Dataset Information

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of expanded voluntary HIV testing in India.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite expanding access to antiretroviral therapy (ART), most of the estimated 2.3 to 2.5 million HIV-infected individuals in India remain undiagnosed. The questions of whom to test for HIV and at what frequency remain unclear.

Methods

We used a simulation model of HIV testing and treatment to examine alternative HIV screening strategies: 1) current practice, 2) one-time, 3) every five years, and 4) annually; and we applied these strategies to three population scenarios: 1) the general Indian population ("national population"), i.e. base case (HIV prevalence 0.29%; incidence 0.032/100 person-years [PY]); 2) high-prevalence districts (HIV prevalence 0.8%; incidence 0.088/100 PY), and 3) high-risk groups (HIV prevalence 5.0%; incidence 0.552/100 PY). Cohort characteristics reflected Indians reporting for HIV testing, with a median age of 35 years, 66% men, and a mean CD4 count of 305 cells/µl. The cost of a rapid HIV test was $3.33. Outcomes included life expectancy, HIV-related direct medical costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and secondary transmission benefits. The threshold for "cost-effective" was defined as 3x the annual per capita GDP of India ($3,900/year of life saved [YLS]), or for "very cost-effective" was <1x the annual per capita GDP ($1,300/YLS).

Results

Compared to current practice, one-time screening was very cost-effective in the national population (ICER: $1,100/YLS), high-prevalence districts (ICER: $800/YLS), and high-risk groups (ICER: $800/YLS). Screening every five years in the national population (ICER: $1,900/YLS) and annual screening in high-prevalence districts (ICER: $1,900/YLS) and high-risk groups (ICER: $1,800/YLS) were also cost-effective. Results were most sensitive to costs of care and linkage-to-care.

Conclusions

In India, voluntary HIV screening of the national population every five years offers substantial clinical benefit and is cost-effective. Annual screening is cost-effective among high-risk groups and in high-prevalence districts nationally. Routine HIV screening in India should be implemented.

SUBMITTER: Venkatesh KK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3669338 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of expanded voluntary HIV testing in India.

Venkatesh Kartik K KK Becker Jessica E JE Kumarasamy Nagalingeswaran N Nakamura Yoriko M YM Mayer Kenneth H KH Losina Elena E Swaminathan Soumya S Flanigan Timothy P TP Walensky Rochelle P RP Freedberg Kenneth A KA

PloS one 20130531 5

<h4>Background</h4>Despite expanding access to antiretroviral therapy (ART), most of the estimated 2.3 to 2.5 million HIV-infected individuals in India remain undiagnosed. The questions of whom to test for HIV and at what frequency remain unclear.<h4>Methods</h4>We used a simulation model of HIV testing and treatment to examine alternative HIV screening strategies: 1) current practice, 2) one-time, 3) every five years, and 4) annually; and we applied these strategies to three population scenario ...[more]

PMID: 23741348

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe projected the clinical and economic impact of alternative testing strategies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence and mortality in Massachusetts using a microsimulation model.MethodsWe compared 4 testing strategies: (1) hospitalized: polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing only for patients with severe/critical symptoms warranting hospitalization; (2) symptomatic: PCR for any COVID-19-consistent symptoms, with self-isolation if positive; (3) symptomatic + asymptomatic once: symptomatic and 1-time PCR for the entire population; and (4) symptomatic + asymptomatic monthly: symptomatic with monthly retesting for the entire population. We examined effective reproduction numbers (Re = 0.9-2.0) at which policy conclusions would change. We assumed homogeneous mixing among the Massachusetts population (excluding those residing in long-term care facilities). We used published data on disease progression and mortality, transmission, PCR sensitivity/specificity (70%/100%), and costs. Model-projected outcomes included infections, deaths, tests performed, hospital-days, and costs over 180 days, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]).ResultsAt Re = 0.9, symptomatic + asymptomatic monthly vs hospitalized resulted in a 64% reduction in infections and a 46% reduction in deaths, but required >66-fold more tests/day with 5-fold higher costs. Symptomatic + asymptomatic monthly had an ICER <$100 000/QALY only when Re ≥1.6; when test cost was ≤$3, every 14-day testing was cost-effective at all Re examined.ConclusionsTesting people with any COVID-19-consistent symptoms would be cost-saving compared to testing only those whose symptoms warrant hospital care. Expanding PCR testing to asymptomatic people would decrease infections, deaths, and hospitalizations. Despite modest sensitivity, low-cost, repeat screening of the entire population could be cost-effective in all epidemic settings.

Project description:Indian guidelines recommend routine referral for HIV testing of all tuberculosis (TB) patients in the nine states with the highest HIV prevalence, and selective referral for testing elsewhere. We assessed the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of alternative HIV testing referral strategies among TB patients in India.We utilized a computer model of HIV and TB disease to project outcomes for patients with active TB in India. We compared life expectancy, cost, and cost-effectiveness for three HIV testing referral strategies: 1) selective referral for HIV testing of those with increased HIV risk, 2) routine referral of patients in the nine highest HIV prevalence states with selective referral elsewhere (current standard), and 3) routine referral of all patients for HIV testing. TB-related data were from the World Health Organization. HIV prevalence among TB patients was 9.0% in the highest prevalence states, 2.9% in the other states, and 4.9% overall. The selective referral strategy, beginning from age 33.50 years, had a projected discounted life expectancy of 16.88 years and a mean lifetime HIV/TB treatment cost of US$100. The current standard increased mean life expectancy to 16.90 years with additional per-person cost of US$10; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$650/year of life saved (YLS) compared to selective referral. Routine referral of all patients for HIV testing increased life expectancy to 16.91 years, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$730/YLS compared to the current standard. For HIV-infected patients cured of TB, receiving antiretroviral therapy increased survival from 4.71 to 13.87 years. Results were most sensitive to the HIV prevalence and the cost of second-line antiretroviral therapy.Referral of all patients with active TB in India for HIV testing will be both effective and cost-effective. While effective implementation of this strategy would require investment, routine, voluntary HIV testing of TB patients in India should be recommended.

Project description:BackgroundIn France, roughly 40,000 HIV-infected persons are unaware of their HIV infection. Although previous studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of routine HIV screening in the United States, differences in both the epidemiology of infection and HIV testing behaviors warrant a setting-specific analysis for France.Methods/principal findingsWe estimated the life expectancy (LE), cost and cost-effectiveness of alternative HIV screening strategies in the French general population and high-risk sub-populations using a computer model of HIV detection and treatment, coupled with French national clinical and economic data. We compared risk-factor-based HIV testing ("current practice") to universal routine, voluntary HIV screening in adults aged 18-69. Screening frequencies ranged from once to annually. Input data included mean age (42 years), undiagnosed HIV prevalence (0.10%), annual HIV incidence (0.01%), test acceptance (79%), linkage to care (75%) and cost/test (€43). We performed sensitivity analyses on HIV prevalence and incidence, cost estimates, and the transmission benefits of ART. "Current practice" produced LEs of 242.82 quality-adjusted life months (QALM) among HIV-infected persons and 268.77 QALM in the general population. Adding a one-time HIV screen increased LE by 0.01 QALM in the general population and increased costs by €50/person, for a cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of €57,400 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). More frequent screening in the general population increased survival, costs and CERs. Among injection drug users (prevalence 6.17%; incidence 0.17%/year) and in French Guyana (prevalence 0.41%; incidence 0.35%/year), annual screening compared to every five years produced CERs of €51,200 and €46,500/QALY.Conclusions/significanceOne-time routine HIV screening in France improves survival compared to "current practice" and compares favorably to other screening interventions recommended in Western Europe. In higher-risk groups, more frequent screening is economically justifiable.

Project description:BackgroundMobile HIV screening may facilitate early HIV diagnosis. Our objective was to examine the cost-effectiveness of adding a mobile screening unit to current medical facility-based HIV testing in Cape Town, South Africa.Methods and findingsWe used the Cost Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications International (CEPAC-I) computer simulation model to evaluate two HIV screening strategies in Cape Town: 1) medical facility-based testing (the current standard of care) and 2) addition of a mobile HIV-testing unit intervention in the same community. Baseline input parameters were derived from a Cape Town-based mobile unit that tested 18,870 individuals over 2 years: prevalence of previously undiagnosed HIV (6.6%), mean CD4 count at diagnosis (males 423/µL, females 516/µL), CD4 count-dependent linkage to care rates (males 31%-58%, females 49%-58%), mobile unit intervention cost (includes acquisition, operation and HIV test costs, $29.30 per negative result and $31.30 per positive result). We conducted extensive sensitivity analyses to evaluate input uncertainty. Model outcomes included site of HIV diagnosis, life expectancy, medical costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention compared to medical facility-based testing. We considered the intervention to be "very cost-effective" when the ICER was less than South Africa's annual per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ($8,200 in 2012). We projected that, with medical facility-based testing, the discounted (undiscounted) HIV-infected population life expectancy was 132.2 (197.7) months; this increased to 140.7 (211.7) months with the addition of the mobile unit. The ICER for the mobile unit was $2,400/year of life saved (YLS). Results were most sensitive to the previously undiagnosed HIV prevalence, linkage to care rates, and frequency of HIV testing at medical facilities.ConclusionThe addition of mobile HIV screening to current testing programs can improve survival and be very cost-effective in South Africa and other resource-limited settings, and should be a priority.

Dataset Information

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of expanded voluntary HIV testing in India.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of expanded voluntary HIV testing in India.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets