Health Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Testing, Linkage, and Early Antiretroviral Treatment in the Botswana Combination Prevention Project.

BACKGROUND: The Botswana Combination Prevention Project tested the impact of combination prevention (CP) on HIV incidence in a community-randomized trial. Each trial arm had ∼55,000 people, 26% HIV prevalence, and 72% baseline ART coverage. Results showed intensive testing and linkage campaigns, expanded antiretroviral treatment (ART), and voluntary male medical circumcision referrals increased coverage and decreased incidence over ∼29 months of follow-up. We projected lifetime clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of CP in this population. SETTING: Rural and periurban communities in Botswana. METHODS: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications model to estimate lifetime health impact and cost of (1) earlier ART initiation and (2) averting an HIV infection, which we applied to incremental ART initiations and averted infections calculated from trial data. We determined the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [US$/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY)] for CP vs. standard of care. RESULTS: In CP, 1418 additional people with HIV initiated ART and an additional 304 infections were averted. For each additional person started on ART, life expectancy increased 0.90 QALYs and care costs increased by $869. For each infection averted, life expectancy increased 2.43 QALYs with $9200 in care costs saved. With CP, an additional $1.7 million were spent on prevention and $1.2 million on earlier treatment. These costs were mostly offset by decreased care costs from averted infections, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $79 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced HIV testing, linkage, and early ART initiation improve life expectancy, reduce transmission, and can be cost-effective or cost-saving in settings like Botswana.

Cost implications of HIV retesting for verification in Africa.

INTRODUCTION: HIV misdiagnosis leads to severe individual and public health consequences. Retesting for verification of all HIV-positive cases prior to antiretroviral therapy initiation can reduce HIV misdiagnosis, yet this practice has not been not widely implemented. METHODS: We evaluated and compared the cost of retesting for verification of HIV seropositivity (retesting) to the cost of antiretroviral treatment (ART) for misdiagnosed cases in the absence of retesting (no retesting), from the perspective of the health care system. We estimated the number of misdiagnosed cases based on a review of misdiagnosis rates, and the number of positives persons needing ART initiation by 2020. We presented the total and per person costs of retesting as compared to no retesting, over a ten-year horizon, across 50 countries in Africa grouped by income level. We conducted univariate sensitivity analysis on all model input parameters, and threshold analysis to evaluate the parameter values where the total costs of retesting and the costs no retesting are equivalent. Cost data were adjusted to 2017 United States Dollars. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The estimated number of misdiagnoses, in the absence of retesting was 156,117, 52,720 and 29,884 for lower-income countries (LICs), lower-middle income countries (LMICs), and upper middle-income countries (UMICs), respectively, totaling 240,463 for Africa. Under the retesting scenario, costs per person initially diagnosed were: $40, $21, and $42, for LICs, LMICs, and UMICs, respectively. When retesting for verification is implemented, the savings in unnecessary ART were $125, $43, and $75 per person initially diagnosed, for LICs, LMICs, and UMICs, respectively. Over the ten-year horizon, the total costs under the retesting scenario, over all country income levels, was $475 million, and was $1.192 billion under the no retesting scenario, representing total estimated savings of $717 million in HIV treatment costs averted. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that to reduce HIV misdiagnosis, countries in Africa should implement the WHO's recommendation of retesting for verification prior to ART initiation, as part of a comprehensive quality assurance program for HIV testing services.

Cost of Community-Based HIV Testing Activities to Reach Saturation in Botswana.

In Botswana, 85% of persons living with HIV are aware of their status. We performed an economic analysis of HIV testing activities implemented during intensive campaigns, in 11 communities, between April 2015 and March 2016, through the Botswana Combination Prevention Project. The total cost was $1,098,312, or $99,847 per community, with 60% attributable to home-based testing and 40% attributable to mobile testing. The cost per person tested was $44, and $671 per person testing positive (2017 USD). Labor costs comprised 64% of total costs. In areas of high HIV prevalence and treatment coverage, the cost of untargeted home-based testing may be inflated by the efforts required to assess the testing eligibility of clients who are HIV-positive and on ART. Home-based and mobile testing delivered though an intensive community-based campaign allowed the identification of HIV positive persons, who may not access health facilities, at a cost comparable to other studies.

From Theory to Practice: Implementation of a Resource Allocation Model in Health Departments.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a resource allocation model to optimize health departments' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded HIV prevention budgets to prevent the most new cases of HIV infection and to evaluate the model's implementation in 4 health departments. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: We developed a linear programming model combined with a Bernoulli process model that allocated a fixed budget among HIV prevention interventions and risk subpopulations to maximize the number of new infections prevented. The model, which required epidemiologic, behavioral, budgetary, and programmatic data, was implemented in health departments in Philadelphia, Chicago, Alabama, and Nebraska. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The optimal allocation of funds, the site-specific cost per case of HIV infection prevented rankings by intervention, and the expected number of HIV cases prevented. RESULTS: The model suggested allocating funds to HIV testing and continuum-of-care interventions in all 4 health departments. The most cost-effective intervention for all sites was HIV testing in nonclinical settings for men who have sex with men, and the least cost-effective interventions were behavioral interventions for HIV-negative persons. The pilot sites required 3 to 4 months of technical assistance to develop data inputs and generate and interpret the results. Although the sites found the model easy to use in providing quantitative evidence for allocating HIV prevention resources, they criticized the exclusion of structural interventions and the use of the model to allocate only CDC funds. CONCLUSIONS: Resource allocation models have the potential to improve the allocation of limited HIV prevention resources and can be used as a decision-making guide for state and local health departments. Using such models may require substantial staff time and technical assistance. These model results emphasize the allocation of CDC funds toward testing and continuum-of-care interventions and populations at highest risk of HIV transmission.

A systematic review on cost effectiveness of HIV prevention interventions in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) focus on funding HIV prevention interventions likely to have high impact on the HIV epidemic. In its most recent funding announcement to state and local health department grantees, CDC required that health departments allocate the majority of funds to four HIV prevention interventions: HIV testing, prevention with HIV-positives and their partners, condom distribution and policy initiatives. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review of the published literature to determine the extent of the cost-effectiveness evidence for each of those interventions. METHODOLOGY: We searched for US-based studies published through October 2012. The studies that qualified for inclusion contained original analyses that reported costs per quality-adjusted life-year saved, life-year saved, HIV infection averted, or new HIV diagnosis. For each study, paired reviewers performed a detailed review and data extraction. We reported the number of studies related to each intervention and summarized key cost-effectiveness findings according to intervention type. Costs were converted to 2011 US dollars. RESULTS: Of the 50 articles that met the inclusion criteria, 33 related to HIV testing, 15 assessed prevention with HIV-positives and partners, three reported on condom distribution, and one reported on policy initiatives. Methodologies and cost-effectiveness metrics varied across studies and interventions, making them difficult to compare. CONCLUSION: Our review provides an updated summary of the published evidence of cost effectiveness of four key HIV prevention interventions recommended by CDC. With the exception of testing-related interventions, including partner services, where economic evaluations suggest that testing often can be cost effective, more cost-effectiveness research is needed to help guide the most efficient use of HIV prevention funds.

Estimating the impact of state budget cuts and redirection of prevention resources on the HIV epidemic in 59 California local health departments.

BACKGROUND: In the wake of a national economic downturn, the state of California, in 2009-2010, implemented budget cuts that eliminated state funding of HIV prevention and testing. To mitigate the effect of these cuts remaining federal funds were redirected. This analysis estimates the impact of these budget cuts and reallocation of resources on HIV transmission and associated HIV treatment costs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We estimated the effect of the budget cuts and reallocation for California county health departments (excluding Los Angeles and San Francisco) on the number of individuals living with or at-risk for HIV who received HIV prevention services. We used a Bernoulli model to estimate the number of new infections that would occur each year as a result of the changes, and assigned lifetime treatment costs to those new infections. We explored the effect of redirecting federal funds to more cost-effective programs, as well as the potential effect of allocating funds proportionately by transmission category. We estimated that cutting HIV prevention resulted in 55 new infections that were associated with $20 million in lifetime treatment costs. The redirection of federal funds to more cost-effective programs averted 15 HIV infections. If HIV prevention funding were allocated proportionately to transmission categories, we estimated that HIV infections could be reduced below the number that occurred annually before the state budget cuts. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing funding for HIV prevention may result in short-term savings at the expense of additional HIV infections and increased HIV treatment costs. Existing HIV prevention funds would likely have a greater impact on the epidemic if they were allocated to the more cost-effective programs and the populations most likely to acquire and transmit the infection.

Allocating HIV prevention funds in the United States: recommendations from an optimization model.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had an annual budget of approximately $327 million to fund health departments and community-based organizations for core HIV testing and prevention programs domestically between 2001 and 2006. Annual HIV incidence has been relatively stable since the year 2000 and was estimated at 48,600 cases in 2006 and 48,100 in 2009. Using estimates on HIV incidence, prevalence, prevention program costs and benefits, and current spending, we created an HIV resource allocation model that can generate a mathematically optimal allocation of the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention's extramural budget for HIV testing, and counseling and education programs. The model's data inputs and methods were reviewed by subject matter experts internal and external to the CDC via an extensive validation process. The model projects the HIV epidemic for the United States under different allocation strategies under a fixed budget. Our objective is to support national HIV prevention planning efforts and inform the decision-making process for HIV resource allocation. Model results can be summarized into three main recommendations. First, more funds should be allocated to testing and these should further target men who have sex with men and injecting drug users. Second, counseling and education interventions ought to provide a greater focus on HIV positive persons who are aware of their status. And lastly, interventions should target those at high risk for transmitting or acquiring HIV, rather than lower-risk members of the general population. The main conclusions of the HIV resource allocation model have played a role in the introduction of new programs and provide valuable guidance to target resources and improve the impact of HIV prevention efforts in the United States.

A model for allocating CDC's HIV prevention resources in the United States.

The Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has an annual budget of approximately $325 million for funding HIV prevention programs in the U.S. The purpose of this paper is to thoroughly describe the methods used to develop a national HIV resource allocation model intended to inform DHAP on allocation strategies that might improve the overall effectiveness of HIV prevention efforts. The HIV prevention resource allocation problem consists of choosing how to apportion prevention resources among interventions and populations so that HIV incidence is minimized, given a budget constraint. We developed an epidemic model that projects HIV infections over time given a specific allocation scenario. The epidemic model is then embedded in a nonlinear mathematical optimization program to determine the allocation scenario that minimizes HIV incidence over a 5-year horizon. In our model, we consider the general U.S. population and specific at-risk populations. The at-risk populations include 15 subgroups structured by gender, race/ethnicity and HIV transmission risk group. HIV transmission risk groups include high-risk heterosexuals, men who have sex with men and injection drug users. We consider HIV screening interventions and interventions to reduce HIV-related risk behaviors. The output of the model is the optimal funding scenario indicating the amounts to be allocated to all combinations of populations and interventions. For illustrative purposes only, we provide a sample application of the model. In this example, the optimal allocation scenario is compared to the current baseline funding scenario to highlight how the current allocation of funds could be improved. In the baseline allocation, 29% of the annual budget is aimed at the general population, while the model recommends targeting 100% of the budget to the at-risk populations with no allocation targeted to the general population. Within the allocation to behavioral interventions the model recommends an increase in targeting diagnosed positives. Also, the model allocation suggests a greater focus on MSM and IDUs with a 72% of the annual budget allocated to them, while the baseline allocation for MSM and IDUs totals 37%. Incorporating future epidemic trends in the decision-making process informs the selection of populations and interventions that should be targeted. Improving the use of funds by targeting the interventions and population subgroups at greatest risk may lead to improved HIV outcomes. These models can also direct research by pointing to areas where the development of cost-effective interventions can have the most impact on the epidemic.

Allocating funds for HIV/AIDS: a descriptive study of KwaDukuza, South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: through a descriptive study, we determined the factors that influence the decision-making process for allocating funds to HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programmes, and the extent to which formal decision tools are used in the municipality of KwaDukuza, South Africa. METHODS: we conducted 35 key informant interviews in KwaDukuza. The interview questions addressed specific resource allocation issues while allowing respondents to speak openly about the complexities of the HIV/AIDS resource allocation process. RESULTS: donors have a large influence on the decision-making process for HIV/AIDS resource allocation. However, advocacy groups, governmental bodies and local communities also play an important role. Political power, culture and ethics are among a set of intangible factors that have a strong influence on HIV/AIDS resource allocation. Formal methods, including needs assessment, best practice approaches, epidemiologic modelling and cost-effectiveness analysis are sometimes used to support the HIV/AIDS resource allocation process. Historical spending patterns are an important consideration in future HIV/AIDS allocation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: several factors and groups influence resource allocation in KwaDukuza. Although formal economic and epidemiologic information is sometimes used, in most cases other factors are more important for resource allocation decision-making. These other factors should be considered in any attempts to improve the resource allocation processes.

Cost-effectiveness of newborn circumcision in reducing lifetime HIV risk among U.S. males.

BACKGROUND: HIV incidence was substantially lower among circumcised versus uncircumcised heterosexual African men in three clinical trials. Based on those findings, we modeled the potential effect of newborn male circumcision on a U.S. male's lifetime risk of HIV, including associated costs and quality-adjusted life-years saved. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Given published estimates of U.S. males' lifetime HIV risk, we calculated the fraction of lifetime risk attributable to heterosexual behavior from 2005-2006 HIV surveillance data. We assumed 60% efficacy of circumcision in reducing heterosexually-acquired HIV over a lifetime, and varied efficacy in sensitivity analyses. We calculated differences in lifetime HIV risk, expected HIV treatment costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) among circumcised versus uncircumcised males. The main outcome measure was cost per HIV-related QALY saved. Circumcision reduced the lifetime HIV risk among all males by 15.7% in the base case analysis, ranging from 7.9% for white males to 20.9% for black males. Newborn circumcision was a cost-saving HIV prevention intervention for all, black and Hispanic males. The net cost of newborn circumcision per QALY saved was $87,792 for white males. Results were most sensitive to the discount rate, and circumcision efficacy and cost. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Newborn circumcision resulted in lower expected HIV-related treatment costs and a slight increase in QALYs. It reduced the 1.87% lifetime risk of HIV among all males by about 16%. The effect varied substantially by race and ethnicity. Racial and ethnic groups who could benefit the most from circumcision may have least access to it due to insurance coverage and state Medicaid policies, and these financial barriers should be addressed. More data on the long-term protective effect of circumcision on heterosexual males as well as on its efficacy in preventing HIV among MSM would be useful.

Recommendations for increasing the use of HIV/AIDS resource allocation models.

BACKGROUND: Resource allocation models have not had a substantial impact on HIV/AIDS resource allocation decisions in spite of the important, additional insights they may provide. In this paper, we highlight six difficulties often encountered in attempts to implement such models in policy settings; these are: model complexity, data requirements, multiple stakeholders, funding issues, and political and ethical considerations. We then make recommendations as to how each of these difficulties may be overcome. RESULTS: To ensure that models can inform the actual decision, modellers should understand the environment in which decision-makers operate, including full knowledge of the stakeholders' key issues and requirements. HIV/AIDS resource allocation model formulations should be contextualized and sensitive to societal concerns and decision-makers' realities. Modellers should provide the required education and training materials in order for decision-makers to be reasonably well versed in understanding the capabilities, power and limitations of the model. CONCLUSION: This paper addresses the issue of knowledge translation from the established resource allocation modelling expertise in the academic realm to that of policymaking.

Economic evaluation of ondansetron vs dimenhydrinate for prevention of postoperative vomiting in children undergoing strabismus surgery.

BACKGROUND: Although rarely life-threatening, postoperative vomiting (POV) is a distressing complication. The incidence of POV ranges from 34 to 90% in children undergoing strabismus surgery when antiemetics are not administered prophylactically. METHODS: In this study, a cost-consequence analysis (CCA) is used to estimate the economic benefit of ondansetron and dimenhydrinate as antiemetics administered prophylactically in children undergoing strabismus surgery. This retrospective study was conducted at The Hospital for Sick Children based on a review of 70 charts. RESULTS: Ondansetron was more effective with 45.3 POV-free patients (PFP) in an adjusted cohort of 100, while dimenhydrinate resulted in 38.2 PFP in an adjusted cohort of 100. The costs were significantly different between the two groups, CAD dollars 185.90 (+/-26.37, 95% CI, CAD dollars 173,89; CAD dollars 197.90) and CAD dollars 232.90 (+/-CAD dollars 66.84, 95% CI, CAD dollars 198.53; CAD dollars 267.27) per patient for ondansetron and dimenhydrinate, respectively. The length of stay in the postanesthetic care unit (PACU) represented over 97% of total costs, and the mean lengths of stay in the PACU for ondansetron and dimenhydrinate were significantly different, 3.43 and 4.41 h, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study should serve as a pilot for a large-scale investigation on the correlation between the length of stay in the PACU and the antiemetic agent used.