Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy.

BACKGROUND: The costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of screening for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in health care settings during the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) have not been determined. METHODS: We developed a Markov model of costs, quality of life, and survival associated with an HIV-screening program as compared with current practice. In both strategies, symptomatic patients were identified through symptom-based case finding. Identified patients started treatment when their CD4 count dropped to 350 cells per cubic millimeter. Disease progression was defined on the basis of CD4 levels and viral load. The likelihood of sexual transmission was based on viral load, knowledge of HIV status, and efficacy of counseling. RESULTS: Given a 1 percent prevalence of unidentified HIV infection, screening increased life expectancy by 5.48 days, or 4.70 quality-adjusted days, at an estimated cost of 194 dollars per screened patient, for a cost-effectiveness ratio of 15,078 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year. Screening cost less than 50,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year if the prevalence of unidentified HIV infection exceeded 0.05 percent. Excluding HIV transmission, the cost-effectiveness of screening was 41,736 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year. Screening every five years, as compared with a one-time screening program, cost 57,138 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year, but was more attractive in settings with a high incidence of infection. Our results were sensitive to the efficacy of behavior modification, the benefit of early identification and therapy, and the prevalence and incidence of HIV infection. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of routine HIV screening in health care settings, even in relatively low-prevalence populations, is similar to that of commonly accepted interventions, and such programs should be expanded.

Cost-effectiveness of rapid syphilis screening in prenatal HIV testing programs in Haiti.

BACKGROUND: New rapid syphilis tests permit simple and immediate diagnosis and treatment at a single clinic visit. We compared the cost-effectiveness, projected health outcomes, and annual cost of screening pregnant women using a rapid syphilis test as part of scaled-up prenatal testing to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission in Haiti. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A decision analytic model simulated health outcomes and costs separately for pregnant women in rural and urban areas. We compared syphilis syndromic surveillance (rural standard of care), rapid plasma reagin test with results and treatment at 1-wk follow-up (urban standard of care), and a new rapid test with immediate results and treatment. Test performance data were from a World Health Organization-Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases field trial conducted at the GHESKIO Center Groupe Haitien d'Etude du Sarcome de Kaposi et des Infections Opportunistes in Port-au-Prince. Health outcomes were projected using historical data on prenatal syphilis treatment efficacy and included disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) of newborns, congenital syphilis cases, neonatal deaths, and stillbirths. Cost-effectiveness ratios are in US dollars/DALY from a societal perspective; annual costs are in US dollars from a payer perspective. Rapid testing with immediate treatment has a cost-effectiveness ratio of $6.83/DALY in rural settings and $9.95/DALY in urban settings. Results are sensitive to regional syphilis prevalence, rapid test sensitivity, and the return rate for follow-up visits. Integrating rapid syphilis testing into a scaled-up national HIV testing and prenatal care program would prevent 1,125 congenital syphilis cases and 1,223 stillbirths or neonatal deaths annually at a cost of $525,000. CONCLUSIONS: In Haiti, integrating a new rapid syphilis test into prenatal care and HIV testing would prevent congenital syphilis cases and stillbirths, and is cost-effective. A similar approach may be beneficial in other resource-poor countries that are scaling up prenatal HIV testing.

A synthesis of cost-utility analysis literature in infectious disease.

The purpose of this review is to understand infectious disease-related cost-utility analyses by describing published analyses, examining growth and quality trends over time, examining factors related to quality, and summarising standardised results. 122 cost-utility analyses and 352 cost-utility ratios were identified. Pharmaceutical interventions were most common (47.5%); three author groups accounted for 42.8% of pharmaceutical ratios. High-volume journals (three or more published cost-utility analyses) published higher quality analyses than low-volume journals (p<0.001). Use of probabilistic sensitivity analysis and discounting at 3% were more frequently found in the years after the US Public Health Service Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommendations (p<0.01). Median ratios varied from US13,500 dollars/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for immunisations to US810,000 dollars/QALY for blood safety. Publication of infectious disease cost-utility analyses is increasing. The results of cost-utility analyses have important implications for the development of clinical guidelines and resource allocation decisions. More trained investigators and better peer-review processes are needed.

Evaluating human papillomavirus vaccination programs.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) has been implicated as the primary etiologic agent of cervical cancer. Potential vaccines against high-risk HPV types are in clinical trials. We evaluated vaccination programs with a vaccine against HPV-16 and HPV-18. We developed disease transmission models that estimated HPV prevalence and infection rates for the population overall, by age group, by level of sexual activity within each age group, and by sex. Data were based on clinical trials and published and unpublished sources. An HPV-16/18 vaccine for 12-year-old girls would reduce cohort cervical cancer cases by 61.8%, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of 14,583 dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Including male participants in a vaccine rollout would further reduce cervical cancer cases by 2.2% at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 442,039 dollars/QALY compared to female-only vaccination. Vaccination against HPV-16 and HPV-18 can be cost-effective, although including male participants in a vaccination program is generally not cost-effective, compared to female-only vaccination.