Dataset Information

Screening for acute HIV infection in community-based settings: Cost-effectiveness and impact on transmissions.

ABSTRACT: To determine cost-effectiveness of three community-based acute HIV infection (AHI) testing algorithms compared to HIV antibody testing alone by focusing on the potential of averting new infections occurring within a one-year time horizon among men who have sex with men (MSM).Data sources for model parameters included actual cost and prevalence data derived from a community-based AHI screening program in San Diego, and published studies. Main outcome measure was costs per infection averted (IA). The lower end of the cost range of discounted lifetime costs of an HIV infection (i.e. $236,948) was used for defining cost-effectiveness.The most sensitive algorithm for AHI detection, which was based on HIV nucleic acid amplification testing, was estimated to prevent between 5 and 45 transmissions, with simulated costs per infection averted between $965 and $141,256 when compared to HIV antibody testing alone.AHI testing was cost-effective in preventing new HIV infections among at risk MSM in San Diego, and also among other MSM populations with similar HIV prevalence but lower proportions of AHI diagnoses. These results indicate that community-based AHI testing among MSM in the United States can pay for itself over the long run.

SUBMITTER: Hoenigl M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5143169 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Screening for acute HIV infection in community-based settings: Cost-effectiveness and impact on transmissions.

Hoenigl Martin M Chaillon Antoine A Mehta Sanjay R SR Smith Davey M DM Graff-Zivin Joshua J Little Susan J SJ

The Journal of infection 20160811 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine cost-effectiveness of three community-based acute HIV infection (AHI) testing algorithms compared to HIV antibody testing alone by focusing on the potential of averting new infections occurring within a one-year time horizon among men who have sex with men (MSM).<h4>Methods</h4>Data sources for model parameters included actual cost and prevalence data derived from a community-based AHI screening program in San Diego, and published studies. Main outcome measure was ...[more]

PMID: 27521468

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundDetection 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 findingsWe 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.ConclusionsPooled 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.

Dataset Information

Screening for acute HIV infection in community-based settings: Cost-effectiveness and impact on transmissions.

Publications

Screening for acute HIV infection in community-based settings: Cost-effectiveness and impact on transmissions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets