Around two-thirds of all new HIV infections and 90% of syphilis cases occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Testing is a key strategy for the prevention and treatment of HIV and syphilis. Decision-makers in LMICs face considerable uncertainties about the costs of scaling up HIV and syphilis testing. This paper synthesizes economic evidence on the costs of scaling up HIV and syphilis testing interventions in LMICs and evidence on how costs change with the scale of delivery. We systematically searched multiple databases (Medline, Econlit, Embase, EMCARE, CINAHL, Global Health and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database) for peer-reviewed studies examining the costs of scaling up HIV and syphilis testing in LMICs. Thirty-five eligible studies were identified from 4869 unique citations. Most studies were conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa (N = 17) and most explored the costs of rapid HIV in facilities targeted the general population (N = 19). Only two studies focused on syphilis testing. Seventeen studies were cost analyses, 17 were cost-effectiveness analyses and 1 was cost–benefit analysis of HIV or syphilis testing. Most studies took a modelling approach (N = 25) and assumed costs increased linearly with scale. Ten studies examined cost efficiencies associated with scale, most reporting short-run economies of scale. Important drivers of the costs of scaling up included testing uptake and the price of test kits. The ‘true’ cost of scaling up testing is likely to be masked by the use of short-term decision frameworks, linear unit-cost projections (i.e. multiplying an average cost by a factor reflecting activity at a larger scale) and availability of health system capacity and infrastructure to supervise and support scale up. Cost data need to be routinely collected alongside other monitoring indicators as HIV and syphilis testing continues to be scaled up in LMICs.

IntroductionThe economic and health burden of sexually transmitted and genital infections (henceforth, STIs) in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is substantial. Left untreated, STIs during pregnancy may result in several adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. Timely diagnosis and treatment at point-of-care (POC) can potentially improve these outcomes. Despite the availability and promotion of POC diagnostics for STIs as a key component of antenatal care in LMICs, their widespread use has been limited, owing to the high economic costs faced by individuals and health systems. To date, there have been no systematic reviews which explore the cost or cost-effectiveness of POC testing and treatment of STIs in pregnancy in LMICs. The objective of this protocol is to outline the methods that will compare, synthesise and appraise the existing literature in this domain.Methods and analysisWe will conduct literature searches in MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science. To find additional literature, we will search Google Scholar and hand search reference lists of included papers. Two reviewers will independently search databases, screen titles, abstracts and full texts; when necessary a third reviewer will resolve disputes. Only cost and cost-effectiveness studies of POC testing and treatment of STIs, including syphilis, chlamydia, trichomonas, gonorrhoea and bacterial vaginosis, in pregnancy in LMICs will be included. Published checklists will be used to assess quality of reporting practices and methodological approaches. We will also assess risk of publication bias. Interstudy heterogeneity will be assessed and depending on variation between studies, a meta-analysis or narrative synthesis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as the review will use published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed open source journal and presented at an international conference.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018109072.

BackgroundThe Papua New Guinea Department of Health recently shifted from a presumptive to a ‘test and treat’ malaria case management policy. This shift was supported by the widespread introduction of malaria rapid diagnostic tests in health facilities across the country. Health workers received training and job-aids detailing how to conduct and interpret a malaria rapid diagnostic test and how to treat test positive cases; however, little instruction on treating non-malaria febrile cases was provided. Accordingly, this study examined health worker case management of non-malarial febrile patients in the 12-month period immediately following the introduction of the revised malaria case management policy.MethodsData were collected from a country-wide cross-sectional survey of febrile case management at randomly selected health facilities and from longitudinal surveillance at sentinel health facilities. Analysis was restricted to febrile patients who tested negative for malaria infection by rapid diagnostic test (N=303 and 5705 outpatients, respectively).Results and Discussion96.8% of non-malarial febrile patients received a diagnosis in the longitudinal sample, compared to 52.4% of the cross-sectional sample. Respiratory tract infections were the most commonly reported diagnoses. Over 90% of patients in both samples were prescribed one or more medications, most commonly an analgesic (71.3 & 72.9% of the longitudinal and cross-sectional samples, respectively), some form of antibiotic (72.7 & 73.4%, respectively) and/or an anthelminthic (17.9 & 16.5%, respectively). Prescribing behaviour was adherent with the recommendations in the standard treatment guidelines in fewer than 20% of cases (longitudinal sample only).ConclusionMany non-malarial febrile patients are not provided with a diagnosis. When diagnoses are provided they are typically some form of respiratory tract infection. Antibiotics and analgesics are widely prescribed, although medications prescribed rarely adhere to the Papua New Guinea standard treatment guidelines. These findings indicate that Papua New Guinea health workers require support for non-malarial febrile illness case management.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1965-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Sexually transmitted and genital infections in pregnancy are associated with adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. Point-of-care tests for these infections facilitate testing and treatment in a single antenatal clinic visit and may reduce the risk of adverse outcomes. Successful implementation and scale-up depends on understanding comparative effectiveness of such programmes and their comparative costs and cost effectiveness. This systematic review synthesises and appraises evidence from economic evaluations of point-of-care testing and treatment for sexually transmitted and genital infections among pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries. Methods Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases were comprehensively searched using pre-determined criteria. Additional literature was identified by searching Google Scholar and the bibliographies of all included studies. Economic evaluations were eligible if they were set in low- and middle-income countries and assessed antenatal point-of-care testing and treatment for syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis, and/or bacterial vaginosis. Studies were analysed using narrative synthesis. Methodological and reporting standards were assessed using two published checklists. Results Sixteen economic evaluations were included in this review; ten based in Africa, three in Latin and South America and three were cross-continent comparisons. Fifteen studies assessed point-of-care testing and treatment for syphilis, while one evaluated chlamydia. Key drivers of cost and cost-effectiveness included disease prevalence; test, treatment, and staff costs; test sensitivity and specificity; and screening and treatment coverage. All studies met 75% or more of the criteria of the Drummond Checklist and 60% of the Consolidated Health Economics Evaluation Reporting Standards. Conclusions Generally, point-of-care testing and treatment was cost-effective compared to no screening, syndromic management, and laboratory-based testing. Future economic evaluations should consider other common infections, and their lifetime impact on mothers and babies. Complementary affordability and equity analyses would strengthen the case for greater investment in antenatal point-of-care testing and treatment for sexually transmitted and genital infections.