Cost-effectiveness of dual maternal HIV and syphilis testing strategies in high and low HIV prevalence countries: a modelling study.
Adult
Colombia
/ epidemiology
Cost-Benefit Analysis
/ economics
Female
HIV Infections
/ diagnosis
Humans
Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical
/ economics
Kenya
/ epidemiology
Markov Chains
Models, Theoretical
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Complications, Infectious
/ diagnosis
Prenatal Diagnosis
/ economics
Prevalence
South Africa
/ epidemiology
Syphilis
/ diagnosis
Ukraine
/ epidemiology
Journal
The Lancet. Global health
ISSN: 2214-109X
Titre abrégé: Lancet Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101613665
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
27
04
2020
revised:
24
08
2020
accepted:
02
09
2020
pubmed:
24
11
2020
medline:
28
1
2021
entrez:
23
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Dual HIV and syphilis testing might help to prevent mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV and syphilis through increased case detection and treatment. We aimed to model and assess the cost-effectiveness of dual testing during antenatal care in four countries with varying HIV and syphilis prevalence. In this modelling study, we developed Markov models of HIV and syphilis in pregnant women to estimate costs and infant health outcomes of maternal testing at the first antenatal care visit with individual HIV and syphilis tests (base case) and at the first antenatal care visit with a dual rapid diagnostic test (scenario one). We additionally evaluated retesting during late antenatal care and at delivery with either individual tests (scenario two) or a dual rapid diagnosis test (scenario three). We modelled four countries: South Africa, Kenya, Colombia, and Ukraine. Strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the country-specific cost-effectiveness threshold (US$500 in Kenya, $750 in South Africa, $3000 in Colombia, and $1000 in Ukraine) per disability-adjusted life-year averted were considered cost-effective. Routinely offering testing at the first antenatal care visit with a dual rapid diagnosis test was cost-saving compared with the base case in all four countries (ICER: -$26 in Kenya,-$559 in South Africa, -$844 in Colombia, and -$454 in Ukraine). Retesting during late antenatal care with a dual rapid diagnostic test (scenario three) was cost-effective compared with scenario one in all four countries (ICER: $270 in Kenya, $260 in South Africa, $2207 in Colombia, and $205 in Ukraine). Incorporating dual rapid diagnostic tests in antenatal care can be cost-saving across countries with varying HIV prevalence. Countries should consider incorporating dual HIV and syphilis rapid diagnostic tests as the first test in antenatal care to support efforts to eliminate MTCT of HIV and syphilis. WHO, US Agency for International Development, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Dual HIV and syphilis testing might help to prevent mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV and syphilis through increased case detection and treatment. We aimed to model and assess the cost-effectiveness of dual testing during antenatal care in four countries with varying HIV and syphilis prevalence.
METHODS
In this modelling study, we developed Markov models of HIV and syphilis in pregnant women to estimate costs and infant health outcomes of maternal testing at the first antenatal care visit with individual HIV and syphilis tests (base case) and at the first antenatal care visit with a dual rapid diagnostic test (scenario one). We additionally evaluated retesting during late antenatal care and at delivery with either individual tests (scenario two) or a dual rapid diagnosis test (scenario three). We modelled four countries: South Africa, Kenya, Colombia, and Ukraine. Strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the country-specific cost-effectiveness threshold (US$500 in Kenya, $750 in South Africa, $3000 in Colombia, and $1000 in Ukraine) per disability-adjusted life-year averted were considered cost-effective.
FINDINGS
Routinely offering testing at the first antenatal care visit with a dual rapid diagnosis test was cost-saving compared with the base case in all four countries (ICER: -$26 in Kenya,-$559 in South Africa, -$844 in Colombia, and -$454 in Ukraine). Retesting during late antenatal care with a dual rapid diagnostic test (scenario three) was cost-effective compared with scenario one in all four countries (ICER: $270 in Kenya, $260 in South Africa, $2207 in Colombia, and $205 in Ukraine).
INTERPRETATION
Incorporating dual rapid diagnostic tests in antenatal care can be cost-saving across countries with varying HIV prevalence. Countries should consider incorporating dual HIV and syphilis rapid diagnostic tests as the first test in antenatal care to support efforts to eliminate MTCT of HIV and syphilis.
FUNDING
WHO, US Agency for International Development, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33227254
pii: S2214-109X(20)30395-8
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30395-8
pmc: PMC7783487
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e61-e71Subventions
Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : T32 HS013853
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : K01 MH115789
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : T32 ES015459
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : K01 AI116298
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : P30 AI027757
Pays : United States
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021 This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.
Références
Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2129-43
pubmed: 23245605
Lancet HIV. 2018 Mar;5(3):e146-e154
pubmed: 29174084
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 27;14(2):e0211720
pubmed: 30811406
Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Sep;126(3):479-485
pubmed: 26244531
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Sep;132(3):699-707
pubmed: 30095767
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1998 Dec;63(3):247-52
pubmed: 9989893
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 Mar;34(3):e52-7
pubmed: 25742089
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 26;12(10):e0186496
pubmed: 29073167
Value Health. 2016 Dec;19(8):929-935
pubmed: 27987642
J Int AIDS Soc. 2019 Apr;22(4):e25271
pubmed: 30958644
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 28;9(1):e86584
pubmed: 24489747
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015 Jun;130 Suppl 1:S43-50
pubmed: 26054252
J Int AIDS Soc. 2016 Dec 14;19(1):21212
pubmed: 27978939
Sex Transm Dis. 2001 Jun;28(6):315-20
pubmed: 11403187
Sex Transm Infect. 2016 Aug;92(5):340-6
pubmed: 26920867
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001 Spring;17(2):236-43
pubmed: 11446135
AIDS. 2006 Sep 11;20(14):1869-77
pubmed: 16954728
Sex Transm Infect. 2017 Dec;93(S4):S3-S15
pubmed: 28747410