Optimal mix of differentiated service delivery models for HIV treatment in Zambia: a mathematical modelling study

Nkgomeleng Lekodeba,Sydney Rosen,Bevis Phiri,Sithabiso Masuku,Caroline Govathson,Aniset Kamanga,Prudence Haimbe,Hilda Shakwelele,Muya Mwansa,Priscilla Lumano-Mulenga,Amy Huber,Sophie Pascoe,Lise Jamieson,Brooke E Nichols
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.17.24309039
2024-06-18
Abstract:Background: Zambia has scaled up differentiated service delivery (DSD) models for antiretroviral treatment (ART) to provide more client-centric care and increase service delivery efficiency. The current DSD landscape includes multiple models of care based on guidelines, resources, partner inputs, and other factors. We used local data to identify cost-effective combinations of DSD models that will maximize benefits and/or minimize costs to guide future DSD expansion. Methods: We developed a mathematical Excel-based model using retrospective retention and viral suppression data from a national cohort of ART clients (≥15 years) between January 2018-March 2022 stratified by age, sex, setting (urban/rural), and model of ART delivery. Outcomes (viral suppression and retention in care), provider costs, and costs to clients for each model were estimated from the cohort and previously-published data. For different combinations of the nine DSD models in use, we evaluated the incremental cost to the health system per additional ART client virally suppressed on treatment compared to the 2022 base case. Results: Of the 125 combinations of DSD models evaluated, six were on the cost-effectiveness frontier (CEF): 1) six-month dispensing (6MMD)-only; 2) 6MMD and adherence groups (AGs); 3) AGs-only; 4) fast track refills (FTRs) and AGs; 5) FTRs-only; and 6) AGs and home ART delivery. 6MMD-only was cost-saving compared to the base case, increased the proportion of clients virally suppressed by 1.6%, and decreased costs to clients by 16.6%. The next two scenarios on the CEF, 6MMD+AGs and AGs-only, each cost an additional $245 per person virally suppressed, increased the total number of individuals suppressed on treatment by 2.8% and 4.8%, respectively, and increased costs to clients by 63% and 143%, respectively. Conclusions: Mathematical modelling using existing data can identify cost-effective mixes of DSD models and allocations of clients to these models, while ensuring that all client sub-populations are explicitly considered. In Zambia, providing 6MMD to all eligible clients is likely to be cost-saving, while health outcomes can be improved by allocating clients to selected models based on sub-population.
Health Economics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?