INTRODUCTION: Point-of-care (POC) technologies in resource-limited settings can circumvent challenges of centralized laboratory testing, improving clinical management. However, higher device costs and uncertain indications for use have inhibited scaling up POC modalities. To address this gap, we investigated the feasibility and cost of targeted near-POC viral load (VL) testing in 2 large HIV clinics in Lilongwe, Malawi. METHODS: VL testing using GeneXpert was targeted for patients suspected of treatment failure or returning to care after a previously elevated VL (>1000 copies/mL). Descriptive analysis of retrospective clinical and cost data is presented. RESULTS: Two thousand eight hundred thirteen near-POC VL tests were conducted. One thousand five hundred eleven (54%) tests were for patients for whom results and reason for the test were documented: 57% (794/1389) of tests were to confirm a previously high VL, and 33% (462/1389) were due to clinical indications. Sixty-one percent (926/1511) of patients had a high VL, of whom 78% (719/926) had a recorded clinical action: 77% (557/719) switched to second line antiretroviral therapy, and 15% (194/719) were referred for intensive adherence counseling. Eighty-two percent (567/687) of patients received a clinical action on the same day as testing. The "all-in" cost was $33.71 for a valid POC VL test, compared with an international benchmark for a centralized VL test of $28.62. CONCLUSION: Targeted, near-POC VL testing was feasible and consistently enabled prompt clinical action. The difference between the "all-in" cost of near-POC VL and centralized testing of $5.09 could be further reduced in an optimized national program by combining targeted near-POC testing and centralized testing.
INTRODUCTION: Point-of-care (POC) technologies in resource-limited settings can circumvent challenges of centralized laboratory testing, improving clinical management. However, higher device costs and uncertain indications for use have inhibited scaling up POC modalities. To address this gap, we investigated the feasibility and cost of targeted near-POC viral load (VL) testing in 2 large HIV clinics in Lilongwe, Malawi. METHODS: VL testing using GeneXpert was targeted for patients suspected of treatment failure or returning to care after a previously elevated VL (>1000 copies/mL). Descriptive analysis of retrospective clinical and cost data is presented. RESULTS: Two thousand eight hundred thirteen near-POC VL tests were conducted. One thousand five hundred eleven (54%) tests were for patients for whom results and reason for the test were documented: 57% (794/1389) of tests were to confirm a previously high VL, and 33% (462/1389) were due to clinical indications. Sixty-one percent (926/1511) of patients had a high VL, of whom 78% (719/926) had a recorded clinical action: 77% (557/719) switched to second line antiretroviral therapy, and 15% (194/719) were referred for intensive adherence counseling. Eighty-two percent (567/687) of patients received a clinical action on the same day as testing. The "all-in" cost was $33.71 for a valid POC VL test, compared with an international benchmark for a centralized VL test of $28.62. CONCLUSION: Targeted, near-POC VL testing was feasible and consistently enabled prompt clinical action. The difference between the "all-in" cost of near-POC VL and centralized testing of $5.09 could be further reduced in an optimized national program by combining targeted near-POC testing and centralized testing.
Authors: Andrew Phillips; Amir Shroufi; Lara Vojnov; Jennifer Cohn; Teri Roberts; Tom Ellman; Kimberly Bonner; Christine Rousseau; Geoff Garnett; Valentina Cambiano; Fumiyo Nakagawa; Deborah Ford; Loveleen Bansi-Matharu; Alec Miners; Jens D Lundgren; Jeffrey W Eaton; Rosalind Parkes-Ratanshi; Zachary Katz; David Maman; Nathan Ford; Marco Vitoria; Meg Doherty; David Dowdy; Brooke Nichols; Maurine Murtagh; Meghan Wareham; Kara M Palamountain; Christine Chakanyuka Musanhu; Wendy Stevens; David Katzenstein; Andrea Ciaranello; Ruanne Barnabas; R Scott Braithwaite; Eran Bendavid; Kusum J Nathoo; David van de Vijver; David P Wilson; Charles Holmes; Anna Bershteyn; Simon Walker; Elliot Raizes; Ilesh Jani; Lisa J Nelson; Rosanna Peeling; Fern Terris-Prestholt; Joseph Murungu; Tsitsi Mutasa-Apollo; Timothy B Hallett; Paul Revill Journal: Nature Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Heidi Albert; Ruvandhi R Nathavitharana; Chris Isaacs; Madhukar Pai; Claudia M Denkinger; Catharina C Boehme Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: David Etoori; Iza Ciglenecki; Mpumelelo Ndlangamandla; Celeste G Edwards; Kiran Jobanputra; Munyaradzi Pasipamire; Gugu Maphalala; Chunfu Yang; Inoussa Zabsonre; Serge M Kabore; Javier Goiri; Roger Teck; Bernhard Kerschberger Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Caroline E Boeke; Jessica Joseph; Charles Atem; Clement Banda; Khady Diatou Coulibaly; Naoko Doi; Andrews Gunda; James Kandulu; Brianán Kiernan; Leonard Kingwara; Werner Maokola; Tatenda Maparo; Rose Nadege Mbaye; Esther Mtumbuka; Joseph Mziray; Catherine Ngugi; Jeanine Nkakulu; Divine Nzuobontane; Marie Claire Okomo Assoumo; Trevor Peter; Maria R Rioja; Jilian A Sacks; Raiva Simbi; Lara Vojnov; Shaukat A Khan Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 6.707
Authors: Michelle Ann Bulterys; Patrick Oyaro; Evelyn Brown; Nashon Yongo; Enericah Karauki; James Wagude; Leonard Kingwara; Nancy Bowen; Susan Njogo; Anjuli D Wagner; Irene Mukui; Frederick Oluoch; Lisa Abuogi; Rena Patel; Monisha Sharma Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-01-19