200 likes | 365 Views
INTRODUCTION. Initiating ART optimal with CD4 countLarge number start ART without benefit of CD4Current WHO guidelines indicate starting ART at 350 cells/mm3Not all countries follow this recommendationTrend for higher CD4 counts in high-income countriesGold standard CD4 counting = flow cytometr
E N D
1. Point-of-care CD4 tests can increase life-years saved with reduced costs compared to flow cytometric CD4 counting C.L. Grundy1, A. Medina Lara2, D. Winogron3, A.P. Croucher3, H.-G. Batz3, T.B. Hallett1 and S.D. Reid3
1Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom,
2Bocconi University, Milan, Italy,
3Imperial College London, CD4 Initiative, London, United Kingdom
2. INTRODUCTION Initiating ART optimal with CD4 count
Large number start ART without benefit of CD4
Current WHO guidelines indicate starting ART at 350 cells/mm3
Not all countries follow this recommendation
Trend for higher CD4 counts in high-income countries
Gold standard CD4 counting = flow cytometry (BD or Beckman)
Flow cytometric CD4 counting not widespread in low-income countries
Infrastructure and costs for rural areas difficult to achieve
3. POINT-OF-CARE CD4 TESTS CD4 Initiative established in 2005 to develop rapid, economical, point-of-care tests for CD4.
Aim to develop tests which require limited/no infrastructure
No electronics, simple to use, cheap, to initiate ART
Start ART with CD4 count = better outcomes
POC CD4 count = decentralised test
May improve retention to care in ART programmes
Reduce time to ART
Reduce loss to follow up
4. POINT-OF-CARE CD4 TESTS New generation of point-of-care CD4 tests available
Alere’s PIMA already in use
Others coming in the next 12-24 months
Zyomyx, Inc (from CD4 Initiative programme)
Daktari
5. Impact of POC CD4 tests Widespread introduction of POC CD4 tests is expected in next 12-24 months
Impact of introduction is not obvious
Before results of clinical trials, useful to address potential impact using mathematical modelling
6. AIMS To look at impact on Life Years Saved (LYS) of syndromic management and 2 CD4 counting strategies, flow cytometry and point-of-care CD4 tests, on a model of ART initiation
Examine total costs associated with each strategy.
7. METHOD
8. Model Work presented here is based on a model of ART initiation of Hallett et al, 2008.
Added in costs for CD4 counting technologies
Represents diagnosis, disease progression, clinical monitoring and associated costs
Varied fraction of women referred from ANC and those from VCT Hallett TB, Gregson S, Dube S, Garnett GP. The impact of monitoring HIV patients prior to treatment in resource-poor settings: insights from mathematical modelling. PLOS Med 2008: 5(3)
9. PARAMETERS Adjusted cost and loss-to-follow up parameters in model
Used 2 different ART initiation thresholds
250 and 350
Several different CD4 count costs recorded
10. CD4 COSTS 2 flow CD4 costs and 2 POC CD4 costs were calculated:
Costs of reagents/test price
Staffing/personnel needed to carry out the test
Infrastructure/laboratory costs (if needed)
Overhead for hospital/laboratory (if needed)
Based calculations on time & motion studies and on reported CD4 costs (Zimbabwe and Uganda)
Arrived at fully-loaded test price
11. CD4 COUNT COST MAKE UP
12. CD4 COSTS
13. Initiating ART with POC CD4 tests increases life-years saved RESULTS
16. IMPACT AND COSTS
17. COSTS AND COSTS/LYS
18. CONCLUSIONS POC CD4 testing more effective than flow cytometry (70% versus 52% increase in life years saved)
Flow cytometry tended to greatest overall costs
POC CD4 similar costs/LYS to syndromic management
POC CD4 testing costs could be a more cost-effective strategy.
19. NEXT STEPS Look at budget impact analysis on a macro level
Refine LFU using more appropriate figures from programmatic data
Modify costs as they emerge
20. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funders:
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
BRC at Imperial College London
The Monument Trust
For helpful discussion and data:
Prof Charlie Gilks (UNAIDS)
Maureen Murtagh (formerly CHAI)
Dr Graham Cooke (Imperial)