Article

The cost-effectiveness of symptom-based testing and routine screening for acute HIV infection in men who have sex with men in the USA

Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, California, USA.
AIDS (London, England) (Impact Factor: 6.56). 06/2011; 25(14):1779-87. DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e328349f067
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Acute HIV infection often causes influenza-like illness (ILI) and is associated with high infectivity. We estimated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strategies to identify and treat acute HIV infection in men who have sex with men (MSM) in the USA.
Dynamic model of HIV transmission and progression.
We evaluated three testing approaches: viral load testing for individuals with ILI, expanded screening with antibody testing, and expanded screening with antibody and viral load testing. We included treatment with antiretroviral therapy for individuals identified as acutely infected.
New HIV infections, discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
At the present rate of HIV-antibody testing, we estimated that 538,000 new infections will occur among MSM over the next 20 years. Expanding antibody screening coverage to 90% of MSM annually reduces new infections by 2.8% and costs US$ 12,582 per QALY gained. Symptom-based viral load testing with ILI is more expensive than expanded antibody screening, but is more effective and costs US$ 22,786 per QALY gained. Combining expanded antibody screening with symptom-based viral load testing prevents twice as many infections compared to expanded antibody screening alone, and costs US$ 29,923 per QALY gained. Adding viral load testing to all annual HIV tests costs more than US$ 100,000 per QALY gained.
Use of HIV viral load testing in MSM with ILI prevents more infections than does expanded annual antibody screening alone and is inexpensive relative to other screening interventions. Clinicians should consider symptom-based viral load testing in MSM, in addition to encouraging annual antibody screening.

1 Bookmark
 · 
160 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives. We estimated the seroprevalence of both acute and chronic HIV infection by using a random sample of emergency department (ED) patients from region of the United States with low-to-moderate HIV prevalence. Methods. This cross-sectional seroprevalence study consecutively enrolled patients aged 18 to 64 years within randomly selected sampling blocks in a Midwestern urban ED in a region of lower HIV prevalence in 2008 to 2009. Participants were compensated for providing a blood sample and health information. After de-identification, we assayed samples for HIV antibody and nucleic acid. Results. There were 926 participants who consented and enrolled. Overall, prevalence of undiagnosed HIV was 0.76% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.30%, 1.56%). Three participants (0.32%; 95% CI = 0.09%, 0.86%) were nucleic acid-positive but antibody-negative and 4 (0.43%; 95% CI = 0.15%, 1.02%) were antibody-positive. Conclusions. Even when the absolute prevalence is low, a considerable proportion of undetected HIV cases in an ED population are acute. Identification of acute HIV in ED settings should receive increased priority. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print July 17, 2014: e1-e5. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.301953).
    American Journal of Public Health 07/2014; 104(9):e1-e5. DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2014.301953 · 4.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) focus on funding HIV prevention interventions likely to have high impact on the HIV epidemic. In its most recent funding announcement to state and local health department grantees, CDC required that health departments allocate the majority of funds to four HIV prevention interventions: HIV testing, prevention with HIV-positives and their partners, condom distribution and policy initiatives. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature to determine the extent of the cost-effectiveness evidence for each of those interventions. We searched for US-based studies published through October 2012. The studies that qualified for inclusion contained original analyses that reported costs per quality-adjusted life-year saved, life-year saved, HIV infection averted, or new HIV diagnosis. For each study, paired reviewers performed a detailed review and data extraction. We reported the number of studies related to each intervention and summarized key cost-effectiveness findings according to intervention type. Costs were converted to 2011 US dollars. Of the 50 articles that met the inclusion criteria, 33 related to HIV testing, 15 assessed prevention with HIV-positives and partners, three reported on condom distribution, and one reported on policy initiatives. Methodologies and cost-effectiveness metrics varied across studies and interventions, making them difficult to compare. Our review provides an updated summary of the published evidence of cost effectiveness of four key HIV prevention interventions recommended by CDC. With the exception of testing-related interventions, including partner services, where economic evaluations suggest that testing often can be cost effective, more cost-effectiveness research is needed to help guide the most efficient use of HIV prevention funds.
    Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 12/2014; DOI:10.1007/s40258-014-0142-5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To use decision analysis to evaluate whether and under what conditions routine setup of intraoperative cell salvage during cesarean delivery is cost-saving. METHODS: We developed a decision model to compare costs associated with two strategies for cesarean delivery: 1) routine setup of intraoperative cell salvage; or 2) standard care without intraoperative cell salvage. One-, two-, and three-way sensitivity analyses as well as Monte Carlo simulation were used to assess the robustness of our findings. RESULTS: Among nonselected women undergoing cesarean delivery, our base case estimate was that 3.2% would require red blood cell transfusion. Under this assumption, cell salvage is cost-saving only if each woman requires at least 60 units. Conversely, if only two units on average are required, the probability of transfusion needs to be at least 58% for cell salvage to be cost-saving. In our base case analysis, setup of intraoperative cell salvage during routine cesarean deliveries is not cost-saving, increasing the cost per cesarean delivery by $223.80. We found that cell salvage would be cost-saving only in very high-risk scenarios. For example, severe maternal anemia or abnormal placentation, in which 54% and 75% of women are transfused three and two units per case, respectively, would make cell salvage cost-saving. CONCLUSION: Setup of intraoperative cell salvage during cesarean delivery is cost-saving and should be considered only when there is a predictably high probability of transfusion or when a massive transfusion is reasonably likely.
    Obstetrics and Gynecology 09/2014; 124(4). DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000465 · 4.37 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from