Cost and outcomes of paediatric antiretroviral treatment in South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the cost of paediatric antiretroviral treatment (ART) in low-income and middle-income countries. We analysed the average cost of providing paediatric ART in South Africa during the first 2 years after ART initiation, stratified by patient outcomes. METHODS: We collected data on outpatient resource use and treatment outcomes of 288 children in two Johannesburg public clinics, Empilweni Services and Research Unit (ESRU) and Harriet Shezi Children's Clinic (HSCC) from 2005 to 2009. Patient-level resource use was estimated from patient records. Unit cost data came from site accounts and public-sector sources. Patient outcomes at month 12 and 24 after initiation were defined based on patients' weight CD4 cell counts/percentages, viral loads, and the presence of new WHO stage 3/4 conditions. RESULTS: Median age/CD4 percentage at initiation was 4.03 years/12.40% in ESRU and 5.84 years/14.05% in HSCC, respectively. Sixty-two and 91% of patients remained in care and responding to treatment at month 12 in ESRU and HSCC, respectively, and 68 and 80% at month 24. The average cost per patient in care and responding was US$ 830 in year 1 and US$ 717 in year 2 in ESRU and US$ 678 and US$ 782 in HSCC. Antiretroviral drugs comprised 33-52% of total cost, clinic visits 23-31%, lab tests 12-16%, and fixed costs 8-18%. CONCLUSIONS: Costs varied between the two clinics but were comparable with those of adult ART. Few very young children accessed ART in either clinic and those who did were already very ill, emphasizing the importance of early infant treatment.

Rapid point-of-care CD4 testing at mobile HIV testing sites to increase linkage to care: an evaluation of a pilot program in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: A mobile HIV counseling and testing (HCT) program around Johannesburg piloted the integration of point-of-care (POC) CD4 testing, using the Pima analyzer, to improve linkages to HIV care. We report results from this pilot program for patients testing positive (n = 508) from May to October 2010. METHODS: We analyzed 3 primary outcomes: assignment to testing group (offered POC CD4 or not), successful follow-up (by telephone), and completed the referral visit for HIV care within 8 weeks after HIV testing if successfully followed up. Proportions for each outcome were calculated, and relative risks were estimated using a modified Poisson approach. RESULTS: Three hundred eleven patients were offered the POC CD4 test, and 197 patients were not offered the test. No differences in patient characteristics were observed between the 2 groups. Approximately 62.7% of patients were successfully followed up 8 weeks after HIV testing, with no differences observed between testing groups. Among those followed up, 54.4% reported completing their referral visit. Patients offered the POC CD4 test were more likely to complete the referral visit for further HIV care (relative risk 1.25, 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.57). CONCLUSIONS: In this mobile HCT setting, patients offered POC CD4 testing as part of the HCT services were more likely to visit a referral clinic after testing, suggesting that rapid CD4 testing technology may improve linkage to HIV care. Future research can evaluate options for adjusting HCT services if POC CD4 testing was included permanently and the cost-effectiveness of the POC CD4 testing compared with other approaches for improving linkage of care.

How to estimate the cost of point-of-care CD4 testing in program settings: an example using the Alere Pima Analyzer in South Africa.

Integrating POC CD4 testing technologies into HIV counseling and testing (HCT) programs may improve post-HIV testing linkage to care and treatment. As evaluations of these technologies in program settings continue, estimates of the costs of POC CD4 tests to the service provider will be needed and estimates have begun to be reported. Without a consistent and transparent methodology, estimates of the cost per CD4 test using POC technologies are likely to be difficult to compare and may lead to erroneous conclusions about costs and cost-effectiveness. This paper provides a step-by-step approach for estimating the cost per CD4 test from a provider's perspective. As an example, the approach is applied to one specific POC technology, the Pima Analyzer. The costing approach is illustrated with data from a mobile HCT program in Gauteng Province of South Africa. For this program, the cost per test in 2010 was estimated at $23.76 (material costs  = $8.70; labor cost per test  = $7.33; and equipment, insurance, and daily quality control  = $7.72). Labor and equipment costs can vary widely depending on how the program operates and the number of CD4 tests completed over time. Additional costs not included in the above analysis, for on-going training, supervision, and quality control, are likely to increase further the cost per test. The main contribution of this paper is to outline a methodology for estimating the costs of incorporating POC CD4 testing technologies into an HCT program. The details of the program setting matter significantly for the cost estimate, so that such details should be clearly documented to improve the consistency, transparency, and comparability of cost estimates.

Treatment outcomes and cost-effectiveness of shifting management of stable ART patients to nurses in South Africa: an observational cohort.

BACKGROUND: To address human resource and infrastructure shortages, resource-constrained countries are being encouraged to shift HIV care to lesser trained care providers and lower level health care facilities. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of down-referring stable antiretroviral therapy (ART) patients from a doctor-managed, hospital-based ART clinic to a nurse-managed primary health care facility in Johannesburg, South Africa. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Criteria for down-referral were stable ART (≥11 mo), undetectable viral load within the previous 10 mo, CD4>200 cells/mm(3), <5% weight loss over the last three visits, and no opportunistic infections. All patients down-referred from the treatment-initiation site to the down-referral site between 1 February 2008 and 1 January 2009 were compared to a matched sample of patients eligible for down-referral but not down-referred. Outcomes were assigned based on vital and health status 12 mo after down-referral eligibility and the average cost per outcome estimated from patient medical record data. The down-referral site (n = 712) experienced less death and loss to follow up than the treatment-initiation site (n = 2,136) (1.7% versus 6.2%, relative risk = 0.27, 95% CI 0.15-0.49). The average cost per patient-year for those in care and responding at 12 mo was US$492 for down-referred patients and US$551 for patients remaining at the treatment-initiation site (p<0.0001), a savings of 11%. Down-referral was the cost-effective strategy for eligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve-month outcomes of stable ART patients who are down-referred to a primary health clinic are as good as, or better than, the outcomes of similar patients who are maintained at a hospital-based ART clinic. The cost of treatment with down-referral is lower across all outcomes and would save 11% for patients who remain in care and respond to treatment. These results suggest that this strategy would increase treatment capacity and conserve resources without compromising patient outcomes.