Costing and cost-effectiveness of Cepheid Xpert HIV -1 Qual Assay using whole blood protocol versus PCR by Abbott Systems in Malawi.
Cepheid
HIV
Malawi
TAT
Xpert
cost
Journal
Journal of global health economics and policy
ISSN: 2806-6073
Titre abrégé: J Glob Health Econ Policy
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 9918284149406676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
medline:
1
1
2022
pubmed:
1
1
2022
entrez:
15
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Timely diagnosis of HIV in infants and children is an urgent priority. In Malawi, 40,000 infants annually are HIV exposed. However, gold standard polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) based testing requires centralised laboratories, causing turn-around times (TAT) of 2 to 3 months and significant loss to follow-up. If feasible and acceptable, minimising diagnostic delays through HIV Point-of-care-testing (POCT) may be cost-effective. We assessed whether POCT Cepheid Xpert HIV-1 Qual assay whole blood (XpertHIV) was more cost-effective than PCR. From July-August 2018, 700 PCR Abbott tests using dried blood spots (DBS) were performed on 680 participants who enrolled on the feasibility, acceptability and performance of the XpertHIV study. Newly identified HIV-positive We conducted a cost-minimisation and cost-effectiveness analysis of XpertHIV against PCR, as the standard of care. A random sample of 200 caregivers from the 680 participants had semi-structured interviews to explore costs from a societal perspective of XpertHIV at Mulanje District Hospital, Malawi. Analysis used TAT as the primary outcome measure. Results were extrapolated from the study period (29 days) to a year (240 working days). Sensitivity analyses characterised individual and joint parameter uncertainty and estimated patient cost per test. During the study period, XpertHIV was cost-minimising at $42.34 per test compared to $66.66 for PCR. Over a year, XpertHIV remained cost-minimising at $16.12 compared to PCR at $27.06. From the patient perspective (travel, food, lost productivity), the cost per test of XpertHIV was $2.45. XpertHIV had a mean TAT of 7.10 hours compared to 153.15 hours for PCR. Extrapolates accounting for equipment costs, lab consumables and losses to follow up estimated annual savings of $2,193,538.88 if XpertHIV is used nationally, as opposed to PCR. This preliminary evidence suggests that adopting POCT XpertHIV will save time, allowing HIV-exposed infants to receive prompt care and may improve outcomes. The Malawi government will pay less due to XpertHIV's cost savings and associated benefits.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Timely diagnosis of HIV in infants and children is an urgent priority. In Malawi, 40,000 infants annually are HIV exposed. However, gold standard polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) based testing requires centralised laboratories, causing turn-around times (TAT) of 2 to 3 months and significant loss to follow-up. If feasible and acceptable, minimising diagnostic delays through HIV Point-of-care-testing (POCT) may be cost-effective. We assessed whether POCT Cepheid Xpert HIV-1 Qual assay whole blood (XpertHIV) was more cost-effective than PCR.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
From July-August 2018, 700 PCR Abbott tests using dried blood spots (DBS) were performed on 680 participants who enrolled on the feasibility, acceptability and performance of the XpertHIV study. Newly identified HIV-positive We conducted a cost-minimisation and cost-effectiveness analysis of XpertHIV against PCR, as the standard of care. A random sample of 200 caregivers from the 680 participants had semi-structured interviews to explore costs from a societal perspective of XpertHIV at Mulanje District Hospital, Malawi. Analysis used TAT as the primary outcome measure. Results were extrapolated from the study period (29 days) to a year (240 working days). Sensitivity analyses characterised individual and joint parameter uncertainty and estimated patient cost per test.
Results
UNASSIGNED
During the study period, XpertHIV was cost-minimising at $42.34 per test compared to $66.66 for PCR. Over a year, XpertHIV remained cost-minimising at $16.12 compared to PCR at $27.06. From the patient perspective (travel, food, lost productivity), the cost per test of XpertHIV was $2.45. XpertHIV had a mean TAT of 7.10 hours compared to 153.15 hours for PCR. Extrapolates accounting for equipment costs, lab consumables and losses to follow up estimated annual savings of $2,193,538.88 if XpertHIV is used nationally, as opposed to PCR.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
This preliminary evidence suggests that adopting POCT XpertHIV will save time, allowing HIV-exposed infants to receive prompt care and may improve outcomes. The Malawi government will pay less due to XpertHIV's cost savings and associated benefits.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37711180
doi: 10.52872/001c.37787
pmc: PMC10501532
mid: NIHMS1866209
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : FIC NIH HHS
ID : D43 TW010060
Pays : United States
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/P020526/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Arch Dis Child. 2015 Feb;100 Suppl 1:S48-52
pubmed: 25613968
Medicina (Kaunas). 2018 Mar 13;54(1):
pubmed: 30344234
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(4):269-80
pubmed: 18370563
Lancet HIV. 2019 Mar;6(3):e182-e190
pubmed: 30737187
N Engl J Med. 2008 Nov 20;359(21):2233-44
pubmed: 19020325
J Clin Microbiol. 2001 Apr;39(4):1303-10
pubmed: 11283046
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2012 Mar;31(3):267-72
pubmed: 22031486
Lancet HIV. 2019 Jun;6(6):e373-e381
pubmed: 30987937
J Clin Virol. 2008 Nov;43(3):313-6
pubmed: 18774333
J Infect Dis. 2016 Nov 1;214(9):1319-1328
pubmed: 27540110
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2017 Apr;36(4):405-411
pubmed: 27798549
EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Nov 04;28:100607
pubmed: 33294817
J Virus Erad. 2018 Nov 15;4(Suppl 2):1-4
pubmed: 30515307
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003 Dec 15;34(5):512-9
pubmed: 14657763
Eur Respir J. 2013 Sep;42(3):708-20
pubmed: 23258774
Afr J Lab Med. 2017 Mar 31;6(2):464
pubmed: 28879160
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Mar 19;68(7):1176-1183
pubmed: 30059995