Costs and cost-effectiveness of HIV counselling and testing modalities in Southern Mozambique

OBJECTIVE: Despite the high HIV associated burden, Mozambique lacks data on HIV counselling and testing (HCT) costs. To help guide national HIV/AIDS programs, we estimated the cost per test for voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) from the patient’s perspective and the costs per person tested and per HIV-positive individual linked to care to the healthcare provider for VCT, provider-initiated counselling and testing (PICT) and home-based testing (HBT). We also assessed the cost-effectiveness of these strategies for linking patients to care. METHODS: Data from a cohort study conducted in the Manhiça District were used to derive costs and linkage-to-care outcomes of the three HCT strategies. A decision tree was used to model HCT costs according to the likelihood of HCT linking individuals to care and to obtain the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of PICT and HBT with VCT as the comparator. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess robustness of base-case findings. FINDINGS: Based on costs and valuations in 2015, average and median VCT costs to the patient per individual tested were US$1.34 and US$1.08, respectively. Costs per individual tested were greatest for HBT (US$11.07), followed by VCT (US$7.79), and PICT (US$7.14). The costs per HIV-positive individual linked to care followed a similar trend. PICT was not cost-effective in comparison with VCT at a willingness-to-accept threshold of US$4.53, but only marginally given a corresponding base-case ICER of US$4.15, while HBT was dominated, with higher costs and lower impact than VCT. Base-case results for the comparison between PICT and VCT presented great uncertainty, whereas findings for HBT were robust. CONCLUSION: PICT and VCT are likely equally cost-effective in Manhiça. We recommend that VCT be offered as the predominant HCT strategy in Mozambique, but expansion of PICT could be considered in limited-resource areas. HBT without facilitated linkage or reduced costs is unlikely to be cost-effective.