Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of preventing loss to follow-up in HIV treatment programs: a Cote d'Ivoire appraisal.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Data from HIV treatment programs in resource-limited settings show extensive rates of loss to follow-up (LTFU) ranging from 5% to 40% within 6 mo of antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation. Our objective was to project the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent LTFU from HIV care in West Africa.

Methods and findings

We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC) International model to project the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of LTFU-prevention programs from a payer perspective. These programs include components such as eliminating ART co-payments, eliminating charges to patients for opportunistic infection-related drugs, improving personnel training, and providing meals and reimbursing for transportation for participants. The efficacies and costs of these interventions were extensively varied in sensitivity analyses. We used World Health Organization criteria of <3x gross domestic product per capita (3x GDP per capita = US$2,823 for Côte d'Ivoire) as a plausible threshold for "cost-effectiveness." The main results are based on a reported 18% 1-y LTFU rate. With full retention in care, projected per-person discounted life expectancy starting from age 37 y was 144.7 mo (12.1 y). Survival losses from LTFU within 1 y of ART initiation ranged from 73.9 to 80.7 mo. The intervention costing US$22/person/year (e.g., eliminating ART co-payment) would be cost-effective with an efficacy of at least 12%. An intervention costing US$77/person/year (inclusive of all the components described above) would be cost-effective with an efficacy of at least 41%.

Conclusions

Interventions that prevent LTFU in resource-limited settings would substantially improve survival and would be cost-effective by international criteria with efficacy of at least 12%-41%, depending on the cost of intervention, based on a reported 18% cumulative incidence of LTFU at 1 y after ART initiation. The commitment to start ART and treat HIV in these settings should include interventions to prevent LTFU.

SUBMITTER: Losina E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2762030 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of preventing loss to follow-up in HIV treatment programs: a Côte d'Ivoire appraisal.

Losina Elena E Touré Hapsatou H Uhler Lauren M LM Anglaret Xavier X Paltiel A David AD Balestre Eric E Walensky Rochelle P RP Messou Eugène E Weinstein Milton C MC Dabis François F Freedberg Kenneth A KA

PLoS medicine 20091027 10

<h4>Background</h4>Data from HIV treatment programs in resource-limited settings show extensive rates of loss to follow-up (LTFU) ranging from 5% to 40% within 6 mo of antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation. Our objective was to project the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent LTFU from HIV care in West Africa.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC) International model to project the clinical benefits and ...[more]

PMID: 19859538

Similar Datasets

Project description:Over the past decade, a significant reduction in the prevalence of schistosomiasis has been achieved, partially explained by the large-scale administration of praziquantel. Yet, the burden of schistosomiasis remains considerable, and factors influencing intervention coverage are important. This study aimed to deepen the understanding of low treatment coverage rates observed in two schistosomiasis-endemic villages in Côte d'Ivoire. The research was conducted in August 2015, in Moronou and Bigouin, two villages of Côte d'Ivoire that are endemic for Schistosoma haematobium and S. mansoni, respectively. After completion of a clinical trial, standard praziquantel treatment (single 40 mg/kg oral dose) was offered to all village inhabitants by community health workers using a house-to-house approach. Factors influencing treatment coverage were determined by a questionnaire survey, randomly selecting 405 individuals. The overall treatment coverage rate was only 47.6% (2730/5733) with considerable intervillage heterogeneity (27.7% in Bigouin (302/1091) versus 52.3% in Moronou (2428/4642)). Among the 200 individuals interviewed in Moronou, 50.0% were administered praziquantel, while only 19.5% of the 205 individuals interviewed in Bigouin received praziquantel. The main reasons for low treatment coverage were work-related (agricultural activities), the bitter taste of praziquantel and previous experiences with adverse events. The most suitable period for treatment campaigns was reported to be the dry season. More than three-quarter of the interviewees who had taken praziquantel (overall, 116/140; Moronou, 84/100; Bigouin, 32/40) declared that they would not participate in future treatments (p < 0.001). In order to enhance praziquantel treatment coverage, careful consideration should be given to attitudes and practices, such as prior or perceived adverse events and taste of praziquantel, and appropriate timing, harmonized with agricultural activities. Without such understanding, breaking the transmission of schistosomiasis remains a distant goal.

Project description:BackgroundNew vector control tools are required to sustain the fight against malaria. Lethal house lures, which target mosquitoes as they attempt to enter houses to blood feed, are one approach. Here we evaluated lethal house lures consisting of In2Care (Wageningen, Netherlands) Eave Tubes, which provide point-source insecticide treatments against host-seeking mosquitoes, in combination with house screening, which aims to reduce mosquito entry.MethodsWe did a two-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial with 40 village-level clusters in central Côte d'Ivoire between Sept 26, 2016, and April 10, 2019. All households received new insecticide-treated nets at universal coverage (one bednet per two people). Suitable households within the clusters assigned to the treatment group were offered screening plus Eave Tubes, with Eave Tubes treated using a 10% wettable powder formulation of the pyrethroid ?-cyfluthrin. Because of the nature of the intervention, treatment could not be masked for households and field teams, but all analyses were blinded. The primary endpoint was clinical malaria incidence recorded by active case detection over 2 years in cohorts of children aged 6 months to 10 years. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN18145556.Findings3022 houses received screening plus Eave Tubes, with an average coverage of 70% across the intervention clusters. 1300 eligible children were recruited for active case detection in the control group and 1260 in the intervention group. During the 2-year follow-up period, malaria case incidence was 2·29 per child-year (95% CI 1·97-2·61) in the control group and 1·43 per child-year (1·21-1·65) in the intervention group (hazard ratio 0·62, 95% CI 0·51-0·76; p<0·0001). Cost-effectiveness simulations suggested that screening plus Eave Tubes has a 74·0% chance of representing a cost-effective intervention, compared with existing healthcare activities in Côte d'Ivoire, and is similarly cost-effective to other core vector control interventions across sub-Saharan Africa. No serious adverse events associated with the intervention were reported during follow-up.InterpretationScreening plus Eave Tubes can provide protection against malaria in addition to the effects of insecticide-treated nets, offering potential for a new, cost-effective strategy to supplement existing vector control tools. Additional trials are needed to confirm these initial results and further optimise Eave Tubes and the lethal house lure concept to facilitate adoption.FundingThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.