Cost-Effectiveness of Community-Based Diet and Exercise for Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis and Obesity or Overweight.

OBJECTIVE: Obesity exacerbates pain and functional limitation in persons with knee osteoarthritis (OA). In the Weight Loss and Exercise for Communities with Arthritis in North Carolina (WE-CAN) study, a community-based diet and exercise (D + E) intervention led to an additional 6 kg weight loss and 20% greater pain relief in persons with knee OA and body mass index (BMI) >27 kg/m2 relative to a group-based health education (HE) intervention. We sought to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of the usual care (UC), UC + HE, and UC + (D + E) programs, comparing each strategy with the "next-best" strategy ranked by increasing lifetime cost. METHODS: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model to project long-term clinical and economic benefits of the WE-CAN interventions. We considered three strategies: UC, UC + HE, and UC + (D + E). We derived cohort characteristics, weight, and pain reduction from the WE-CAN trial. Our outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: In a cohort with mean age 65 years, BMI 37 kg/m2, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score 38 (scale 0-100, 100 = worst), UC leads to 9.36 QALYs/person, compared with 9.44 QALYs for UC + HE and 9.49 QALYS for UC + (D + E). The corresponding lifetime costs are $147,102, $148,139, and $151,478. From the societal perspective, UC + HE leads to an ICER of $12,700/QALY; adding D + E to UC leads to an ICER of $61,700/QALY. CONCLUSION: The community-based D + E program for persons with knee OA and BMI >27kg/m2 could be cost-effective for willingness-to-pay thresholds greater than $62,000/QALY. These findings suggest that incorporation of community-based D + E programs into OA care may be beneficial for public health.

Daily Oral HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Among Young Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States: Cost-saving at Generic Drug Price.

BACKGROUND: Adherence and retention concerns raise questions about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in young men who have sex with men (YMSM). METHODS: Using an adolescent-focused simulation model, we compared annual HIV screening alone with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine-based oral PrEP with every 3-month HIV screening in YMSM (aged 15-24) at increased risk of HIV. Data derived from published sources included: age-stratified HIV incidence/100 person-years (PY) on- or off-PrEP (0.6-10.1 or 0.4-6.4), PrEP retention at 6 years (28%), transmissions by HIV RNA level (0.0-78.4/100PY) and annual costs of antiretroviral therapy ($32 000-69 000), HIV care ($3100-34 600), and PrEP program/generic drug ($900/360). Outcomes included transmissions (percent of cohort infected), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs ($), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ($/QALY). We explored the sensitivity of findings to variation in HIV incidence and drug prices. RESULTS: Compared with annual screening alone, PrEP would increase QALYs (9.58 to 9.67), reduce new infections (37% to 30%), and decrease costs (by $5000) over 10 years. PrEP would remain cost-saving for HIV incidence off-PrEP ≥5.1/100PY or annual PrEP price ≤$1200. Over a lifetime horizon, PrEP would be cost-saving for HIV incidence off-PrEP ≥1.0/100PY, across all retention assumptions examined. PrEP would not be cost-effective at HIV incidence ≤0.1/100PY, regardless of drug price, due to programmatic costs. CONCLUSIONS: In US YMSM at increased risk of HIV, generic oral PrEP and every-3-month screening would be cost-saving compared with annual screening alone, even with high discontinuation and low adherence, over a range of HIV incidences.

Optimizing COVID-19 testing strategies on college campuses: Evaluation of the health and economic costs.

Colleges and universities in the US struggled to provide safe in-person education throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing coupled with isolation is a nimble intervention strategy that can be tailored to mitigate the changing health and economic risks associated with SARS-CoV-2. We developed a decision-support tool to aid in the design of university-based screening strategies using a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Applying this framework to a large public university reopening in the fall of 2021 with a 60% student vaccination rate, we find that the optimal strategy, in terms of health and economic costs, is twice weekly antigen testing of all students. This strategy provides a 95% guarantee that, throughout the fall semester, case counts would not exceed twice the CDC's original high transmission threshold of 100 cases per 100k persons over 7 days. As the virus and our medical armament continue to evolve, testing will remain a flexible tool for managing risks and keeping campuses open. We have implemented this model as an online tool to facilitate the design of testing strategies that adjust for COVID-19 conditions as well as campus-specific populations, resources, and priorities.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of typhoid conjugate vaccines in an outbreak setting: a modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Several prolonged typhoid fever epidemics have been reported since 2010 throughout eastern and southern Africa, including Malawi, caused by multidrug-resistant Salmonella Typhi. The World Health Organization recommends the use of typhoid conjugate vaccines (TCVs) in outbreak settings; however, current data are limited on how and when TCVs might be introduced in response to outbreaks. METHODOLOGY: We developed a stochastic model of typhoid transmission fitted to data from Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital in Blantyre, Malawi from January 1996 to February 2015. We used the model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vaccination strategies over a 10-year time horizon in three scenarios: (1) when an outbreak is likely to occur; (2) when an outbreak is unlikely to occur within the next ten years; and (3) when an outbreak has already occurred and is unlikely to occur again. We considered three vaccination strategies compared to the status quo of no vaccination: (a) preventative routine vaccination at 9 months of age; (b) preventative routine vaccination plus a catch-up campaign to 15 years of age; and (c) reactive vaccination with a catch-up campaign to age 15 (for Scenario 1). We also explored variations in outbreak definitions, delays in implementation of reactive vaccination, and the timing of preventive vaccination relative to the outbreak. RESULTS: Assuming an outbreak occurs within 10 years, we estimated that the various vaccination strategies would prevent a median of 15-60% of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Reactive vaccination was the preferred strategy for WTP values of $0-300 per DALY averted. For WTP values > $300, introduction of preventative routine TCV immunization with a catch-up campaign was the preferred strategy. Routine vaccination with a catch-up campaign was cost-effective for WTP values above $890 per DALY averted if no outbreak occurs and > $140 per DALY averted if implemented after the outbreak has already occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Countries for which the spread of antimicrobial resistance is likely to lead to outbreaks of typhoid fever should consider TCV introduction. Reactive vaccination can be a cost-effective strategy, but only if delays in vaccine deployment are minimal; otherwise, introduction of preventive routine immunization with a catch-up campaign is the preferred strategy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Weight-Loss Interventions Prior to Total Knee Replacement for Patients With Class III Obesity.

OBJECTIVE: Class III obesity (body mass index >40 kg/m2 ) is associated with higher complications following total knee replacement (TKR), and weight loss is recommended. We aimed to establish the cost-effectiveness of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and lifestyle nonsurgical weight loss (LNSWL) interventions in knee osteoarthritis patients with class III obesity considering TKR. METHODS: Using the Osteoarthritis Policy model and data from published literature to derive model inputs for RYGB, LSG, LNSWL, and TKR, we assessed the long-term clinical benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of weight-loss interventions for patients with class III obesity considering TKR. We assessed the following strategies with a health care sector perspective: 1) no weight loss/no TKR, 2) immediate TKR, 3) LNSWL, 4) LSG, and 5) RYGB. Each weight-loss strategy was followed by annual TKR reevaluation. Primary outcomes were cost, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), discounted at 3% per year. We conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of conclusions to input uncertainty. RESULTS: LSG increased QALE by 1.64 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lifetime medical costs by $17,347 compared to no intervention, leading to an ICER of $10,600/QALY. RYGB increased QALE by 0.22 and costs by $4,607 beyond LSG, resulting in an ICER of $20,500/QALY. Relative to immediate TKR, LSG and RYGB delayed and decreased TKR utilization. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, RYGB was cost-effective in 67% of iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: For patients with class III obesity considering TKR, RYGB provides good value while immediate TKR without weight loss is not economically efficient.

Optimizing COVID-19 testing strategies on college campuses: evaluation of the health and economic costs.

Colleges and universities in the US struggled to provide safe in-person education throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing coupled with isolation is a nimble intervention strategy that can be tailored to mitigate health and economic costs, as the virus and our arsenal of medical countermeasures continue to evolve. We developed a decision-support tool to aid in the design of university-based testing strategies using a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Applying this framework to a large public university reopening in the fall of 2021 with a 60% student vaccination rate, we find that the optimal strategy, in terms of health and economic costs, is twice weekly antigen testing of all students. This strategy provides a 95% guarantee that, throughout the fall semester, case counts would not exceed the CDC's original high transmission threshold of 100 cases per 100k persons over 7 days. As the virus and our medical armament continue to evolve, testing will remain a flexible tool for managing risks and keeping campuses open. We have implemented this model as an online tool to facilitate the design of testing strategies that adjust for COVID-19 conditions, university-specific parameters, and institutional goals.

Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus test-and-treat and risk reduction strategies among men who have sex with men living with HIV in France.

INTRODUCTION: Studies suggest that hepatitis C virus (HCV) micro-elimination is feasible among men who have sex with men (MSM) living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), through treatment-as-prevention and interventions aimed at reducing risk behaviours. However, their economic impact is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of HCV screening and risk reduction strategies in France. METHODS: A compartmental deterministic mathematical model was developed to describe HCV disease transmission and progression among MSM living with HIV in France. We evaluated different combinations of HCV screening frequency (every 12, 6 or 3 months) and risk reduction strategies (targeting only high-risk or all MSM) from 2021 onwards. The model simulated the number of HCV infections, life-expectancy (LYs), quality-adjusted life-expectancy (QALYs), lifetime costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime horizon (leading to an end of the simulation in 2065). RESULTS: All strategies increased QALYs, compared with current practices, that is yearly HCV screening, with no risk reduction. A behavioural intervention resulting in a 20% risk reduction in the high-risk group, together with yearly screening, was the least expensive strategy, and, therefore, cost-saving compared to current practices. The ICER per QALY gained for the strategy combining risk reduction for the high-risk group with 6-month HCV screening, compared to risk reduction with yearly screening, was €61,389. It also prevented 398 new HCV infections between 2021 and 2065, with a cost per infection averted of €37,790. All other strategies were dominated (more expensive and less effective than some other available alternative) or not cost-effective (ICER per QALY gained > €100,000). CONCLUSIONS: In the French context, current HCV screening practices without risk reduction among MSM living with HIV cannot be justified on economic grounds. Risk reduction interventions targeted to high-risk individuals-alongside screening either once or twice a year-could be cost-effective depending on the policymaker's willingness-to-pay.

Estimating deaths averted and cost per life saved by scaling up mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in low-income and lower-middle-income countries in the COVID-19 Omicron variant era: a modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: While almost 60% of the world has received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, the global distribution of vaccination has not been equitable. Only 4% of the population of low-income countries (LICs) has received a full primary vaccine series, compared with over 70% of the population of high-income nations. DESIGN: We used economic and epidemiological models, parameterised with public data on global vaccination and COVID-19 deaths, to estimate the potential benefits of scaling up vaccination programmes in LICs and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) in 2022 in the context of global spread of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV2. SETTING: Low-income and lower-middle-income nations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were expressed as number of avertable deaths through vaccination, costs of scale-up and cost per death averted. We conducted sensitivity analyses over a wide range of parameter estimates to account for uncertainty around key inputs. FINDINGS: Globally, universal vaccination in LIC/LMIC with three doses of an mRNA vaccine would result in an estimated 1.5 million COVID-19 deaths averted with a total estimated cost of US$61 billion and an estimated cost-per-COVID-19 death averted of US$40 800 (sensitivity analysis range: US$7400-US$81 500). Lower estimated infection fatality ratios, higher cost-per-dose and lower vaccine effectiveness or uptake lead to higher cost-per-death averted estimates in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Scaling up COVID-19 global vaccination would avert millions of COVID-19 deaths and represents a reasonable investment in the context of the value of a statistical life. Given the magnitude of expected mortality facing LIC/LMIC without vaccination, this effort should be an urgent priority.

Cost-Effectiveness of Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy and Physical Therapy for Degenerative Meniscal Tear.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for concomitant meniscal tear and knee osteoarthritis (OA) involving arthroscopic partial meniscectomy surgery and physical therapy (PT). METHODS: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated Monte Carlo microsimulation, to compare three strategies, 1) PT-only, 2) immediate surgery, and 3) PT + optional surgery, for participants whose pain persists following initial PT. We modeled a cohort with baseline meniscal tear, OA, and demographics from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus PT. We estimated risks and costs of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy complications and accounted for heightened OA progression post surgery using published data. We estimated surgery use rates and treatment efficacies using MeTeOR data. We considered a 5-year time horizon, discounted costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) 3% per year and conducted sensitivity analyses. We report incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Relative to PT-only, PT + optional surgery added 0.0651 QALY and $2,010 over 5 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $30,900 per QALY). Relative to PT + optional surgery, immediate surgery added 0.0065 QALY and $3080 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $473,800 per QALY). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were sensitive to optional surgery efficacy in the PT + optional surgery strategy. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, PT + optional surgery was cost-effective in 51% of simulations at willingness-to-pay thresholds of both $50,000 per QALY and $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: First-line arthroscopic partial meniscectomy has a prohibitively high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Under base case assumptions, second-line arthroscopic partial meniscectomy offered to participants with persistent pain following initial PT is cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds between $31,000 and $473,000 per QALY. Our analyses suggest that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy can be a high-value treatment option for patients with meniscal tear and OA when performed following an initial PT course and should remain a covered treatment option.

Cost-Effectiveness of Long-Acting Injectable HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis in the United States : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 083 trial demonstrated the superiority of long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) compared with oral emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF) for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). OBJECTIVE: To identify the maximum price premium (that is, greatest possible price differential) that society should be willing to accept for the additional benefits of CAB-LA over tenofovir-based PrEP among men who have sex with men and transgender women (MSM/TGW) in the United States. DESIGN: Simulation, cost-effectiveness analysis. DATA SOURCES: Trial and published data, including estimated HIV incidence (5.32, 1.33, and 0.26 per 100 person-years for off PrEP, generic F/TDF and branded emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF), and CAB-LA, respectively); 28% 6-year PrEP retention. Annual base-case drug costs: $360 and $16 800 for generic F/TDF and branded F/TAF. Fewer side effects with branded F/TAF versus generic F/TDF were assumed. TARGET POPULATION: 476 700 MSM/TGW at very high risk for HIV (VHR). TIME HORIZON: 10 years. PERSPECTIVE: Health care system. INTERVENTION: CAB-LA versus generic F/TDF or branded F/TAF for HIV PrEP. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary transmissions, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (2020 U.S. dollars), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; U.S. dollars per QALY), maximum price premium for CAB-LA versus tenofovir-based PrEP. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Compared with generic F/TDF (or branded F/TAF), CAB-LA increased life expectancy by 28 000 QALYs (26 000 QALYs) among those at VHR. Branded F/TAF cost more per QALY gained than generic F/TDF compared with no PrEP. At 10 years, CAB-LA could achieve an ICER of at most $100 000 per QALY compared with generic F/TDF at a maximum price premium of $3700 per year over generic F/TDF (CAB-LA price <$4100 per year). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: In a PrEP-eligible population at high risk for HIV, rather than at VHR (n = 1 906 800; off PrEP incidence: 1.54 per 100 person-years), CAB-LA could achieve an ICER of at most $100 000 per QALY versus generic F/TDF at a maximum price premium of $1100 per year over generic F/TDF (CAB-LA price <$1500 per year). LIMITATION: Uncertain clinical and economic benefits of averting future transmissions. CONCLUSION: Effective oral PrEP limits the additional price society should be willing to pay for CAB-LA. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: FHI 360; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institute on Drug Abuse; the Reich HIV Scholar Award; and the Steve and Deborah Gorlin MGH Research Scholars Award.

Population-Level Strategies for Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Prescribing-A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

Background: New coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) medications force decision-makers to weigh limited evidence of efficacy and cost in determining which patient populations to target for treatment. A case in point is nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, a drug that has been recommended for elderly, high-risk individuals, regardless of vaccination status, even though clinical trials have only evaluated it in unvaccinated patients. A simple optimization framework might inform a more reasoned approach to the trade-offs implicit in the treatment allocation decision. Methods: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision-analytic model comparing 5 nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription policy strategies, stratified by vaccination status and risk for severe disease. We considered treatment effectiveness at preventing hospitalization ranging from 21% to 89%. Sensitivity analyses were performed on major parameters of interest. A web-based tool was developed to permit decision-makers to tailor the analysis to their settings and priorities. Results: Providing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to unvaccinated patients at high risk for severe disease was cost-saving when effectiveness against hospitalization exceeded 33% and cost-effective under all other data scenarios we considered. The cost-effectiveness of other allocation strategies, including those for vaccinated adults and those at lower risk for severe disease, depended on willingness-to-pay thresholds, treatment cost and effectiveness, and the likelihood of severe disease. Conclusions: Priority for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment should be given to unvaccinated persons at high risk of severe disease from COVID-19. Further priority may be assigned by weighing treatment effectiveness, disease severity, drug cost, and willingness to pay for deaths averted.

Societal Cost of Opioid Use in Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis Patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (SKOA) is a chronic, disabling condition, requiring long-term pain management; over 800,000 SKOA patients in the US use opioids on a prolonged basis. We aimed to characterize the societal economic burden of opioid use in this population. METHODS: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated computer simulation of SKOA, to estimate the opioid-related lifetime and annual cost generated by the US SKOA population. We included direct medical, lost productivity, criminal justice, and diversion costs. We modeled the SKOA cohort with a mean ± SD age of 54 ± 14 years and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score of 29 ± 17 (0-100, 100 = worst). We estimated annual costs of strong ($1,381) and weak ($671) opioid regimens using Medicare fee schedules, Red Book, the Federal Supply Schedule, and published literature. The annual lost productivity and criminal justice costs of opioid use disorder (OUD), obtained from published literature, were $11,387 and $4,264, per-person, respectively. The 2015-2016 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey provided OUD prevalence. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of our estimates to uncertainty in input parameters. RESULTS: Assuming 5.1% prevalence of prolonged strong opioid use, the total lifetime opioid-related cost generated by the US SKOA population was estimated at $14.0 billion, of which only $7.45 billion (53%) were direct medical costs. CONCLUSION: Lost productivity, diversion, and criminal justice costs comprise approximately half of opioid-related costs generated by the US SKOA population. Reducing prolonged opioid use may lead to a meaningful reduction in societal costs that can be used for other public health causes.

The Value of Total Knee Replacement in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis and a Body Mass Index of 40 kg/m2 or Greater : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Total knee replacement (TKR) is an effective and cost-effective strategy for treating end-stage knee osteoarthritis. Greater risk for complications among TKR recipients with a body mass index (BMI) of 40 kg/m2 or greater has raised concerns about the value of TKR in this population. OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of TKR in recipients with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater using a cost-effectiveness analysis. DESIGN: Osteoarthritis Policy Model to assess long-term clinical benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of TKR in patients with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater. DATA SOURCES: Total knee replacement parameters from longitudinal studies and published literature, and costs from Medicare Physician Fee Schedules, the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and published data. TARGET POPULATION: Recipients of TKR with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater in the United States. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Health care sector. INTERVENTION: Total knee replacement. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Total knee replacement increased QALYs by 0.71 year and lifetime medical costs by $25 200 among patients aged 50 to 65 years with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater, resulting in an ICER of $35 200. Total knee replacement in patients older than 65 years with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater increased QALYs by 0.39 year and costs by $21 100, resulting in an ICER of $54 100. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: In TKR recipients with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater and diabetes and cardiovascular disease, ICERs were below $75 000 per QALY. Results were most sensitive to complication rates and preoperative pain levels. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, at a $55 000-per-QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, TKR had a 100% and 90% likelihood of being a cost-effective strategy for patients aged 50 to 65 years and patients older than 65 years, respectively. LIMITATION: Data are derived from several sources. CONCLUSION: From a cost-effectiveness perspective, TKR offers good value in patients with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater, including those with multiple comorbidities. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Clinical and Economic Effects of Widespread Rapid Testing to Decrease SARS-CoV-2 Transmission.

BACKGROUND: The value of frequent, rapid testing to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To define performance standards and predict the clinical, epidemiologic, and economic outcomes of nationwide, home-based antigen testing. DESIGN: A simple compartmental epidemic model that estimated viral transmission, portrayed disease progression, and forecast resource use, with and without testing. DATA SOURCES: Parameter values and ranges as informed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance and published literature. TARGET POPULATION: U.S. population. TIME HORIZON: 60 days. PERSPECTIVE: Societal; costs included testing, inpatient care, and lost workdays. INTERVENTION: Home-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cumulative infections and deaths, number of persons isolated and hospitalized, and total costs. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Without a testing intervention, the model anticipates 11.6 million infections, 119 000 deaths, and $10.1 billion in costs ($6.5 billion in inpatient care and $3.5 billion in lost productivity) over a 60-day horizon. Weekly availability of testing would avert 2.8 million infections and 15 700 deaths, increasing costs by $22.3 billion. Lower inpatient outlays ($5.9 billion) would partially offset additional testing expenditures ($12.5 billion) and workdays lost ($14.0 billion), yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $7890 per infection averted and $1 430 000 per death averted. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Outcome estimates vary widely under different behavioral assumptions and testing frequencies. However, key findings persist across all scenarios, with large reductions in infections, mortality, and hospitalizations. Costs per death averted are roughly an order of magnitude lower than commonly accepted willingness-to-pay values per statistical life saved ($5 to $17 million). LIMITATIONS: Analysis was restricted to at-home testing. There are uncertainties concerning test performance. CONCLUSION: High-frequency home testing for SARS-CoV-2 with an inexpensive, imperfect test could contribute to pandemic control at justifiable cost and warrants consideration as part of a national containment strategy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Clinical and Economic Impact of Widespread Rapid Testing to Decrease SARS-CoV-2 Transmission.

BACKGROUND: The value of frequent, rapid testing to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To define performance standards and predict the clinical, epidemiological, and economic outcomes of nationwide, home-based, antigen testing. DESIGN: A simple compartmental epidemic model estimated viral transmission, clinical history, and resource use, with and without testing. DATA SOURCES: Parameter values and ranges informed by Centers for Disease Control guidance and published literature. TARGET POPULATION: United States population. TIME HORIZON: 60 days. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. Costs include: testing, inpatient care, and lost workdays. INTERVENTION: Home-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cumulative infections and deaths, numbers isolated and/or hospitalized, and total costs. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Without a testing intervention, the model anticipates 15 million infections, 125,000 deaths, and $10.4 billion in costs ($6.5 billion inpatient; $3.9 billion lost productivity) over a 60-day horizon. Weekly availability of testing may avert 4 million infections and 19,000 deaths, raising costs by $21.5 billion. Lower inpatient outlays ($5.9 billion) would partially offset additional testing expenditures ($12.0 billion) and workdays lost ($13.9 billion), yielding incremental costs per infection (death) averted of $5,400 ($1,100,000). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Outcome estimates vary widely under different behavioral assumptions and testing frequencies. However, key findings persist across all scenarios: large reductions in infections, mortality, and hospitalizations; and costs per death averted roughly an order of magnitude lower than commonly accepted willingness-to-pay values per statistical life saved ($5-17 million). LIMITATIONS: Analysis restricted to at-home testing and limited by uncertainties about test performance. CONCLUSION: High-frequency home testing for SARS-CoV-2 using an inexpensive, imperfect test could contribute to pandemic control at justifiable cost and warrants consideration as part of a national containment strategy.

Adaptive Policies to Balance Health Benefits and Economic Costs of Physical Distancing Interventions during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Policy makers need decision tools to determine when to use physical distancing interventions to maximize the control of COVID-19 while minimizing the economic and social costs of these interventions. We describe a pragmatic decision tool to characterize adaptive policies that combine real-time surveillance data with clear decision rules to guide when to trigger, continue, or stop physical distancing interventions during the current pandemic. In model-based experiments, we find that adaptive policies characterized by our proposed approach prevent more deaths and require a shorter overall duration of physical distancing than alternative physical distancing policies. Our proposed approach can readily be extended to more complex models and interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of Frequent HIV Screening Among High-risk Young Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Of new HIV infections in the US, 20% occur among young men who have sex with men (YMSM, ages 13-24), but >50% of YMSM with HIV are unaware of their status. Using Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions (ATN) data, we projected the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of frequent HIV screening among high-risk YMSM from age 15. METHODS: Using a mathematical simulation, we examined 3 screening strategies: Yearly, 6-monthly, and 3-monthly, each in addition to the Status quo (SQ, 0.7-10.3% screened/year, stratified by age). We used published data (YMSM-specific when available) including: HIV incidences (0.91-6.41/100PY); screen acceptance (80%), linkage-to-care/antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation (76%), HIV transmission (0.3-86.1/100PY, by HIV RNA), monthly ART costs ($2290-$3780), and HIV per-screen costs ($38). Projected outcomes included CD4 count at diagnosis, primary HIV transmissions from ages 15-30, quality-adjusted life expectancy, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-adjusted life-year saved [QALY]; threshold ≤$100 000/QALY). RESULTS: Compared to SQ, all strategies increased projected CD4 at diagnosis (296 to 477-515 cells/µL) and quality-adjusted life expectancy from age 15 (44.4 to 48.3-48.7 years) among YMSM acquiring HIV. Compared to SQ, all strategies increased discounted lifetime cost for the entire population ($170 800 to $178 100-$185 000/person). Screening 3-monthly was cost-effective (ICER: $4500/QALY) compared to SQ and reduced primary transmissions through age 30 by 40%. Results were most sensitive to transmission rates; excluding the impact of transmissions, screening Yearly was ≤$100 000/QALY (ICER: $70 900/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: For high-risk YMSM in the US, HIV screening 3-monthly compared to less frequent screening will improve clinical outcomes and be cost-effective.

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Screening Strategies to Permit the Safe Reopening of College Campuses in the United States.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses an existential threat to many US residential colleges; either they open their doors to students in September or they risk serious financial consequences. Objective: To define severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening performance standards that would permit the safe return of students to US residential college campuses for the fall 2020 semester. Design, Setting, and Participants: This analytic modeling study included a hypothetical cohort of 4990 students without SARS-CoV-2 infection and 10 with undetected, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection at the start of the semester. The decision and cost-effectiveness analyses were linked to a compartmental epidemic model to evaluate symptom-based screening and tests of varying frequency (ie, every 1, 2, 3, and 7 days), sensitivity (ie, 70%-99%), specificity (ie, 98%-99.7%), and cost (ie, $10/test-$50/test). Reproductive numbers (Rt) were 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5, defining 3 epidemic scenarios, with additional infections imported via exogenous shocks. The model assumed a symptomatic case fatality risk of 0.05% and a 30% probability that infection would eventually lead to observable COVID-19-defining symptoms in the cohort. Model projections were for an 80-day, abbreviated fall 2020 semester. This study adhered to US government guidance for parameterization data. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cumulative tests, infections, and costs; daily isolation dormitory census; incremental cost-effectiveness; and budget impact. Results: At the start of the semester, the hypothetical cohort of 5000 students included 4990 (99.8%) with no SARS-CoV-2 infection and 10 (0.2%) with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Assuming an Rt of 2.5 and daily screening with 70% sensitivity, a test with 98% specificity yielded 162 cumulative student infections and a mean isolation dormitory daily census of 116, with 21 students (18%) with true-positive results. Screening every 2 days resulted in 243 cumulative infections and a mean daily isolation census of 76, with 28 students (37%) with true-positive results. Screening every 7 days resulted in 1840 cumulative infections and a mean daily isolation census of 121 students, with 108 students (90%) with true-positive results. Across all scenarios, test frequency was more strongly associated with cumulative infection than test sensitivity. This model did not identify symptom-based screening alone as sufficient to contain an outbreak under any of the scenarios we considered. Cost-effectiveness analysis selected screening with a test with 70% sensitivity every 2, 1, or 7 days as the preferred strategy for an Rt of 2.5, 3.5, or 1.5, respectively, implying screening costs of $470, $910, or $120, respectively, per student per semester. Conclusions and Relevance: In this analytic modeling study, screening every 2 days using a rapid, inexpensive, and even poorly sensitive (>70%) test, coupled with strict behavioral interventions to keep Rt less than 2.5, is estimated to maintain a controllable number of COVID-19 infections and permit the safe return of students to campus.