DESIGN: We estimated economic costs from the provider perspective to calculate the total cost and the cost per self-test kit distributed for three scenarios that differed by costing period (pilot, annual), the number of tests distributed (actual, planned, scaled assuming an epidemic peak) and self-test kit costs (pilot purchase price, 50% reduction).
SETTING: We used data collected between August and December 2022 in Brazil, Georgia, Malaysia, Ethiopia and the Philippines from pilot implementation studies designed to provide COVID-19 self-tests in a variety of settings-namely, workplace and healthcare facilities.
RESULTS: Across all five countries, 173 000 kits were distributed during pilot implementation with the cost/test distributed ranging from $2.44 to $12.78. The cost/self-test kit distributed was lowest in the scenario that assumed implementation over a longer period (year), with higher test demand (peak) and a test kit price reduction of 50% ($1.04-3.07). Across all countries and scenarios, test procurement occupied the greatest proportion of costs: 58-87% for countries with off-site self-testing (outside the workplace, for example, home) and 15-50% for countries with on-site self-testing (at the workplace). Staffing was the next key cost driver, particularly for distribution modalities that had on-site self-testing (29-35%) versus off-site self-testing (7-27%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is likely to cost between $2.44 and $12.78 per test to distribute COVID-19 self-tests across common settings in five heterogeneous countries. Cost-effectiveness analyses using these results will allow policymakers to make informed decisions on optimally scaling up COVID-19 self-test distribution programmes across diverse settings and evolving needs.
METHODS: We established a multi-country cross-sectional dataset of first available quantitative HCV RNA linked to demographic and clinical data. We excluded individuals on HCV treatment. We analyzed the distribution of HCV RNA and determined critical thresholds for detection of HCV viraemia. We then performed logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with LLV, and derived relative sensitivities for significant covariates.
RESULTS: The dataset included 66,640 individuals with HCV viraemia from Georgia (44.4%), Canada (40.9%), India (8.1%), Cambodia (2.6%), Egypt (1.6%), Pakistan (1.3%), Cameroon (0.4%), Indonesia (0.2%), Thailand (0.2%), Vietnam (0.1%), Malaysia (0.05%), and Mozambique (0.02%). The 97% LOD was 1,318 IU/mL (95% CI 1298.4, 1322.3). Factors associated with LLV were younger age 18-30 vs. 51-64 years (OR 2.56 95% CI 2.19, 2.99), female vs. male sex (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.18, 1.49), and advanced fibrosis stage F4 vs. F0-1 (OR 1.44, 95%CI 1.21, 1.69). Only the younger age group had a decreased relative sensitivity below 95% at 93.3%.
CONCLUSIONS: In this global dataset, a test with an LOD of 1,318 IU/mL would identify 97% of viraemic HCV infections among almost all populations. This LOD will help guide manufacturers in the development of affordable POC diagnostics to expand HCV testing and linkage to care in LMICs.
LAY SUMMARY: We created and analyzed a dataset from 12 countries with 66,640 participants with chronic hepatitis C virus infection. We determined that about 97% of those with viraemic infection had 1300 International Units/mL or more of circulating virus at the time of diagnosis. While current diagnostic tests can detect as little as 12 International Units/mL of virus, our findings suggest that increasing the level of detection closer to 1300 would maintain good test accuracy and will likely allow for more affordable portable tests to be developed for use in low and middle income countries.