Informing a target product profile for rapid tests to identify HBV-infected pregnant women with high viral loads: a discrete choice experiment with African healthcare workers.
Africa
Discrete choice experiment
Elimination
Hepatitis B
Mother-to-child transmission
Preferences
Rapid diagnostic test
Target product profile
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 07 2023
04 07 2023
Historique:
received:
06
01
2023
accepted:
13
06
2023
medline:
6
7
2023
pubmed:
5
7
2023
entrez:
4
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Elimination of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus (HBV) requires infant immunoprophylaxis and antiviral prophylaxis for pregnant women with high viral loads. Since real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), a gold standard for assessing antiviral eligibility, is neither accessible nor affordable for women living in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) detecting alternative HBV markers may be needed. To inform future development of the target product profile (TPP) for RDTs to identify highly viremic women, we used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and elicited preference and trade-off of healthcare workers (HCW) in Africa between the following four attributes of fictional RDTs: price, time-to-result, diagnostic sensitivity, and specificity. Through an online questionnaire survey, we asked participants to indicate their preferred test from a set of two RDTs in seven choice tasks with varying levels of the four attributes. We used mixed multinomial logit models to quantify the utility gain or loss generated by each attribute. We attempted to define minimal and optimal criteria for test attributes that can satisfy ≥ 70% and ≥ 90% of HCWs, respectively, as an alternative to RT-PCR. A total of 555 HCWs from 41 African countries participated. Increases in sensitivity and specificity generated significant utility and increases in cost and time-to-result generated significant disutility. The size of the coefficients for the highest attribute levels relative to the reference levels were in the following order: sensitivity (β = 3.749), cost (β = -2.550), specificity (β = 1.134), and time-to-result (β = -0.284). Doctors cared most about test sensitivity, while public health practitioners cared about cost and midwives about time-to-result. For an RDT with 95% specificity, costing 1 US$, and yielding results in 20 min, the minimally acceptable test sensitivity would be 82.5% and the optimally acceptable sensitivity would be 87.5%. African HCWs would prefer an RDT with the following order of priority: higher sensitivity, lower cost, higher specificity, and shorter time-to-result. The development and optimization of RDTs that can meet the criteria are urgently needed to scale up the prevention of HBV mother-to-child transmission in LMICs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Elimination of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus (HBV) requires infant immunoprophylaxis and antiviral prophylaxis for pregnant women with high viral loads. Since real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), a gold standard for assessing antiviral eligibility, is neither accessible nor affordable for women living in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) detecting alternative HBV markers may be needed. To inform future development of the target product profile (TPP) for RDTs to identify highly viremic women, we used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and elicited preference and trade-off of healthcare workers (HCW) in Africa between the following four attributes of fictional RDTs: price, time-to-result, diagnostic sensitivity, and specificity.
METHODS
Through an online questionnaire survey, we asked participants to indicate their preferred test from a set of two RDTs in seven choice tasks with varying levels of the four attributes. We used mixed multinomial logit models to quantify the utility gain or loss generated by each attribute. We attempted to define minimal and optimal criteria for test attributes that can satisfy ≥ 70% and ≥ 90% of HCWs, respectively, as an alternative to RT-PCR.
RESULTS
A total of 555 HCWs from 41 African countries participated. Increases in sensitivity and specificity generated significant utility and increases in cost and time-to-result generated significant disutility. The size of the coefficients for the highest attribute levels relative to the reference levels were in the following order: sensitivity (β = 3.749), cost (β = -2.550), specificity (β = 1.134), and time-to-result (β = -0.284). Doctors cared most about test sensitivity, while public health practitioners cared about cost and midwives about time-to-result. For an RDT with 95% specificity, costing 1 US$, and yielding results in 20 min, the minimally acceptable test sensitivity would be 82.5% and the optimally acceptable sensitivity would be 87.5%.
CONCLUSIONS
African HCWs would prefer an RDT with the following order of priority: higher sensitivity, lower cost, higher specificity, and shorter time-to-result. The development and optimization of RDTs that can meet the criteria are urgently needed to scale up the prevention of HBV mother-to-child transmission in LMICs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37403107
doi: 10.1186/s12916-023-02939-y
pii: 10.1186/s12916-023-02939-y
pmc: PMC10320875
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antiviral Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
243Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 110110/Z/15/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Health Policy Plan. 2009 Mar;24(2):151-8
pubmed: 19112071
BMJ. 2004 Feb 14;328(7436):360-1
pubmed: 14962852
Eur J Hum Genet. 2016 Jul;24(7):968-75
pubmed: 26577044
Lancet Infect Dis. 2022 Aug;22(8):1181-1190
pubmed: 35643089
Health Econ. 2002 Oct;11(7):655-8
pubmed: 12369067
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Sep;7(9):796-829
pubmed: 35738290
BMC Med. 2020 May 11;18(1):119
pubmed: 32389127
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Apr 21;16:45
pubmed: 27098746
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018 Aug;99(2):428-434
pubmed: 29869595
BMC Infect Dis. 2021 May 27;21(1):487
pubmed: 34044776
BMJ Open. 2015 Jul 28;5(7):e008155
pubmed: 26220870
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Nov 1;17(Suppl 1):707
pubmed: 29143620
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Dec;2(12):900-909
pubmed: 29132759
Proc Biol Sci. 1993 Aug 23;253(1337):197-201
pubmed: 8397416
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Jan;21(1):85-96
pubmed: 32805201
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 19;8(7):e69430
pubmed: 23894479
J Clin Med. 2014 Feb 14;3(1):176-90
pubmed: 26237256
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Jul;21(7):1943-1946.e2
pubmed: 35697265
Lancet Glob Health. 2022 Apr;10(4):e521-e529
pubmed: 35183302
Singapore Med J. 2017 Jun;58(6):298-310
pubmed: 27357315
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Sep;7(9):e1180-e1188
pubmed: 31353061
Bull World Health Organ. 2022 Apr 1;100(4):256-267
pubmed: 35386558
Hepatology. 2016 Nov;64(5):1451-1461
pubmed: 27044007
J Clin Virol. 2018 Dec;109:29-34
pubmed: 30388664
Health Econ. 2009 Mar;18(3):321-36
pubmed: 18651601
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Jan;19(1):46-60.e8
pubmed: 32360825
Prenat Diagn. 2015 Jun;35(6):549-57
pubmed: 25644120