Search

Background Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for coronavirus disease (COVID) are used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to inform treatment decisions. However, to date, it is unclear when this use is cost-effective. Existing analyses are limited to a narrow set of countries and uses. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of COVID RDTs to inform the treatment of patients with severe illness in LMICs, considering real world practice. Methods and findings We assessed the cost-effectiveness of COVID testing across LMICs using a decision tree model, differentiating results by country income level, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevalence, and testing scenario (none, RDTs, polymerase chain reaction tests-PCRs and combinations). LMIC experts defined realistic care pathways and treatment options. Using a healthcare provider perspective and net monetary benefit approach, we assessed both intended (COVID symptom alleviation) and unintended (treatment side effects) health and economic impacts for each testing scenario. We included the side effects of corticosteroids, which are often the only available treatment for COVID. Because side effects depend both on the treatment and the patient's underlying illness (COVID or COVID-like illnesses, such as influenza), we considered the prevalence of COVID-like illnesses in our analyses. We found that SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients with severe COVID-like illness can be cost-effective in all LMICs, though only in some circumstances. High influenza prevalence among suspected COVID cases improves cost-effectiveness, since incorrectly provided corticosteroids may worsen influenza outcomes. In low- and some lower-middle-income countries, only patients with a high index of suspicion for COVID should be tested with RDTs, while other patients should be presumed to not have COVID. In some lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries, suspected severe COVID cases should almost always be tested. Further, in these settings, negative test results in patients with a high initial index of suspicion should be confirmed through PCR and, during influenza outbreaks, positive results in patients with a low initial index of suspicion should also be confirmed with a PCR. The use of interleukin-6 receptor blockers, when supported by testing, may also be cost-effective in higher-income LMICs. The cost at which they would be cost-effective in low-income countries ($162 to $406 per treatment course) is below current prices. The primary limitation of our analysis is substantial uncertainty around some of the parameters in our model due to limited data, most notably on current COVID mortality with standard of care, and insufficient evidence on the impact of corticosteroids on patients with severe influenza. Conclusions COVID testing can be cost-effective to inform treatment of LMIC patients with severe COVID-like disease. The optimal algorithm is driven by country income level and health budgets, the level of suspicion that the patient may have COVID, and influenza prevalence. Further research to better characterize the unintended effects of corticosteroids, particularly on influenza cases, could improve decision making around the treatment of those with COVID-like symptoms in LMICs., Author(s): Gabrielle Bonnet 1,*, John Bimba 2,3, Chancy Chavula 4, Harunavamwe N. Chifamba 5, Titus H. Divala 6, Andres G. Lescano 7, Mohammed Majam 8, Danjuma Mbo 9, Auliya A. [...]

Tuberculosis (TB) is a major killer, causing [approximately equal to] 1,4 million deaths worldwide annually (1), making it second only to coronavirus disease (COVID-19) as the biggest cause of infectious [...]

Background Suboptimal tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics and HIV contribute to the high global burden of TB. We investigated costs and yield from systematic HIV-TB screening, including computer-aided digital chest X-ray (DCXR-CAD). Methods and findings In this open, three-arm randomised trial, adults ([greater than or equal to]18 years) with cough attending acute primary services in Malawi were randomised (1:1:1) to standard of care (SOC); oral HIV testing (HIV screening) and linkage to care; or HIV testing and linkage to care plus DCXR-CAD with sputum Xpert for high CAD4TBv5 scores (HIV-TB screening). Participants and study staff were not blinded to intervention allocation, but investigator blinding was maintained until final analysis. The primary outcome was time to TB treatment. Secondary outcomes included proportion with same-day TB treatment; prevalence of undiagnosed/untreated bacteriologically confirmed TB on day 56; and undiagnosed/untreated HIV. Analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis. Cost-effectiveness analysis used a health-provider perspective. Between 15 November 2018 and 27 November 2019, 8,236 were screened for eligibility, with 473, 492, and 497 randomly allocated to SOC, HIV, and HIV-TB screening arms; 53 (11%), 52 (9%), and 47 (9%) were lost to follow-up, respectively. At 56 days, TB treatment had been started in 5 (1.1%) SOC, 8 (1.6%) HIV screening, and 15 (3.0%) HIV-TB screening participants. Median (IQR) time to TB treatment was 11 (6.5 to 38), 6 (1 to 22), and 1 (0 to 3) days (hazard ratio for HIV-TB versus SOC: 2.86, 1.04 to 7.87), with same-day treatment of 0/5 (0%) SOC, 1/8 (12.5%) HIV, and 6/15 (40.0%) HIV-TB screening arm TB patients (p = 0.03). At day 56, 2 SOC (0.5%), 4 HIV (1.0%), and 2 HIV-TB (0.5%) participants had undiagnosed microbiologically confirmed TB. HIV screening reduced the proportion with undiagnosed or untreated HIV from 10 (2.7%) in the SOC arm to 2 (0.5%) in the HIV screening arm (risk ratio [RR]: 0.18, 0.04 to 0.83), and 1 (0.2%) in the HIV-TB screening arm (RR: 0.09, 0.01 to 0.71). Incremental costs were US$3.58 and US$19.92 per participant screened for HIV and HIV-TB; the probability of cost-effectiveness at a US$1,200/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold was 83.9% and 0%. Main limitations were the lower than anticipated prevalence of TB and short participant follow-up period; cost and quality of life benefits of this screening approach may accrue over a longer time horizon. Conclusions DCXR-CAD with universal HIV screening significantly increased the timeliness and completeness of HIV and TB diagnosis. If implemented at scale, this has potential to rapidly and efficiently improve TB and HIV diagnosis and treatment. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT03519425., Author(s): Peter MacPherson 1,2,3,*, Emily L. Webb 4, Wala Kamchedzera 2, Elizabeth Joekes 1, Gugu Mjoli 5, David G. Lalloo 1, Titus H. Divala 2,3,6, Augustine T. Choko 1,2, Rachael [...]

Background: Studies have shown that mobile health technologies (mHealth) enhance the use of maternal health services. However, there is limited evidence of the impact of mHealth use by community health workers (CHWs) on the use of maternal health services in sub-Saharan Africa., Objective: This mixed method systematic review will explore the impact of mHealth use by CHWs on the use of the maternal health continuum of care (antenatal care, intrapartum care, and postnatal care [PNC]), as well as barriers and facilitators of mHealth use by CHWs when supporting maternal health services., Methods: We will include studies that report the impact of mHealth by CHWs on the use of antenatal care, facility-based births, and PNC visits in sub-Saharan Africa. We will search 6 databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Africa Index Medicus), with additional articles identified from Google Scholar and manual screening of references of the included studies. The included studies will not be limited by language or year of publication. After study selection, 2 independent reviewers will perform title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening to identify the final papers to be included. Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment will be performed using Covidence software by 2 independent reviewers. We will use a Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to perform risk-of-bias assessments on all included studies. Finally, we will perform a narrative synthesis of the outcomes, integrating information about the effect of mHealth on maternal health use and barriers and facilitators of mHealth use. This protocol follows the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols) guidelines., Results: In September 2022, we conducted an initial search in the eligible databases. After removing duplicates, we identified 1111 studies that were eligible for the title and abstract screening. We will finalize the full-text assessment for eligibility, data extraction, assessment of methodological quality, and narrative synthesis by June 2023., Conclusions: This systematic review will present new and up-to-date evidence on the use of mHealth by CHWs along the pregnancy, childbirth, and PNC continuum of care. We anticipate the results will inform program implementation and policy by highlighting the potential impacts of mHealth and presenting contextual factors that should be addressed to ensure the success of the programs., Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022346364; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=346364., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/44066., (©Chiyembekezo Kachimanga, Titus H Divala, Johannes C F Ket, Alexandra V Kulinkina, Haules R Zaniku, Joia Murkherjee, Daniel Palazuelos, Ibukun-Oluwa Omolade Abejirinde, Thomas van den Akker. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 04.05.2023.)