Dataset Information

The Potential Impact of One-Time Routine HIV Screening on Prevention and Clinical Outcomes in the United States: A Model-Based Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

US guidelines recommend routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening of all adults and adolescents at least once. The population-level impact of this strategy is unclear and will vary across the country.

Methods

We constructed a static linear model to estimate the optimal ages and incremental impact of adding 1-time routine HIV screening to risk-based, prenatal, symptom-based, and partner notification testing. Using surveillance data and published studies, we parameterized the model at the national level and for 2 settings representing subnational variability in the rates and distribution of infection: King County, WA and Philadelphia County, PA. Screening strategies were evaluated in terms of the percent of tests that result in new diagnoses (test positivity), cumulative person-years of undiagnosed infection, and the number of symptomatic HIV/acquired immune deficiency syndrome cases.

Results

Depending on the frequency of risk-based screening, routine screening test positivity was maximized at ages 30 to 34 years in the national model. The optimal age for routine screening was higher in a setting with a lower proportion of cases among men who have sex with men. Across settings, routine screening resulted in incremental reductions of 3% to 8% in years of undiagnosed infection and 3% to 11% in symptomatic cases, compared with reductions of 36% to 69% and 41% to 76% attributable to risk-based screening.

Conclusions

Although routine HIV screening may contribute meaningfully to increased case detection in persons not captured by targeted testing programs in some settings, this strategy will have a limited impact on population-level outcomes. Our findings highlight the importance of a multipronged testing strategy with continued investment in risk-based screening programs.

SUBMITTER: Rao DW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7167345 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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.