Economic Evaluation of Screening Interventions for Drug-induced Liver Injury.

BACKGROUND

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/AIDS and tuberculosis (TB) continue to be a significant global burden, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While much progress has been made in treating these epidemics, this has led to a rise in liver complications, as patients on ARTs and anti-TBs are at an increased risk of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). Therefore, patients on these medicines require consistent screening of liver function. Due to logistical barriers, gold standard DILI screening fails to be executed at the point-of-care in LMICs. For this reason, we used cost-effectiveness analysis to gauge the efficacy of a paper-test that could be implemented in these settings.

METHODS

We used a Markov Model to simulate HIV and TB coinfected patient care in LMICs using both publicly available data and data from Village Health Works in Burundi. We compared the cost-effectiveness of two screening interventions for liver function monitoring: 1. paper-based point-of-care testing, and 2. gold-standard laboratory testing. These interventions were compared against baseline clinical monitoring.

RESULTS

The paper test showed a 56% increase in efficacy over clinical monitoring alone. The paper-test is more cost-effective than the gold-standard method, at a ceiling cost of $1.60 per test.

CONCLUSIONS

With this information, policy makers can be informed as to the large potential value of paper-based tests when gold standard monitoring is not achievable. Scientists and engineers should also keep these analyses in mind and while in development limit the cost of an ALT screening test to $1.60.