Monitoring viral load for the last mile: what will it cost?

INTRODUCTION: Routine viral load testing is the WHO‐recommended method for monitoring HIV‐infected patients on ART, and many countries are rapidly scaling up testing capacity at centralized laboratories. Providing testing access to the most remote populations and facilities (the “last mile”) is especially challenging. Using a geospatial optimization model, we estimated the incremental costs of accessing the most remote 20% of patients in Zambia by expanding the transportation network required to bring blood samples from ART clinics to centralized laboratories and return results to clinics. METHODS: The model first optimized a sample transportation network (STN) that can transport 80% of anticipated sample volumes to centralized viral load testing laboratories on a daily or weekly basis, in line with Zambia's 2020 targets. Data incorporated into the model included the location and infrastructure of all health facilities providing ART, location of laboratories, measured distances and drive times between the two, expected future viral load demand by health facility, and local cost estimates. We then continued to expand the modelled STN in 5% increments until 100% of all samples could be collected. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The cost per viral load test when reaching 80% patient volumes using centralized viral load testing was a median of $18.99. With an expanded STN, the incremental cost per test rose to $20.29 for 80% to 85% and $20.52 for 85% to 90%. Above 90% coverage, the incremental cost per test increased substantially to $31.57 for 90% to 95% and $51.95 for 95% to 100%. The high numbers of kilometres driven per sample transported and large number of vehicles needed increase costs dramatically for reaching the clinics that serve the last 5% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Providing sample transport services to the most remote clinics in low‐ and middle‐income countries is likely to be cost‐prohibitive. Other strategies are needed to reduce the cost and increase the feasibility of making viral load monitoring available to the last 10% of patients. The cost of alternative methods, such as optimal point‐of‐care viral load equipment placement and usage, dried blood/plasma spot specimen utilization, or use of drones in geographically remote facilities, should be evaluated.