Dataset Information

Comparing Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Testing Strategies: Targeted and Routine Testing in Washington, DC.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Routine HIV testing is an essential approach to identifying undiagnosed infections, linking people to care and treatment, and preventing new infections. In Washington, DC, where HIV prevalence is 2.4%, a combination of routine and targeted testing approaches has been implemented since 2006.

Methods

We sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the District of Columbia (DC) Department of Health's routine and targeted HIV testing implementation strategies. We collected HIV testing data from 3 types of DC Department of Health-funded testing sites (clinics, hospitals, and community-based organizations); collected testing and labor costs; and calculated effectiveness measures including cost per new diagnosis and cost per averted transmission.

Results

Compared to routine testing, targeted testing resulted in higher positivity rates (1.33% vs. 0.44%). Routine testing averted 34.30 transmissions per year compared to targeted testing at 17.78. The cost per new diagnosis was lower for targeted testing ($2,467 vs. $7,753 per new diagnosis) as was the cost per transmission averted ($33,160 vs. $104,205). When stratified by testing site, both testing approaches were most cost effective in averting new transmissions when conducted by community based organizations ($25,037 routine; $33,123 targeted) compared to hospitals or clinics.

Conclusions

While routine testing identified more newly diagnosed infections and averted more infections than targeted testing, targeted testing is more cost effective per diagnosis and per transmission averted overall. Given the high HIV prevalence in DC, the DC Department of Health's implementation strategy should continue to encourage routine testing implementation with emphasis on a combined testing strategy among community-based organizations.

SUBMITTER: Castel AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4605630 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Testing Strategies: Targeted and Routine Testing in Washington, DC.

Castel Amanda D AD Choi Sungwoog S Dor Avi A Skillicorn Jennifer J Peterson James J Rocha Nestor N Kharfen Michael M

PloS one 20151014 10

<h4>Background</h4>Routine HIV testing is an essential approach to identifying undiagnosed infections, linking people to care and treatment, and preventing new infections. In Washington, DC, where HIV prevalence is 2.4%, a combination of routine and targeted testing approaches has been implemented since 2006.<h4>Methods</h4>We sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the District of Columbia (DC) Department of Health's routine and targeted HIV testing implementation strategies. We collected ...[more]

PMID: 26465771

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundDual HIV and syphilis testing might help to prevent mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV and syphilis through increased case detection and treatment. We aimed to model and assess the cost-effectiveness of dual testing during antenatal care in four countries with varying HIV and syphilis prevalence.MethodsIn this modelling study, we developed Markov models of HIV and syphilis in pregnant women to estimate costs and infant health outcomes of maternal testing at the first antenatal care visit with individual HIV and syphilis tests (base case) and at the first antenatal care visit with a dual rapid diagnostic test (scenario one). We additionally evaluated retesting during late antenatal care and at delivery with either individual tests (scenario two) or a dual rapid diagnosis test (scenario three). We modelled four countries: South Africa, Kenya, Colombia, and Ukraine. Strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the country-specific cost-effectiveness threshold (US$500 in Kenya, $750 in South Africa, $3000 in Colombia, and $1000 in Ukraine) per disability-adjusted life-year averted were considered cost-effective.FindingsRoutinely offering testing at the first antenatal care visit with a dual rapid diagnosis test was cost-saving compared with the base case in all four countries (ICER: -$26 in Kenya,-$559 in South Africa, -$844 in Colombia, and -$454 in Ukraine). Retesting during late antenatal care with a dual rapid diagnostic test (scenario three) was cost-effective compared with scenario one in all four countries (ICER: $270 in Kenya, $260 in South Africa, $2207 in Colombia, and $205 in Ukraine).InterpretationIncorporating dual rapid diagnostic tests in antenatal care can be cost-saving across countries with varying HIV prevalence. Countries should consider incorporating dual HIV and syphilis rapid diagnostic tests as the first test in antenatal care to support efforts to eliminate MTCT of HIV and syphilis.FundingWHO, US Agency for International Development, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dataset Information

Comparing Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Testing Strategies: Targeted and Routine Testing in Washington, DC.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparing Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Testing Strategies: Targeted and Routine Testing in Washington, DC.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets