The Clinical and Economic Impact of Attaining National HIV/AIDS Strategy Treatment Targets in the United States.

Background: The US National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS) aims for 72% (90% diagnosed times 80% of those virally suppressed) viral suppression among persons with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by 2020. We examined the clinical and economic impact of reaching this target, in the general US population and among black men who have sex with men (MSM), the group with the highest HIV prevalence. Methods: Using a mathematical simulation, we project the 5- and 20-year clinical outcomes, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for (1) Current Pace of detection, linkage, retention, and virologic suppression and (2) NHAS investments in expanded testing ($24-$74 per test) and adherence ($400 per person-year), calibrated to achieve 72% suppression by 2020. We examined alternative rates of testing, retention, and suppression and the efficacy and cost of adherence interventions. Results: Compared with Current Pace over 20 years, NHAS averted 280000 HIV transmissions (80000 in black MSM) and 199000 (45000) deaths and saved 2138000 (453000) years of life, while increasing costs by 23%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for NHAS compared with Current Pace was $68900 per quality-adjusted life-year ($38300 for black MSM) and was most sensitive to antiretroviral therapy costs. Conclusions: Reaching NHAS targets would yield substantial clinical benefits and be cost-effective in both the general US and black MSM populations.

Cost-effectiveness of genotype testing for primary resistance in Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: HIV genotype-resistance testing can help identify more effective antiretroviral treatment (ART) regimens for patients, substantially increasing the likelihood of viral suppression and immune recovery. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of genotype-resistance testing before first-line ART initiation in Brazil. DESIGN: We used a previously published microsimulation model of HIV disease (CEPAC-International) and data from Brazil to compare the clinical impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of initial genotype testing (Genotype) with no initial genotype testing (No genotype). METHODS: Model parameters were derived from the HIV Clinical Cohort at the Evandro Chagas Clinical Research Institute and from published data, using Brazilian sources whenever possible. Baseline patient characteristics included 69% male, mean age of 36 years (SD, 10 years), mean CD4 count of 347 per microliter (SD, 300/µL) at ART initiation, annual ART costs from 2012 US $1400 to US $13,400, genotype test cost of US $230, and primary resistance prevalence of 4.4%. Life expectancy and costs were discounted 3% per year. Genotype was defined as "cost-effective" compared with No Genotype if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than 3 times the 2012 Brazilian per capita GDP of US $12,300. RESULTS: Compared with No genotype, Genotype increased life expectancy from 18.45 to 18.47 years and reduced lifetime cost from US $45,000 to $44,770; thus, in the base case, Genotype was cost saving. Genotype was cost-effective at primary resistance prevalence as low as 1.4% and remained cost-effective when subsequent-line ART costs decreased to 30% of baseline value. Cost-inefficient results were observed only when simultaneously holding multiple parameters to extremes of their plausible ranges. CONCLUSIONS: Genotype-resistance testing in ART-naive individuals in Brazil will improve survival and decrease costs and should be incorporated into HIV treatment guidelines in Brazil.

Cost-effectiveness of inhaled steroids in asthma: impact of effect on bone mineral density.

BACKGROUND: The effects of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) preparations on bone health have been debated. Multiple analyses have been published examining the question, with mixed results. OBJECTIVES: We examined how assumptions about the effect of ICS on bone mineral density (BMD) influence the cost-effectiveness of ICS in asthma. METHODS: We developed a mathematical simulation model to estimate clinical outcomes and costs for a cohort with mild/moderate asthma. The analysis conformed to reference case recommendations of the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Sensitivity analysis evaluated the stability of our results to uncertainty in treatment duration, age at treatment, and ICS dose. RESULTS: Assuming a dose of 200 microg twice per day of ICS, a literature-based average effect of ICS on BMD and a 10-year time horizon, we observed a minimal increase in the costs attributed to hip fracture and incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $26,000 per quality-adjusted life-year and $14.00 per symptom-free day gained. Over an extended the time horizon (lifetime), the incremental cost effectiveness ratio increased to $42,000/quality-adjusted life-year. Only under a scenario of high-dose ICS, a lifetime horizon, and a large effect of ICS on BMD did the potential impact of ICS on BMD dramatically affect the economic attractiveness of therapy. CONCLUSION: To minimize any potential impact, use of the lowest effective dose of ICS and measures to target and intervene in high-risk individuals are warranted. However, ICS therapy in mild/moderate asthma compares favorably with commonly accepted interventions over a wide range of assumptions regarding this treatment and its effects on BMD.

Optimal allocation of testing dollars: the example of HIV counseling, testing, and referral.

BACKGROUND: Health screening programs can be represented as a pathway of sequential processes: offering a test, obtaining consent, conducting the test, providing results, and linking to appropriate care. Using the example of HIV testing, the authors explore the optimal targeting of funds within this pathway. METHODS: The authors develop a microsimulation of HIV testing services and decompose the likelihood that an unidentified HIV-infected person will receive care into the probability of testing [P(test)] and the probability of follow-up [P(follow)] defined as returning for results and linking to care. The authors examine the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of alternative investments in these component probabilities. RESULTS: At 1% undiagnosed HIV prevalence, cost-effectiveness ratios for HIV testing cluster around $33,000/QALY (quality-adjusted life year) gained. A program with a yield of 0.16 via P(test)=0.20 and P(follow)=0.80 has a cost-effectiveness ratio of $32,900/QALY compared with $36,300/QALY for a program where P(test)=0.80 and P(follow)=0.20. Interventions that improve the probability of success in later stages in the testing pathway [P(follow)] are more cost-effective than investments devoted to earlier stages [P(test)]. CONCLUSIONS: Equivalent pathway outcomes in a screening program do not confer equal value. Limited screening resources are best targeted toward returning for results and linkage among those already identified with disease rather than offering testing to additional people.