Cost-effectiveness of nurse-led versus doctor-led antiretroviral treatment in South Africa: pragmatic cluster randomised trial.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the cost-effectiveness of nurse-led versus doctor-led antiretroviral treatment (ART) for HIV-infected people.


DESIGN
Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in 31 primary care clinics (16 intervention, 15 controls) in Free State Province, South Africa. Participants were HIV-infected patients, aged ≥16 years. Cohort 1 (CD4 count ≤350 cells/μl, not yet receiving ART at enrolment): consisted of 5 390 intervention patients and 3 862 controls; Cohort 2 (already received ART for ≥6 months at enrolment) of 3 029 intervention patients and 3 202 controls. Nurses were authorised and trained to initiate and represcribe ART. Management and ART provision were decentralised to primary care clinics. In control clinics, doctors initiated and re-prescribed ART, nurses monitored ART. Main outcome measure(s) were health service costs, death (cohort 1) and undetectable viral load (<400 copies/ml) (cohort 2) during the 12 months after enrolment.


RESULTS
For Cohort 1, the intervention had an estimated incremental cost of US$102.52, an incremental effect of 0.42% fewer deaths and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$24 500 per death averted. For Cohort 2, the intervention had an estimated incremental cost of US$59.48, an incremental effect of 0.47% more undetectable viral loads and an ICER of US$12 584 per undetectable viral load.


CONCLUSIONS
Nurse-led ART was associated with higher mean health service costs than doctor-led care, with small effects on primary outcomes, and a high associated level of uncertainty. Given this, and the shortage of doctors, further implementation of nurse-led ART should be considered, although this may increase health service costs.