Strengthening Existing Laboratory-Based Systems vs. Investing in Point-of-Care Assays for Early Infant Diagnosis of HIV: A Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.
Background: To improve early infant HIV diagnosis (EID) programs, options include replacing laboratory-based tests with point-of-care (POC) assays or investing in strengthened systems for sample transport and result return. Setting: We used the CEPAC-Pediatric model to examine clinical benefits and costs of 3 EID strategies in Zimbabwe for infants 6 weeks of age. Methods: We examined (1) laboratory-based EID (LAB), (2) strengthened laboratory-based EID (S-LAB), and (3) POC EID (POC). LAB/S-LAB and POC assays differed in sensitivity (LAB/S-LAB 100%, POC 96.9%) and specificity (LAB/S-LAB 99.6%, POC 99.9%). LAB/S-LAB/POC algorithms also differed in: probability of result return (79%/91%/98%), time until result return (61/53/1 days), probability of initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) after positive result (52%/71%/86%), and total cost/test ($18.10/$30.47/$30.71). We projected life expectancy (LE) and average lifetime per-person cost for all HIV-exposed infants. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from discounted (3%/year) LE and costs in $/year-of-life saved (YLS), defining cost effective as an ICER