An objective comparison of the cost effectiveness of three testing methods

Abstract Background HIV viral load (VL) monitoring informs antiretroviral therapy failure and helps to guide regimen changes. Typically, VL monitoring is performed using dried blood spot (DBS) samples transported and tested in a centralized laboratory. Novel sample collection technologies based on dried plasma stored on a plasma separation card (PSC) have become available. The cost-effectiveness of these different testing approaches to monitor VL is uncertain, especially in resource-limited settings. The objective of this study is to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of HIV VL testing approaches with PSC samples compared to DBS samples in Malawi. Methods We developed a decision-tree model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two different sample collection and testing methods—DBS and PSC samples transported and tested at central laboratories. The analysis used data from the published literature and was performed from the Malawi Ministry of Health perspective. We estimated costs of sample collection, transportation, and testing. The primary clinical outcome was test accuracy (proportion of patients correctly classified with or without treatment failure). Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of results. Results The estimated test accuracy for a DBS testing approach was 87.5% compared to 97.4% for an approach with PSC. The estimated total cost per patient of a DBS testing approach was $19.39 compared to $17.73 for a PSC approach. Based on this, a PSC-based testing approach “dominates” a DBS-based testing approach (i.e., lower cost and higher accuracy). Conclusion The base-case analysis shows that a testing approach using PSC sample is less costly and more accurate (correctly classifies more patients with or without treatment failure) than with a DBS approach. Our study suggests that a PSC testing approach is likely an optimal strategy for routine HIV VL monitoring in Malawi. However, given the limited data regarding sample viability, additional real-world data are needed to validate the results.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of facility-based, stand-alone and mobile-based voluntary counseling and testing for HIV in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation ◽

10.1186/s12962-020-00231-x ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 18 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Amanuel Yigezu ◽

Senait Alemayehu ◽

Shallo Daba Hamusse ◽

Getachew Teshome Ergeta ◽

Damen Hailemariam ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Addis Ababa ◽

Unit Cost ◽

Hiv Positive ◽

Testing Methods ◽

Voluntary Counseling ◽

Voluntary Counseling And Testing ◽

Counseling And Testing ◽

The Cost ◽

Hiv Seropositive

Abstract Background Globally, there is a consensus to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic by 2030, and one of the strategies to achieve this target is that 90% of people living with HIV should know their HIV status. Even if there is strong evidence of clients’ preference for testing in the community, HIV voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) continue to be undertaken predominantly in health facilities. Hence, empirical cost-effectiveness evidence about different HIV counseling and testing models is essential to inform whether such community-based testing are justifiable compared with additional resources required. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of facility-based, stand-alone and mobile-based HIV voluntary counseling and testing methods in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Methods Annual economic costs of counseling and testing methods were collected from the providers’ perspective from July 2016 to June 2017. Ingredients based bottom-up costing approach was applied. The effectiveness of the interventions was measured in terms of the number of HIV seropositive clients identified. Decision tree modeling was built using TreeAge Pro 2018 software, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying HIV positivity rate, costs, and probabilities. Results The cost of test per client for facility-based, stand-alone and mobile-based VCT was $5.06, $6.55 and $3.35, respectively. The unit costs of test per HIV seropositive client for the corresponding models were $158.82, $150.97 and $135.82, respectively. Of the three models, stand-alone-based VCT was extendedly dominated. Mobile-based VCT costs, an additional cost of USD 239 for every HIV positive client identified when compared to facility-based VCT. Conclusion Using a mobile-based VCT approach costs less than both the facility-based and stand-alone approaches, in terms of both unit cost per tested individual and unit cost per HIV seropositive cases identified. The stand-alone VCT approach was not cost-effective compared to facility-based and mobile-based VCT. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for mobile-based VCT compared with facility-based VCT was USD 239 per HIV positive case.

Download Full-text