Maggie Nyirenda-Nyang'wa, Gerald Manthalu, Matthias Arnold, Dominic Nkhoma, Mina C Hosseinipour, Maganizo Chagomerana, Precious Chibwe, Kevin Mortimer, Neil Kennedy, Derek Fairley, Victor Mwapasa, Chisomo Msefula, Henry C Mwandumba, Jobiba Chinkhumba, Nigel Klein, Dagmar Alber, Angela Obasi
{"title":"马拉维采用全血方案的 Cepheid Xpert HIV -1 Qual 检测法与雅培系统的 PCR 检测法的成本计算和成本效益比较。","authors":"Maggie Nyirenda-Nyang'wa, Gerald Manthalu, Matthias Arnold, Dominic Nkhoma, Mina C Hosseinipour, Maganizo Chagomerana, Precious Chibwe, Kevin Mortimer, Neil Kennedy, Derek Fairley, Victor Mwapasa, Chisomo Msefula, Henry C Mwandumba, Jobiba Chinkhumba, Nigel Klein, Dagmar Alber, Angela Obasi","doi":"10.52872/001c.37787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73758,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health economics and policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10501532/pdf/nihms-1866209.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Costing and cost-effectiveness of Cepheid Xpert HIV -1 Qual Assay using whole blood protocol versus PCR by Abbott Systems in Malawi.\",\"authors\":\"Maggie Nyirenda-Nyang'wa, Gerald Manthalu, Matthias Arnold, Dominic Nkhoma, Mina C Hosseinipour, Maganizo Chagomerana, Precious Chibwe, Kevin Mortimer, Neil Kennedy, Derek Fairley, Victor Mwapasa, Chisomo Msefula, Henry C Mwandumba, Jobiba Chinkhumba, Nigel Klein, Dagmar Alber, Angela Obasi\",\"doi\":\"10.52872/001c.37787\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73758,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of global health economics and policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10501532/pdf/nihms-1866209.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of global health economics and policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52872/001c.37787\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/8/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of global health economics and policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52872/001c.37787","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Costing and cost-effectiveness of Cepheid Xpert HIV -1 Qual Assay using whole blood protocol versus PCR by Abbott Systems in Malawi.
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 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.