Search

Abstract Background Self-monitoring of glucose is an essential component of type 1 diabetes (T1D) management. In recent years, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has provided an alternative to daily fingerstick testing for the optimisation of insulin dosing and general glucose management in people with T1D. While studies have been conducted to evaluate the impact of CGM on clinical outcomes in the US, Europe and Australia, there are limited data available for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and further empirical evidence is needed to inform policy decision around their use in these countries. Methods This trial was designed as a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, three-arm, randomised (1:1:1) controlled trial of continuous or periodic CGM device use versus standard of care in people with T1D in South Africa and Kenya. The primary objective of this trial will be to assess the impact of continuous or periodic CGM device use on glycaemic control as measured by change from baseline glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Additional assessments will include clinical outcomes (glucose variation, time in/below/above range), safety (adverse events, hospitalisations), quality of life (EQ-5D, T1D distress score, Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction Survey for T1D), and health economic measures (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, quality adjusted life years). Discussion This trial aims to address the substantial evidence gap on the impact of CGM device use on clinical outcomes in LMICs, specifically South Africa and Kenya. The trial results will provide evidence to inform policy and treatment decisions in these countries. Trial registration NCT05944731 (Kenya), July 6, 2023; NCT05944718 (South Africa), July 13, 2023.

Abstract Background and Aim To demonstrate the use of a standard dose of ledipasvir (LDV) and sofosbuvir (SOF), with or without ribavirin, to treat hepatitis C and hepatitis C/HIV co‐infection in Ukraine. Methods Eligible HCV viraemic adults from two clinics in Kyiv were treated with LDV/SOF with or without weight‐based ribavirin for 12 weeks. Clinical assessments were performed at screening and at week 24, and as needed; treatment was dispensed every 4 weeks. The primary outcome was sustained virologic response (SVR) 12 weeks after treatment, with analysis by intention to treat. Cost per patient was estimated in USD (2018) over the 24‐week period. Results Of 868 patients included in the study and initiated on therapy, 482 (55.5%) were co‐infected with HIV. The common genotypes were 1 (74.1%) and 3 (22%). Overall, SVR was achieved in 831 of the 868 patients (95.7%). SVR in patients with hepatitis C alone and hepatitis C/HIV co‐infection was 98.4% and 93.6%, respectively. Adverse events were infrequent and usually mild. Using generic medication, cost per patient was estimated at US$680. Conclusion A standard dose of LDV and SOF, with ribavirin as per protocol, resulted in good outcomes for patients with both hepatitis C alone and co‐infected with hepatitis C/HIV. Program costs in Ukraine were modest using generic medication.

Abstract This cost-outcome study estimated, from the perspective of the service provider, the total annual cost per client on antiretroviral therapy (ART) and total annual cost per client virally suppressed (defined as 18 years old) enrolled in a DSDM. The study found that retention in care was 98% for the sample as a whole [96–100%], and viral suppression, 91% [86-93%]. The mean cost to the provider (MOH or NGO implementers) was $152 per annum per client treated, ranging from $141 to $166. Differences among the models’ costs were largely due to clients’ ARV regimens and the proportions of clients on second line regimens. Service delivery costs, excluding ARVs, other medicines and laboratory tests, were modest, ranging from $9.66–16.43 per client per year. We conclude that differentiated ART service delivery in Uganda achieved excellent treatment outcomes at a cost similar to the standard of care. While large budgetary savings might not be immediately realized, the reallocation of “saved” staff time could improve health system efficiency and with their equivalent or better outcomes and large benefits to clients, client-centred differentiated models would nevertheless add great societal value.