TY - JOUR
T1 - Costing and cost-effectiveness of Cepheid Xpert HIV -1 Qual Assay using whole blood protocol versus PCR by Abbott Systems in Malawi
AU - Nyirenda-Nyang'wa, Maggie
AU - Manthalu, Gerald
AU - Arnold, Matthias
AU - Nkhoma, Dominic
AU - Hosseinipour, Mina C.
AU - Chagomerana, Maganizo
AU - Chibwe, Precious
AU - Mortimer, Kevin
AU - Kennedy, Neil
AU - Fairley, Derek
AU - Mwapasa, Victor
AU - Msefula, Chisomo
AU - Mwandumba, Henry
AU - Chinkhumba, Jobiba
AU - Klein, Nigel
AU - Alber, Dagmar
AU - Obasi, Angela
PY - 2022/8/28
Y1 - 2022/8/28
N2 - Background 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 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 DBS from the 680 participants were retested, so with confirmatory testing of the HIV-positive cases, 700 tests were performed. 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 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 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.
AB - Background 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 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 DBS from the 680 participants were retested, so with confirmatory testing of the HIV-positive cases, 700 tests were performed. 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 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 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.
U2 - 10.52872/001c.37787
DO - 10.52872/001c.37787
M3 - Article
SN - 2806-6073
SP - e2022013
JO - Journal of Global Health Economics and Policy
JF - Journal of Global Health Economics and Policy
ER -
