Costs and Outcomes of Integrated Human African Trypanosomiasis Surveillance System Using Rapid Diagnostic Tests, Democratic Republic of the Congo.

We integrated sleeping sickness case detection into the primary healthcare system in 2 health districts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We replaced a less field-friendly serologic test with a rapid diagnostic test, which was followed up by human African trypanosomiasis microscopic testing, and used a mixed costing methodology to estimate costs from a healthcare provider perspective. We screened a total of 18,225 persons and identified 27 new cases. Average financial cost (i.e., actual expenditures) was US $6.70/person screened and $4,464/case diagnosed and treated. Average economic cost (i.e., value of resources foregone that could have been used for other purposes) was $9.40/person screened and $6,138/case diagnosed and treated. Our study shows that integrating sleeping sickness surveillance into the primary healthcare system is feasible and highlights challenges in completing the diagnostic referral process and developing a context-adapted diagnostic algorithm for the large-scale implementation of this strategy in a sustainable and low-cost manner.

Cost of a new method of active screening for human African trypanosomiasis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

BACKGROUND: Human African trypanosomiases caused by the Trypanosoma brucei gambiense parasite is a lethal disease targeted for eradication. One of the main disease control strategies is active case-finding through outreach campaigns. In 2014, a new method for active screening was developed with mini, motorcycle-based, teams. This study compares the cost of two active case-finding approaches, namely the traditional mobile teams and mini mobile teams, in the two health districts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. METHODS: The financial and economic costs of both approaches were estimated from a health care provider perspective. Cost and operational data were collected for 12 months for 1 traditional team and 3 mini teams. The cost per person screened and diagnosed was calculated and univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify the main cost drivers. RESULTS: During the study period in total 264,630 people were screened, and 23 HAT cases detected. The cost per person screened was lower for a mini team than for a traditional team in the study setting (US$1.86 versus US$2.08). A comparable result was found in a scenario analysis, assuming both teams would operate in a similar setting, with the cost per person screened by a mini team 15% lower than the cost per person screened by a traditional team (1.86 $ vs 2.14$). The main explanations for this lower cost are that mini teams work with fewer human resources, cheaper means of transportation and do not perform the Capillary Tube Centrifugation test or card agglutination test dilutions. DISCUSSION: Active HAT screening with mini mobile teams has a lower cost and could be a cost-effective alternative for active case-finding. Further research is needed to determine if mini mobile teams have similar or better yields than traditional mobile teams in terms of detections and cases successfully treated.