The cost of providing combined prevention and treatment services, including ART, to female sex workers in Burkina Faso.

BACKGROUND: Female Sex workers (FSW) are important in driving HIV transmission in West Africa. The Yerelon clinic in Burkina Faso has provided combined preventative and therapeutic services, including anti-retroviral therapy (ART), for FSWs since 1998, with evidence suggesting it has decreased HIV prevalence and incidence in this group. No data exists on the costs of such a combined prevention and treatment intervention for FSW. This study aims to determine the mean cost of service provision per patient year for FSWs attending the Yerelon clinic, and identifies differences in costs between patient groups. METHODS: Field-based retrospective cost analyses were undertaken using top-down and bottom-up costing approaches for 2010. Expenditure and service utilisation data was collated from primary sources. Patients were divided into groups according to full-time or occasional sex-work, HIV status and ART duration. Patient specific service use data was extracted. Costs were converted to 2012 US$. Sensitivity analyses considered removal of all research costs, different discount rates and use of different ART treatment regimens and follow-up schedules. RESULTS: Using the top-down costing approach, the mean annual cost of service provision for FSWs on or off ART was US$1098 and US$882, respectively. The cost for FSWs on ART reduced by 29$781, if all research-related costs were removed and national ART monitoring guidelines were followed. The bottom-up patient-level costing showed the cost of the service varied greatly across patient groups (US$505-US$1117), primarily due to large differences in the costs of different ART regimens. HIV-negative women had the lowest annual cost at US$505. CONCLUSION: Whilst FSWs may require specialised services to optimise their care and hence, the public health benefits, our study shows that the cost of ART provision within a combined prevention and treatment intervention setting is comparable to providing ART to other population groups in Africa

Unit Costs for Delivery of Antiretroviral Treatment and Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV

BACKGROUND: As antiretroviral treatment (ART) for HIV/AIDS is scaled-up globally, information on per-person costs is critical to improve efficiency in service delivery and maximize coverage and health impact. OBJECTIVE: To review studies on delivery unit costs for adult and pediatric ART provision per-patient-year, and prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) interventions per mother-infant pair screened or treated, in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: Systematic review of English, French and Spanish publications from 2001 to 2009, reporting empirical costing that accounted for at least antiretroviral (ARV) medicines, laboratory testing and personnel. Expenditures were analyzed by country income level and cost component. All costs were standardized to 2009 US dollars. RESULTS: Analyses covered 29 eligible, comprehensive costing studies. In the base case, in low-income countries (LIC), median, ART cost per patient-year was $792 (mean:$839, range: $682-$1089); for lower-middle-income countries (LMIC), the median was $932 (mean:$1246, range: $156-$3904); and for upper-middle-income countries (UMIC) the median was $1454 (mean:$2783, range: $1230-$5667). ARV drugs were largest component of overall ART cost in all settings (62%, 50% and 47% in LIC, LMIC and UMIC respectively). Out of 26 ART studies, 14 report which drug regimes were used, and only one study explicitly reported second line treatment costs. The second cost driver was laboratory cost in LIC and LMIC (14% and 19.5%) whereas it was personnel costs in UMIC (26%). Two studies specified the types of laboratory tests costed, and three studies specifically included above-facility-level personnel costs. Three studies reported detailed PMTCT costs, and two studies reported on pediatric ART. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of data on the full ART and PMTCT delivery unit costs, in particular for low-and middle-income countries. Heterogeneity in activities costed and insufficient detail regarding components included in the costing hampers standardization of unit cost measures. Evaluation of program-level unit costs would benefit from international guidance on standardized costing methods, and expenditure categories and definitions. Future work should help elucidate the sources for the large variations in delivery unit costs across settings with similar income and epidemiological characteristics