Dataset Information

Costs and consequences of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommendations for opt-out HIV testing.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently recommended opt-out HIV testing (testing without the need for risk assessment and counseling) in all health care encounters in the US for persons 13-64 years old. However, the overall costs and consequences of these recommendations have not been estimated before. In this paper, I estimate the costs and public health impact of opt-out HIV testing relative to testing accompanied by client-centered counseling, and relative to a more targeted counseling and testing strategy.

Methods and findings

Basic methods of scenario and cost-effectiveness analysis were used, from a payer's perspective over a one-year time horizon. I found that for the same programmatic cost of US$864,207,288, targeted counseling and testing services (at a 1% HIV seropositivity rate) would be preferred to opt-out testing: targeted services would newly diagnose more HIV infections (188,170 versus 56,940), prevent more HIV infections (14,553 versus 3,644), and do so at a lower gross cost per infection averted (US$59,383 versus US$237,149). While the study is limited by uncertainty in some input parameter values, the findings were robust across a variety of assumptions about these parameter values (including the estimated HIV seropositivity rate in the targeted counseling and testing scenario).

Conclusions

While opt-out testing may be able to newly diagnose over 56,000 persons living with HIV in one year, abandoning client-centered counseling has real public health consequences in terms of HIV infections that could have been averted. Further, my analyses indicate that even when HIV seropositivity rates are as low as 0.3%, targeted counseling and testing performs better than opt-out testing on several key outcome variables. These analytic findings should be kept in mind as HIV counseling and testing policies are debated in the US.

SUBMITTER: Holtgrave DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1891318 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTobacco use causes 7 million deaths per year; most national guidelines require people who use tobacco to opt in to care by affirming they are willing to quit. Use of medications and counseling is low even in advanced economy countries.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of opt-out care vs opt-in care for people who use tobacco.Design, setting, and participantsIn Changing the Default (CTD), a Bayesian adaptive population-based randomization trial, eligible patients were randomized into study groups, treated according to group assignment, and debriefed and consented for participation at 1-month follow-up. A total of 1000 adult patients were treated at a tertiary care hospital in Kansas City. Patients were randomized from September 2016 to September 2020; final follow-up was in March 2021.InterventionsAt bedside, counselors screened for eligibility, conducted baseline assessment, randomized patients to study group, and provided opt-out care or opt-in care. Counselors and medical staff provided opt-out patients with inpatient nicotine replacement therapy, prescriptions for postdischarge medications, a 2-week medication starter kit, treatment planning, and 4 outpatient counseling calls. Patients could opt out of any or all elements of care. Opt-in patients willing to quit were offered each element of treatment described previously. Opt-in patients who were unwilling to quit received motivational counseling.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were biochemically verified abstinence and treatment uptake at 1 month after randomization.ResultsOf a total of 1000 eligible adult patients who were randomized, most consented and enrolled (270 [78%] of opt-in patients; 469 [73%] of opt-out patients). Adaptive randomization assigned 345 (64%) to the opt-out group and 645 (36%) to the opt-in group. The mean (SD) age at enrollment was 51.70 (14.56) for opt-out patients and 51.21 (14.80) for opt-out patients. Of 270 opt-in patients, 123 (45.56%) were female, and of 469 opt-out patients, 226 (48.19%) were female. Verified quit rates for the opt-out group vs the opt-in group were 22% vs 16% at month 1 and 19% vs 18% at 6 months. The Bayesian posterior probability that opt-out care was better than opt-in care was 0.97 at 1 month and 0.59 at 6 months. Treatment use for the opt-out group vs the opt-in group was 60% vs 34% for postdischarge cessation medication (bayesian posterior probability of 1.0), and 89% vs 37% for completing at least 1 postdischarge counseling call (bayesian posterior probability of 1.0). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $678.60, representing the cost of each additional quit in the opt-out group.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, opt-out care doubled treatment engagement and increased quit attempts, while enhancing patients' sense of agency and alliance with practitioners. Stronger and longer treatment could increase cessation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02721082.

Project description:Study questionWhat is the effect of default test offers--opt-in, opt-out, and active choice--on the likelihood of acceptance of an HIV test among patients receiving care in an emergency department?MethodsThis was a randomized clinical trial conducted in the emergency department of an urban teaching hospital and regional trauma center. Patients aged 13-64 years were randomized to opt-in, opt-out, and active choice HIV test offers. The primary outcome was HIV test acceptance percentage. The Denver Risk Score was used to categorize patients as being at low, intermediate, or high risk of HIV infection.Study answer and limitations38.0% (611/1607) of patients in the opt-in testing group accepted an HIV test, compared with 51.3% (815/1628) in the active choice arm (difference 13.3%, 95% confidence interval 9.8% to 16.7%) and 65.9% (1031/1565) in the opt-out arm (difference 27.9%, 24.4% to 31.3%). Compared with active choice testing, opt-out testing led to a 14.6 (11.1 to 18.1) percentage point increase in test acceptance. Patients identified as being at intermediate and high risk were more likely to accept testing than were those at low risk in all arms (difference 6.4% (3.4% to 9.3%) for intermediate and 8.3% (3.3% to 13.4%) for high risk). The opt-out effect was significantly smaller among those reporting high risk behaviors, but the active choice effect did not significantly vary by level of reported risk behavior. Patients consented to inclusion in the study after being offered an HIV test, and inclusion varied slightly by treatment assignment. The study took place at a single county hospital in a city that is somewhat unique with respect to HIV testing; although the test acceptance percentages themselves might vary, a different pattern for opt-in versus active choice versus opt-out test schemes would not be expected.What this paper addsActive choice is a distinct test regimen, with test acceptance patterns that may best approximate patients' true preferences. Opt-out regimens can substantially increase HIV testing, and opt-in schemes may reduce testing, compared with active choice testing.Funding, competing interests, data sharingThis study was supported by grant NIA 1RC4AG039078 from the National Institute on Aging. The full dataset is available from the corresponding author. Consent for data sharing was not obtained, but the data are anonymized and risk of identification is low.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01377857.

Project description:IntroductionCompliance with the recommendation that all tuberculosis (TB) patients be tested for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has not yet been achieved in Canada or globally.MethodsThe experience of "opt-out" HIV testing of TB patients in the Province of Alberta, Canada is described over a 10-year period, 2003-2012. Testing rates are reported before and after the introduction of the "opt-out" approach. Risk factors for HIV seropositivity are described and demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics of TB patients who were newly diagnosed versus previously diagnosed with HIV are compared. Genotypic clusters, defined as groups of two or more cases whose isolates of Mycobacterium tuberculosis had identical DNA fingerprints over the 10-year period or within 2 years of one another, were analyzed for their ability to predict HIV co-infection.ResultsHIV testing rates were 26% before and 90% after the introduction of "opt-out" testing. During the "opt-out" testing years those <15 or >64 years of age at diagnosis were less likely to have been tested. In those tested the prevalence of HIV was 5.6%. In the age group 15-64 years, risk factors for HIV were: age (35-64 years), Canadian-born Aboriginal or foreign-born sub-Saharan African origin, and combined respiratory and non-respiratory disease. Compared to TB patients previously known to be HIV positive, TB patients newly discovered to be HIV positive had more advanced HIV disease (lower CD4 counts; higher viral loads) at diagnosis. Large cluster size was associated with Aboriginal ancestry. Cluster size predicted HIV co-infection in Aboriginal peoples when clusters included all cases reported over 10 years but not when clusters included cases reported within 2 years of one another.Conclusion"Opt-out" HIV testing of TB patients is effective and well received. Universal HIV testing of TB patients (>80% of patients tested) has immediate (patients) and longer-term (TB/HIV program planning) benefits.