No abstract

SummaryBackgroundIn 2010 a new diagnostic test for tuberculosis, Xpert MTB/RIF, received a conditional programmatic recommendation from WHO. Several model-based economic evaluations predicted that Xpert would be cost-effective across sub-Saharan Africa. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of Xpert in the real world during national roll-out in South Africa.MethodsFor this real-world cost analysis and economic evaluation, we applied extensive primary cost and patient event data from the XTEND study, a pragmatic trial examining Xpert introduction for people investigated for tuberculosis in 40 primary health facilities (20 clusters) in South Africa enrolled between June 8, and Nov 16, 2012, to estimate the costs and cost per disability-adjusted life-year averted of introducing Xpert as the initial diagnostic test for tuberculosis, compared with sputum smear microscopy (the standard of care).FindingsThe mean total cost per study participant for tuberculosis investigation and treatment was US$312·58 (95% CI 252·46–372·70) in the Xpert group and $298·58 (246·35–350·82) in the microscopy group. The mean health service (provider) cost per study participant was $168·79 (149·16–188·42) for the Xpert group and $160·46 (143·24–177·68) for the microscopy group of the study. Considering uncertainty in both cost and effect using a wide range of willingness to pay thresholds, we found less than 3% probability that Xpert introduction improved the cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis diagnostics.InterpretationAfter analysing extensive primary data collection during roll-out, we found that Xpert introduction in South Africa was cost-neutral, but found no evidence that Xpert improved the cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis diagnosis. Our study highlights the importance of considering implementation constraints, when predicting and evaluating the cost-effectiveness of new tuberculosis diagnostics in South Africa.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Despite optimism about the end of AIDS, the HIV response requires sustained financing into the future. Given flat-lining international aid, countries' willingness and ability to shoulder this responsibility will be central to access to HIV care. This paper examines the potential to expand public HIV financing, and the extent to which governments have been utilising these options. We develop and compare a normative and empirical approach. First, with data from the 14 most HIV-affected countries in sub-Saharan Africa, we estimate the potential increase in public HIV financing from economic growth, increased general revenue generation, greater health and HIV prioritisation, as well as from more unconventional and innovative sources, including borrowing, health-earmarked resources, efficiency gains, and complementary non-HIV investments. We then adopt a novel empirical approach to explore which options are most likely to translate into tangible public financing, based on cross-sectional econometric analyses of 92 low and middle-income country governments' most recent HIV expenditure between 2008 and 2012. If all fiscal sources were simultaneously leveraged in the next five years, public HIV spending in these 14 countries could increase from US$3.04 to US$10.84 billion per year. This could cover resource requirements in South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Swaziland, but not even half the requirements in the remaining countries. Our empirical results suggest that, in reality, even less fiscal space could be created (a reduction by over half) and only from more conventional sources. International financing may also crowd in public financing. Most HIV-affected lower-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa will not be able to generate sufficient public resources for HIV in the medium-term, even if they take very bold measures. Considerable international financing will be required for years to come. HIV funders will need to engage with broader health and development financing to improve government revenue-raising and efficiencies.

IntroductionHarmful gender norms and inequalities, including gender-based violence, are important structural barriers to effective HIV programming. We assess current evidence on what forms of gender-responsive intervention may enhance the effectiveness of basic HIV programmes and be cost-effective.MethodsEffective intervention models were identified from an existing evidence review (“what works for women”). Based on this, we conducted a systematic review of published and grey literature on the costs and cost-effectiveness of each intervention identified. Where possible, we compared incremental costs and effects.ResultsOur effectiveness search identified 36 publications, reporting on the effectiveness of 22 HIV interventions with a gender focus. Of these, 11 types of interventions had a corresponding/comparable costing or cost-effectiveness study. The findings suggest that couple counselling for the prevention of vertical transmission; gender empowerment, community mobilization, and female condom promotion for female sex workers; expanded female condom distribution for the general population; and post-exposure HIV prophylaxis for rape survivors are cost-effective HIV interventions. Cash transfers for schoolgirls and school support for orphan girls may also be cost-effective in generalized epidemic settings.ConclusionsThere has been limited research to assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions that seek to address women's needs and transform harmful gender norms. Our review identified several promising, cost-effective interventions that merit consideration as critical enablers in HIV investment approaches, as well as highlight that broader gender and development interventions can have positive HIV impacts. By no means an exhaustive package, these represent a first set of interventions to be included in the investment framework.