ratios do not compare favorably to estimates for other emergency care interventions in LMICs, such as basic emergency care training, implementation of triage systems, and basic trauma care. Cost-effectiveness is also likely to vary depending on local epidemiology. Overall, decision-makers should balance the economic evidence alongside social, political and cultural priorities when making resource allocation choices.

Cost-effectiveness and return on investment of protecting health workers in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In this paper, we predict the health and economic consequences of immediate investment in personal protective equipment (PPE) for health care workers (HCWs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: To account for health consequences, we estimated mortality for HCWs and present a cost-effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) analysis using a decision-analytic model with Bayesian multivariate sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation. Data sources included inputs from the World Health Organization Essential Supplies Forecasting Tool and the Imperial College of London epidemiologic model. RESULTS: An investment of $9.6 billion USD would adequately protect HCWs in all LMICs. This intervention would save 2,299,543 lives across LMICs, costing $59 USD per HCW case averted and $4,309 USD per HCW life saved. The societal ROI would be $755.3 billion USD, the equivalent of a 7,932% return. Regional and national estimates are also presented. DISCUSSION: In scenarios where PPE remains scarce, 70-100% of HCWs will get infected, irrespective of nationwide social distancing policies. Maintaining HCW infection rates below 10% and mortality below 1% requires inclusion of a PPE scale-up strategy as part of the pandemic response. In conclusion, wide-scale procurement and distribution of PPE for LMICs is an essential strategy to prevent widespread HCW morbidity and mortality. It is cost-effective and yields a large downstream return on investment.

Economic evaluation of facility-based HIV self-testing among adult outpatients in Malawi.

INTRODUCTION: HIV self-testing (HIVST) in outpatient departments (OPD) is a promising strategy for HIV testing in Malawi, given high OPD patient volumes and substantial wait times. To evaluate the relative cost and expected impact of facility-based HIVST (FB-HIVST) at OPDs in Malawi for increasing HIV status awareness, we conducted an economic evaluation of an HIVST cluster-randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A cluster-randomized trial was conducted at 15 sites in Malawi from September 2017 to February 2018 with three arms: 1) Standard provider-initiated-testing-and-counselling (PITC); 2) Optimized PITC (additional provider training and job-aids) and 3) FB-HIVST (HIVST demonstration, distribution and kit use in OPD, private kit interpretation and optional HIV counselling). The total production cost per newly identified positive and per person newly initiated on ART were calculated by study arm. These were calculated as the total cost of testing everyone divided by the number of newly identified positives; and the total cost of testing everyone divided by the number of those initiated on ART. Cost-outcomes were calculated under three cost scenarios: (1) full study costs, (2) routine implementation costs and (3) routine implementation + reduced cost for HIVST kits. RESULTS: The average cost per person newly diagnosed in the full study cost scenario was $101, $156 and $189, and cost per person initiated on ART was $121, $156 and $279 for Standard PITC, Optimized PITC and FB-HIVST respectively. In the routine implementation cost scenario, the average cost per person newly diagnosed was reduced to $83, and $93, and cost per person initiated on ART to $83, and $137 for Optimized PITC and FB-HIVST respectively. In the negotiated HIVST cost scenario, the average cost per person newly diagnosed was reduced to $55 and cost per person newly initiated on ART reduced to $81 in the FB-HIVST arm. CONCLUSIONS: While the cost per new ART initiation through FB-HIVST was higher than Standard PITC, FB-HIVST could become cost-saving compared to PITC if the cost of kits is reduced or if treatment linkage rate were increased in the FB-HIVST arm. For high volume OPDs, HIVST may increase facility capacity and increase the number of newly diagnosed positives.

Acceptability of index partner HIV self-testing among HIV-positive clients in Malawi: A mixed methods analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate whether HIV-positive adults in Malawi were willing to distribute HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits to their sexual partners of unknown HIV status (index HIVST). DESIGN: A mixed-methods study was nested within a larger HIVST trial conducted at 15 health facilities in Malawi. Exit surveys were conducted with HIV-positive adults during routine outpatient department visits to assess perceived acceptability of index partner HIVST versus standard partner referral slips that request partner(s) to attend the health facility. Individuals were included in the sub-analysis irrespective of date of HIV diagnosis or ART initiation (or non-initiation). In-depth interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of respondents. RESULTS: 404 HIV-positive adults completed a survey (159 male and 245 female); 21 completed in-depth interviews. Respondents reported feeling more comfortable distributing HIVST versus partner referral slips to their partners (90% vs. 81%) and expressed confidence that their partners would test using HIVST compared to referral slips (77% vs. 66%). Acceptability of HIVST did not vary by sex. Qualitative data revealed that index HIVST was perceived to be private, convenient, and may strengthen relationships by assisting in serostatus disclosure. There were minimal fears of adverse events. Reported barriers to index HIVST included lack of trust within the relationship and harmful gender norms. CONCLUSIONS: HIV-positive clients were willing to distribute HIVST kits to their sexual partners of unknown serostatus. Additional studies are needed to evaluate use of HIVST by index partners, positivity, linkage to care, and adverse events related to index partner HIVST, such as coercion to test among index partners or interpersonal violence among index clients.

Effect of facility-based HIV self-testing on uptake of testing among outpatients in Malawi: a cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: HIV self-testing increases testing uptake in sub-Saharan Africa but scale-up is challenging because of resource constraints. We evaluated an HIV self-testing intervention integrated into high-burden outpatient departments in Malawi. METHODS: In this cluster-randomised trial, we recruited participants aged 15 years or older from 15 outpatient departments at high-burden health facilities (including health centres, mission hospitals, and district hospitals) in central and southern Malawi. The trial was clustered at the health facility level. We used constrained randomisation to allocate each cluster (1:1:1) to one of the following groups: standard provider-initiated testing and counselling with no intervention (provider offered during consultations), optimised provider-initiated testing and counselling (with additional provider training and morning HIV testing), and facility-based HIV self-testing (Oraquick HIV self-test, group demonstration and distribution, and private spaces for interpretation and counselling). The primary outcome was the proportion of outpatients tested for HIV on the day of enrolment, measured through exit surveys with a sample of outpatients. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03271307, and Pan African Clinical Trials, PACTR201711002697316. FINDINGS: Between Sept 12, 2017, and Feb 23, 2018, 5885 outpatients completed an exit survey-2097 in the HIV self-testing group, 1951 in the standard provider-initiated testing and counselling group, and 1837 in the optimised provider-initiated testing and counselling group. 1063 (51%) of 2097 patients in the HIV self-testing group had HIV testing on the same day as enrolment, compared with 248 (13%) of 1951 in the standard provider-initiated testing and counselling group and 261 (14%) of 1837 in the optimised provider-initiated testing and counselling group. The odds of same-day HIV testing were significantly higher in the facility-based HIV self-testing group compared with either standard provider-initiated testing and counselling (adjusted odds ratio 8·52, 95% CI 3·98-18·24) or optimised provider-initiated testing and counselling (6·29, 2·96-13·38). Around 4% of those tested in the standard provider-initiated testing and counselling and optimised provider-initiated testing and counselling groups felt coerced to test, and around 1% felt coerced to share test results. No coercion was reported in the facility-based HIV self-testing group. INTERPRETATION: Facility-based HIV self-testing increased HIV testing among outpatients in Malawi, with a minimal risk of adverse events. Facility-based HIV self-testing should be considered for scale-up in settings with a high unmet need for HIV testing. FUNDING: United States Agency for International Development.

Evaluating the integration of HIV self-testing into low-resource health systems: study protocol for a cluster-randomized control trial from EQUIP Innovations.

BACKGROUND: Throughout sub-Saharan Africa HIV-testing rates remain low. Barriers to testing, such as inconvenient service hours and long wait times, lack of privacy, and fear of unwanted disclosure, continue to impede service utilization. HIV self-testing (HIVST) is one strategy that addresses these barriers and has been shown to increase use of HIV-testing when distributed through community-based settings. However, the scalability of HIVST is limited because it has yet to be fully integrated into existing health systems and routine care. To address this gap, we designed a study to test the effect of offering HIVST to routine outpatient department (OPD) clients on uptake of HIV-testing as compared to standard of care and optimized standard of care. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a non-blinded, multi-site, cluster-randomized control trial. The health facility is the unit of randomization (cluster). Fifteen facilities were randomized to one of three arms: (1) Standard of care using routine provider-initiated testing and counseling (PITC); (2) Optimized standard of care using optimized PITC defined by additional training, job aids, and monitoring of PITC strategies with OPD providers and support staff; and (3) HIVST defined by HIVST demonstrations for OPD clients, HIVST kit distribution, and private spaces for HIVST kit use and/or interpretation. The primary outcome is the proportion of OPD clients tested for HIV on the day that they accessed OPD services. Secondary outcome measures are the proportion of OPD clients newly identified as HIV-positive and antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation. Costs and cost-effectiveness will be evaluated. Nested studies will determine the acceptability of facility-based HIVST among OPD clients and health care providers, the presence of adverse events, such as coercion to test or unwanted status disclosure, and a process evaluation to determine feasibility and scale-up of facility-based HIVST for the future. DISCUSSION: This study protocol tests whether facility-based HIVST can positively contribute to HIV-testing among OPD clients in resource-limited settings. This will be one of the first studies to test the integration of HIVST into facility-based, primary health services in sub-Saharan Africa. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03271307 . Registered on 31 August 2017. Pan African Clinical Trials: PACTR201711002697316 . Registered on 1 November 2017.