Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of pooled nucleic acid amplification testing for acute HIV infection after third-generation HIV antibody screening and rapid testing in the United States: a comparison of three public health settings.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Detection of acute HIV infection (AHI) with pooled nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) following HIV testing is feasible. However, cost-effectiveness analyses to guide policy around AHI screening are lacking; particularly after more sensitive third-generation antibody screening and rapid testing.

Methods and findings

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of pooled NAAT screening that assessed the prevention benefits of identification and notification of persons with AHI and cases averted compared with repeat antibody testing at different intervals. Effectiveness data were derived from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention AHI study conducted in three settings: municipal sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, a community clinic serving a population of men who have sex with men, and HIV counseling and testing sites. Our analysis included a micro-costing study of NAAT and a mathematical model of HIV transmission. Cost-effectiveness ratios are reported as costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in US dollars from the societal perspective. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on key variables, including AHI positivity rates, antibody testing frequency, symptomatic detection of AHI, and costs. Pooled NAAT for AHI screening following annual antibody testing had cost-effectiveness ratios exceeding US$200,000 per QALY gained for the municipal STD clinics and HIV counseling and testing sites and was cost saving for the community clinic. Cost-effectiveness ratios increased substantially if the antibody testing interval decreased to every 6 months and decreased to cost-saving if the testing interval increased to every 5 years. NAAT was cost saving in the community clinic in all situations. Results were particularly sensitive to AHI screening yield.

Conclusions

Pooled NAAT screening for AHI following negative third-generation antibody or rapid tests is not cost-effective at recommended antibody testing intervals for high-risk persons except in very high-incidence settings.

SUBMITTER: Hutchinson AB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2946951 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:In resource-limited settings, viral load monitoring of HIV-infected patients receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) is not readily available because of high costs. Here, we compared the accuracy and costs of quantitative and qualitative pooled methods with standard viral load testing. METHODS:Blood was collected prospectively from 461 patients receiving first-line ART in Mozambique who had not been evaluated previously with viral load testing. Screening for virologic failure of ART was performed quantitatively (ie, standard viral loads) and qualitatively [one and 2 rounds of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)]. Individual samples and minipools of 5 samples were then analyzed using both methods. The relative efficiency, accuracy, and costs of each method were calculated based on viral load thresholds for ART failure. RESULTS:Standard viral load testing of individual samples revealed a high rate of ART failure (19%-23%) across all virologic failure thresholds, and the majority of the patients (93%) with viral loads >1500 copies per milliliter had genotypic resistance to drugs in their ART regimen. Pooled quantitative screening and deconvolution testing had positive and negative predictive values exceeding 95% with cost savings of $11,250 compared with quantitative testing of each sample individually. Pooled qualitative screening and deconvolution testing had a higher cost savings of $30,147 for 1 PCR round and $25,535 for 2 PCR rounds compared with quantitative testing each sample individually. Both pooled qualitative PCR methods had positive and negative predictive values ?90%, but the pooled 1-round PCR method had a sensitivity of 64%. CONCLUSIONS:Given the high rate of undiagnosed ART failure and drug resistance in this cohort, it is clear that virologic monitoring is urgently needed in this population. Here, we compared alternative methods of virologic monitoring with standard viral load testing of individual samples and found these methods to be cost saving and accurate. The test characteristics of each method will likely need to be considered for each local population before it is adopted.