Costs and outcomes of laboratory diagnostic algorithms for the detection of HIV.

BACKGROUND: An alternative HIV testing algorithm, designed to improve the detection of acute and early infections and differentiate between HIV-1 and HIV-2 antibodies, has been developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Association of Public Health Laboratories. While it promises greater sensitivity, it also raises concerns about costs. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the most commonly used algorithm which was developed in 1989, a third-generation (3G) immunoassay (IA) and Western blot confirmatory test, to a newer algorithm. The new algorithm includes either a 3G or a fourth-generation (4G) initial IA, followed by confirmatory testing with a HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation IA and, if needed, a nucleic acid amplification test (NAT). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an analysis of HIV testing costs from the perspective of the laboratory, and classified costs according to IA testing volume. We developed a decision analytic model, populated with cost data from 17 laboratories and published assay performance data, to compare the cost-effectiveness of the testing algorithms for a cohort of 30,000 specimens with a 1% HIV prevalence and 0.1% acute HIV infection prevalence. RESULTS: Costs were lower in high-volume laboratories regardless of testing algorithm. For specimens confirmed positive for HIV antibody, the alternative algorithm (IA, Multispot) was less costly than the current algorithm (IA, WB); however, there was wide variation in reported testing costs. For our cohort, the alternative algorithm initiated with a 3G IA and 4G IA identified 15 and 25 more HIV infections, respectively, than the 1989 algorithm. In medium-volume laboratories, the 1989 algorithm was more costly and less effective than the alternative algorithm with a 3G IA; in high-volume laboratories, the alternative algorithm with 3G IA costs $162 more per infection detected. The alternative algorithm with 4G instead of 3G incurred an additional cost of $14,400 and $4865 in medium- and high-volume labs, respectively. DISCUSSION: HIV testing costs varied with IA testing volumes. The additional cost of 4G over 3G IA might be justified by the additional cases of HIV detected and transmissions averted due to earlier detection. CONCLUSION: The alternative HIV testing algorithm compares favorably to the 1989 algorithm in terms of cost and effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of pooled nucleic acid amplification testing for acute HIV infection after third-generation HIV antibody screening and rapid testing in the United States: a comparison of three public health settings.

BACKGROUND: Detection 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 FINDINGS: We 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. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled 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.