ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In 2023, Tennessee replaced $6.2â M in US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention funding with state funds to redirect support away from men who have sex with men (MSM), transgender women (TGW), and heterosexual Black women (HSBW) and to prioritize instead first responders (FR), pregnant people (PP), and survivors of sex trafficking (SST). METHODS: We used a simulation model of HIV disease to compare the clinical impact of Current, the present allocation of condoms, preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and HIV testing to CDC priority risk groups (MSM/TGW/HSBW); with Reallocation, funding instead increased HIV testing and linkage of Tennessee-determined priority populations (FR/PP/SST). Key model inputs included baseline condom use (45%-49%), PrEP provision (0.1%-8%), HIV testing frequency (every 2.5-4.8 years), and 30-day HIV care linkage (57%-65%). We assumed Reallocation would reduce condom use (-4%), PrEP provision (-26%), and HIV testing (-47%) in MSM/TGW/HSBW, whereas it would increase HIV testing among FR (+47%) and HIV care linkage (to 100%/90%) among PP/SST. RESULTS: Reallocation would lead to 166 additional HIV transmissions, 190 additional deaths, and 843 life-years lost over 10 years. HIV testing reductions were most influential in sensitivity analysis; even a 24% reduction would result in 287 more deaths compared to Current. With pessimistic assumptions, we projected 1359 additional HIV transmissions, 712 additional deaths, and 2778 life-years lost over 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Redirecting HIV prevention funding in Tennessee would greatly harm CDC priority populations while conferring minimal benefits to new priority populations.
ABSTRACT
Importance: Life expectancy is a key measure of overall population health. Life expectancy estimates for youth with HIV in the US are needed in the current HIV care and treatment context to guide health policies and resource allocation. Objective: To compare life expectancy between 18-year-old youth with perinatally acquired HIV (PHIV), youth with nonperinatally acquired HIV (NPHIV), and youth without HIV. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using a US-focused adolescent-specific Monte Carlo state-transition HIV model, we simulated individuals from age 18 years until death. We estimated probabilities of HIV treatment and care engagement, HIV progression, clinical events, and mortality from observational cohorts and clinical trials for model input parameters. The simulated individuals were 18-year-old race and ethnicity-matched youth with PHIV, youth with NPHIV, and youth without HIV; 47%, 85%, and 50% were assigned male sex at birth, respectively. Individuals were categorized by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-defined HIV acquisition risk: men who have sex with men, people who ever injected drugs, heterosexually active individuals at increased risk for HIV infection, or average risk for HIV infection. Distributions were 3%, 2%, 12%, and 83% for youth with PHIV and youth without HIV, and 80%, 6%, 14%, and 0% for youth with NPHIV, respectively. Among the simulated youth in this analysis, individuals were 61% Black, 24% Hispanic, and 15% White, respectively. Exposures: HIV status by timing of acquisition. Main Outcomes: Life expectancy loss for youth with PHIV and youth with NPHIV: difference between mean projected life expectancy under current and ideal HIV care scenarios compared with youth without HIV. Uncertainty intervals reflect varying adolescent HIV-related mortality inputs (95% CIs). Results: Compared with youth without HIV (life expectancy: male, 76.3 years; female, 81.7 years), male youth with PHIV and youth with NPHIV had projected life expectancy losses of 10.4 years (95% CI, 5.5-18.1) and 15.0 years (95% CI, 9.3-26.8); female youth with PHIV and youth with NPHIV had projected life expectancy losses of 11.8 years (95% CI, 6.4-20.2) and 19.5 years (95% CI, 13.8-31.6), respectively. When receiving ideal HIV care, life expectancy losses were projected to improve for youth with PHIV (male: 0.5 years [95% CI, 0.3-1.8]: female: 0.6 years [95% CI, 0.4-2.1]) but were projected to persist for youth with NPHIV (male: 6.0 years [95% CI, 5.0-9.1]; female: 10.4 years [95% CI, 9.4-13.6]). Conclusions: This adolescent-focused microsimulation modeling analysis projected that youth with HIV would have shorter life expectancy than youth without HIV. Projected differences were larger for youth with NPHIV compared with youth with PHIV. Differences in mortality by sex at birth, sexual behavior, and injection drug use contributed to lower projected life expectancy among youth with NPHIV. Interventions focused on HIV care and social factors are needed to improve life expectancy for youth with HIV in the US.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections , Life Expectancy , Humans , HIV Infections/mortality , HIV Infections/drug therapy , HIV Infections/epidemiology , Adolescent , Male , Female , United States/epidemiology , Monte Carlo MethodABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Anti-HIV Agents , HIV Infections , Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis , Sexual and Gender Minorities , Male , Adolescent , Humans , United States/epidemiology , Homosexuality, Male , Anti-HIV Agents/therapeutic use , Drugs, Generic , Cost-Benefit Analysis , HIV Infections/drug therapy , HIV Infections/epidemiology , HIV Infections/prevention & controlABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many US youth with HIV (YHIV) used telehealth services; others experienced disruptions in clinic and antiretroviral therapy (ART) access. METHODS: Using the Cost-effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC)-Adolescent HIV microsimulation model, we evaluated 3 scenarios: 1) Clinic: in-person care; 2) Telehealth: virtual visits, without CD4 or viral load monitoring for 12 months, followed by return to usual care; and 3) Interruption: complete care interruption with no ART access or laboratory monitoring for 6 months (maximum clinic closure time), followed by return to usual care for 80%. We assigned higher 1-year retention (87% vs 80%) and lower cost/visit ($49 vs $56) for Telehealth vs Clinic. We modeled 2 YHIV cohorts with non-perinatal (YNPHIV) and perinatal (YPHIV) HIV, which differed by mean age (22 vs 16 years), sex at birth (85% vs 47% male), starting CD4 count (527/µL vs 635/µL), ART, mortality, and HIV-related costs. We projected life months (LMs) and costs/100 YHIV over 10 years. RESULTS: Over 10 years, LMs in Clinic and Telehealth would be similar (YNPHIV: 11â 350 vs 11â 360 LMs; YPHIV: 11â 680 LMs for both strategies); costs would be $0.3M (YNPHIV) and $0.4M (YPHIV) more for Telehealth than Clinic. Interruption would be less effective (YNPHIV: 11â 230 LMs; YPHIV: 11â 620 LMs) and less costly (YNPHIV: $1.3M less; YPHIV: $0.2M less) than Clinic. Higher retention in Telehealth led to increased ART use and thus higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth could be as effective as in-person care for some YHIV, at slightly increased cost. Short interruptions to ART and laboratory monitoring may have negative long-term clinical implications.
Subject(s)
Anti-HIV Agents , COVID-19 , HIV Infections , Telemedicine , Pregnancy , Female , Infant, Newborn , Humans , Male , Adolescent , Young Adult , United States/epidemiology , Anti-HIV Agents/therapeutic use , Pandemics , HIV Infections/drug therapy , HIV Infections/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Scaffold pore architecture is shown to influence stem cell fate through various avenues. It is demonstrated that microporous annealed particle (MAP) microgel diameter can be tuned to control scaffold pore size and, in turn, modulate mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) survivability, proliferation, metabolism, and migration, thereby enhancing bioactivity and guiding future applications of MAP for regenerative medicine.
Subject(s)
Mesenchymal Stem Cells , Tissue Scaffolds , Mesenchymal Stem Cells/metabolism , Stem Cells/metabolism , Cell Differentiation , Cell ProliferationABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Point-of-care (POC) devices for infant HIV testing provide timely result-return and increase antiretroviral (ART) initiation. We aimed to optimally locate POC devices to increase 30-day ART initiation in Matabeleland South, Zimbabwe. METHODS: We developed an optimization model to identify the locations for limited POC devices at health facilities, maximizing the number of infants who receive HIV test results and initiate ART within 30 days of testing. We compared location-optimization model results to non-model-based decision heuristics, which are more practical and less data-intensive. Heuristics assign POC devices based on demand, test positivity, laboratory result-return probability, and POC machine functionality. RESULTS: With the current placement of 11 existing POC machines, 37% of all tested infants with HIV were projected to receive results and 35% were projected to initiate ART within 30 days of testing. With optimal placement of existing machines, 46% were projected to receive results and 44% to initiate ART within 30 days, retaining three machines in current locations, moving eight to new facilities. Relocation based on the highest POC device functionality would be the best-performing heuristic decision (44% receiving results and 42% initiating ART withing 30 days); although, it still would not perform as well as the optimization-based approach. CONCLUSION: Optimal and ad hoc heuristic relocation of limited POC machines would increase timely result-return and ART initiation, without further, often costly, interventions. Location optimization can enhance decision-making regarding the placement of medical technologies for HIV care.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections , Infant , Humans , Child , Zimbabwe , Early Diagnosis , HIV Infections/diagnosis , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Point-of-Care Systems , Anti-Retroviral Agents/therapeutic useABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: To improve the diagnosis and survival of children living with HIV (CLWH), the World Health Organization recommends testing approaches beyond traditional infant HIV testing programmes. Information about undiagnosed HIV prevalence among children of varying ages in the general population is needed to guide innovative national/subnational case-finding and testing approaches. METHODS: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC)-Pediatric model to estimate the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV in 2-, 5- and 10-year-old children in South Africa, Côte d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe in 2018. We simulated cohorts of children born in 2008 (10-year-olds), 2013 (5-year-olds) and 2016 (2-year-olds). Country-/year-specific inputs for pregnant/breastfeeding women included: HIV prevalence (4.2-32.3%), HIV incidence (0.03-0.24%/month), knowledge of HIV status (27-89%) and antiretroviral drug coverage (36-95%). Paediatric inputs included early infant testing coverage (6-95%) and breastfeeding duration (0-20 months). We projected the proportion of surviving CLWH in whom HIV remained undiagnosed and the undiagnosed HIV prevalence among surviving children of each age in the general population. For children born in 2016, we projected survival and diagnosis of all CLWH through 2026. We conducted sensitivity analyses on model parameters. RESULTS: In 2018, the projected proportion of surviving CLWH whose HIV remained undiagnosed in South Africa/Côte d'Ivoire/Zimbabwe was 44.2%/55.8%/52.9% among 2-year-old CLWH; 29.0%/37.8%/33.2% among 5-year-old CLWH; and 18.3%/25.4%/23.1% among 10-year-old CLWH. Projected general population undiagnosed HIV prevalence in South Africa/Côte d'Ivoire/Zimbabwe was 0.44%/0.32%/0.68% among 2-year-olds; 0.25%/0.17%/0.41% among 5-year-olds; and 0.24%/0.14%/0.38% among 10-year-olds. Among all CLWH born in 2016, 50-54% were projected to die without HIV diagnosis (and subsequently without treatment) within 10 years after birth; 80-85% of these deaths occurred in the first 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Projected population-level undiagnosed HIV prevalence is low and sharply decreases after age 2, with more CLWH dying than being diagnosed. Despite low undiagnosed prevalence in the general population of older children, we project that a large proportion of CLWH remain undiagnosed, suggesting that innovative strategies targeting untested children of all ages outside of health facility settings should be prioritized. Programmes could consider routine testing of the general population of children below 2 in all settings and children of all ages in high-prevalence settings.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections , Infant , Pregnancy , Child , Humans , Female , Adolescent , Child, Preschool , HIV Infections/diagnosis , HIV Infections/epidemiology , HIV Infections/prevention & control , HIV , Cote d'Ivoire/epidemiology , South Africa/epidemiology , Prevalence , Zimbabwe/epidemiology , HIV TestingABSTRACT
The microporous annealed particle (MAP) scaffold platform is a subclass of granular hydrogels. It is composed of an injectable slurry of microgels that can form a structurally stable scaffold with cell-scale porosity in situ following a secondary light-based chemical crosslinking step (i.e., annealing). MAP scaffold has shown success in a variety of regenerative medicine applications, including dermal wound healing, vocal fold augmentation, and stem cell delivery. This paper describes the methods for synthesis and characterization of poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) microgels as the building blocks to form a MAP scaffold. These methods include the synthesis of a custom annealing macromer (MethMAL), determination of microgel precursor gelation kinetics, microfluidic device fabrication, microfluidic generation of microgels, microgel purification, and basic scaffold characterization, including microgel sizing and scaffold annealing. Specifically, the high-throughput microfluidic methods described herein can produce large volumes of microgels that can be used to generate MAP scaffolds for any desired application, especially in the field of regenerative medicine.
Subject(s)
Microgels , Hydrogels/chemistry , Microfluidics , Polyethylene Glycols/chemistry , Tissue Scaffolds/chemistryABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We compared the cost-effectiveness of pediatric provider-initiated HIV testing and counseling (PITC) vs no PITC in a range of clinical care settings in South Africa. METHODS: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications Pediatric model to simulate a cohort of children, aged 2-10 years, presenting for care in 4 settings (outpatient, malnutrition, inpatient, tuberculosis clinic) with varying prevalence of undiagnosed HIV (1.0%, 15.0%, 17.5%, 50.0%, respectively). We compared "PITC" (routine testing offered to all patients; 97% acceptance and 71% linkage to care after HIV diagnosis) with no PITC. Model outcomes included life expectancy, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from the health care system perspective and the proportion of children with HIV (CWH) diagnosed, on antiretroviral therapy (ART), and virally suppressed. We assumed a threshold of $3200/year of life saved (YLS) to determine cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses varied the age distribution of children seeking care and costs for PITC, HIV care, and ART. RESULTS: PITC improved the proportion of CWH diagnosed (45.2% to 83.2%), on ART (40.8% to 80.4%), and virally suppressed (32.6% to 63.7%) at 1 year in all settings. PITC increased life expectancy by 0.1-0.7 years for children seeking care (including those with and without HIV). In all settings, the ICER of PITC vs no PITC was very similar, ranging from $710 to $1240/YLS. PITC remained cost-effective unless undiagnosed HIV prevalence was <0.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Routine testing improves HIV clinical outcomes and is cost-effective in South Africa if the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV among children exceeds 0.2%. These findings support current recommendations for PITC in outpatient, inpatient, tuberculosis, and malnutrition clinical settings.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected women and children globally, disrupting antiretroviral therapy (ART) services and exacerbating pre-existing barriers to care for both pregnant women and paediatric populations. METHODS: We used the Spectrum modelling package and the CEPAC-Pediatric model to project the impact of COVID-19-associated care disruptions on three key populations in the 21 Global Plan priority countries in sub-Saharan Africa: (1) pregnant and breastfeeding women living with HIV and their children, (2) all children (aged 0-14 years) living with HIV (CLWH), regardless of their engagement in care and (3) CLWH who were engaged in care and on ART prior to the start of the pandemic. We projected clinical outcomes over the 12-month period of 1 March 2020 to 1 March 2021. RESULTS: Compared to a scenario with no care disruption, in a 3-month lockdown with complete service disruption, followed by 3 additional months of partial (50%) service disruption, a projected 755,400 women would have received PMTCT care (a 21% decrease), 187,800 new paediatric HIV infections would have occurred (a 77% increase) and 516,800 children would have received ART (a 35% decrease). For children on ART as of March 2020, we projected 507,200 would have experienced ART failure (an 80% increase). Additionally, a projected 88,400 AIDS-related deaths would have occurred (a 27% increase) between March 2020 and March 2021, with 51,700 of those deaths occurring among children engaged in care as of March 2020 (a 54% increase). CONCLUSIONS: While efforts will continue to curb morbidity and mortality stemming directly from COVID-19 itself, it is critical that providers also consider the immediate and indirect harms of this pandemic, particularly among vulnerable populations. Well-informed, timely action is critical to meet the health needs of pregnant women and children if the global community is to maintain momentum towards an AIDS-free generation.
Subject(s)
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome , COVID-19 , HIV Infections , Child , Communicable Disease Control , Female , HIV Infections/drug therapy , HIV Infections/epidemiology , HIV Infections/prevention & control , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical/prevention & control , Pandemics , Pregnancy , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We projected the clinical and economic impact of alternative testing strategies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence and mortality in Massachusetts using a microsimulation model. METHODS: We compared 4 testing strategies: (1) hospitalized: polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing only for patients with severe/critical symptoms warranting hospitalization; (2) symptomatic: PCR for any COVID-19-consistent symptoms, with self-isolation if positive; (3) symptomaticâ +â asymptomatic once: symptomatic and 1-time PCR for the entire population; and (4) symptomaticâ +â asymptomatic monthly: symptomatic with monthly retesting for the entire population. We examined effective reproduction numbers (Re = 0.9-2.0) at which policy conclusions would change. We assumed homogeneous mixing among the Massachusetts population (excluding those residing in long-term care facilities). We used published data on disease progression and mortality, transmission, PCR sensitivity/specificity (70%/100%), and costs. Model-projected outcomes included infections, deaths, tests performed, hospital-days, and costs over 180 days, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). RESULTS: At Re = 0.9, symptomaticâ +â asymptomatic monthly vs hospitalized resulted in a 64% reduction in infections and a 46% reduction in deaths, but required >66-fold more tests/day with 5-fold higher costs. Symptomaticâ +â asymptomatic monthly had an ICER <$100â 000/QALY only when Re ≥1.6; when test cost was ≤$3, every 14-day testing was cost-effective at all Re examined. CONCLUSIONS: Testing people with any COVID-19-consistent symptoms would be cost-saving compared to testing only those whose symptoms warrant hospital care. Expanding PCR testing to asymptomatic people would decrease infections, deaths, and hospitalizations. Despite modest sensitivity, low-cost, repeat screening of the entire population could be cost-effective in all epidemic settings.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Health-care resource constraints in low-income and middle-income countries necessitate the identification of cost-effective public health interventions to address COVID-19. We aimed to develop a dynamic COVID-19 microsimulation model to assess clinical and economic outcomes and cost-effectiveness of epidemic control strategies in KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa. METHODS: We compared different combinations of five public health interventions: health-care testing alone, where diagnostic testing is done only for individuals presenting to health-care centres; contact tracing in households of cases; isolation centres, for cases not requiring hospital admission; mass symptom screening and molecular testing for symptomatic individuals by community health-care workers; and quarantine centres, for household contacts who test negative. We calibrated infection transmission rates to match effective reproduction number (Re) estimates reported in South Africa. We assessed two main epidemic scenarios for a period of 360 days, with an Re of 1·5 and 1·2. Strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than US$3250 per year of life saved were considered cost-effective. We also did sensitivity analyses by varying key parameters (Re values, molecular testing sensitivity, and efficacies and costs of interventions) to determine the effect on clinical and cost projections. FINDINGS: When Re was 1·5, health-care testing alone resulted in the highest number of COVID-19 deaths during the 360-day period. Compared with health-care testing alone, a combination of health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, mass symptom screening, and use of quarantine centres reduced mortality by 94%, increased health-care costs by 33%, and was cost-effective (ICER $340 per year of life saved). In settings where quarantine centres were not feasible, a combination of health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, and mass symptom screening was cost-effective compared with health-care testing alone (ICER $590 per year of life saved). When Re was 1·2, health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, and use of quarantine centres was the least costly strategy, and no other strategies were cost-effective. In sensitivity analyses, a combination of health-care testing, contact tracing, use of isolation centres, mass symptom screening, and use of quarantine centres was generally cost-effective, with the exception of scenarios in which Re was 2·6 and when efficacies of isolation centres and quarantine centres for transmission reduction were reduced. INTERPRETATION: In South Africa, strategies involving household contact tracing, isolation, mass symptom screening, and quarantining household contacts who test negative would substantially reduce COVID-19 mortality and would be cost-effective. The optimal combination of interventions depends on epidemic growth characteristics and practical implementation considerations. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, Royal Society, Wellcome Trust.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Epidemics/prevention & control , Public Health/economics , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Computer Simulation , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Middle Aged , Models, Biological , Public Health/methods , South Africa/epidemiology , Young AdultABSTRACT
Importance: Approximately 356â¯000 people stay in homeless shelters nightly in the United States. They have high risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To assess the estimated clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with strategies for COVID-19 management among adults experiencing sheltered homelessness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytic model used a simulated cohort of 2258 adults residing in homeless shelters in Boston, Massachusetts. Cohort characteristics and costs were adapted from Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. Disease progression, transmission, and outcomes data were taken from published literature and national databases. Surging, growing, and slowing epidemics (effective reproduction numbers [Re], 2.6, 1.3, and 0.9, respectively) were examined. Costs were from a health care sector perspective, and the time horizon was 4 months, from April to August 2020. Exposures: Daily symptom screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of individuals with positive symptom screening results, universal PCR testing every 2 weeks, hospital-based COVID-19 care, alternative care sites (ACSs) for mild or moderate COVID-19, and temporary housing were each compared with no intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cumulative infections and hospital-days, costs to the health care sector (US dollars), and cost-effectiveness, as incremental cost per case of COVID-19 prevented. Results: The simulated population of 2258 sheltered homeless adults had a mean (SD) age of 42.6 (9.04) years. Compared with no intervention, daily symptom screening with ACSs for pending tests or confirmed COVID-19 and mild or moderate disease was associated with 37% fewer infections (1954 vs 1239) and 46% lower costs ($6.10 million vs $3.27 million) at an Re of 2.6, 75% fewer infections (538 vs 137) and 72% lower costs ($1.46 million vs $0.41 million) at an Re of 1.3, and 51% fewer infections (174 vs 85) and 51% lower costs ($0.54 million vs $0.26 million) at an Re of 0.9. Adding PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with a further decrease in infections; incremental cost per case prevented was $1000 at an Re of 2.6, $27â¯000 at an Re of 1.3, and $71â¯000 at an Re of 0.9. Temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was most effective but substantially more expensive than other options. Compared with no intervention, temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was associated with 81% fewer infections (376) and 542% higher costs ($39.12 million) at an Re of 2.6, 82% fewer infections (95) and 2568% higher costs ($38.97 million) at an Re of 1.3, and 59% fewer infections (71) and 7114% higher costs ($38.94 million) at an Re of 0.9. Results were sensitive to cost and sensitivity of PCR and ACS efficacy in preventing transmission. Conclusions and Relevance: In this modeling study of simulated adults living in homeless shelters, daily symptom screening and ACSs were associated with fewer severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and decreased costs compared with no intervention. In a modeled surging epidemic, adding universal PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with further decrease in SARS-CoV-2 infections at modest incremental cost and should be considered during future surges.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Health Care Costs , Hospitalization/economics , Housing/economics , Ill-Housed Persons , Mass Screening/methods , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/economics , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , Cohort Studies , Communicable Disease Control/economics , Computer Simulation , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Decision Support Techniques , Humans , Mass Screening/economics , SARS-CoV-2 , Symptom Assessment/economics , Symptom Assessment/methods , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
IMPORTANCE: Approximately 356,000 people stay in homeless shelters nightly in the US. They are at high risk for COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of strategies for COVID-19 management among sheltered homeless adults. DESIGN: We developed a dynamic microsimulation model of COVID-19 in sheltered homeless adults in Boston, Massachusetts. We used cohort characteristics and costs from Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. Disease progression, transmission, and outcomes data were from published literature and national databases. We examined surging, growing, and slowing epidemics (effective reproduction numbers [Re] 2.6, 1.3, and 0.9). Costs were from a health care sector perspective; time horizon was 4 months, from April to August 2020. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Simulated cohort of 2,258 adults residing in homeless shelters in Boston. INTERVENTIONS: We assessed daily symptom screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of screen-positives, universal PCR testing every 2 weeks, hospital-based COVID-19 care, alternate care sites [ACSs] for mild/moderate COVID-19, and temporary housing, each compared to no intervention. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cumulative infections and hospital-days, costs to the health care sector (US dollars), and cost-effectiveness, as incremental cost per case prevented of COVID-19. RESULTS: We simulated a population of 2,258 sheltered homeless adults with mean age of 42.6 years. Compared to no intervention, daily symptom screening with ACSs for pending tests or confirmed COVID-19 and mild/moderate disease led to 37% fewer infections and 46% lower costs (Re=2.6), 75% fewer infections and 72% lower costs (Re=1.3), and 51% fewer infections and 51% lower costs (Re=0.9). Adding PCR testing every 2 weeks further decreased infections; incremental cost per case prevented was $1,000 (Re=2.6), $27,000 (Re=1.3), and $71,000 (Re=0.9). Temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was most effective but substantially more costly than other options. Results were sensitive to cost and sensitivity of PCR and ACS efficacy in preventing transmission. CONCLUSIONS & RELEVANCE: In this modeling study of simulated adults living in homeless shelters, daily symptom screening and ACSs were associated with fewer COVID-19 infections and decreased costs compared with no intervention. In a modeled surging epidemic, adding universal PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with further decrease in COVID-19 infections at modest incremental cost and should be considered during future surges.
ABSTRACT
Background We projected the clinical and economic impact of alternative testing strategies on COVID-19 incidence and mortality in Massachusetts using a microsimulation model. Methods We compared five testing strategies: 1) PCR-severe-only: PCR testing only patients with severe/critical symptoms; 2) Self-screen: PCR-severe-only plus self-assessment of COVID-19-consistent symptoms with self-isolation if positive; 3) PCR-any-symptom: PCR for any COVID-19-consistent symptoms with self-isolation if positive; 4) PCR-all: PCR-any-symptom and one-time PCR for the entire population; and, 5) PCR-all-repeat: PCR-all with monthly re-testing. We examined effective reproduction numbers (R e , 0.9-2.0) at which policy conclusions would change. We used published data on disease progression and mortality, transmission, PCR sensitivity/specificity (70/100%) and costs. Model-projected outcomes included infections, deaths, tests performed, hospital-days, and costs over 180-days, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). Results In all scenarios, PCR-all-repeat would lead to the best clinical outcomes and PCR-severe-only would lead to the worst; at R e 0.9, PCR-all-repeat vs. PCR-severe-only resulted in a 63% reduction in infections and a 44% reduction in deaths, but required >65-fold more tests/day with 4-fold higher costs. PCR-all-repeat had an ICER <$100,000/QALY only when R e ≥1.8. At all R e values, PCR-any-symptom was cost-saving compared to other strategies. Conclusions Testing people with any COVID-19-consistent symptoms would be cost-saving compared to restricting testing to only those with symptoms severe enough to warrant hospital care. Expanding PCR testing to asymptomatic people would decrease infections, deaths, and hospitalizations. Universal screening would be cost-effective when paired with monthly retesting in settings where the COVID-19 pandemic is surging.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Healthcare resource constraints in low and middle-income countries necessitate selection of cost-effective public health interventions to address COVID-19. METHODS: We developed a dynamic COVID-19 microsimulation model to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes and cost-effectiveness of epidemic control strategies in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Interventions assessed were Healthcare Testing (HT), where diagnostic testing is performed only for those presenting to healthcare centres; Contact Tracing (CT) in households of cases; Isolation Centres (IC), for cases not requiring hospitalisation; community health worker-led Mass Symptom Screening and molecular testing for symptomatic individuals (MS); and Quarantine Centres (QC), for household contacts who test negative. Given uncertainties about epidemic dynamics in South Africa, we evaluated two main epidemic scenarios over 360 days, with effective reproduction numbers (Re) of 1·5 and 1·2. We compared HT, HT+CT, HT+CT+IC, HT+CT+IC+MS, HT+CT+IC+QC, and HT+CT+IC+MS+QC, considering strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To improve early infant HIV diagnosis (EID) programs, options include replacing laboratory-based tests with point-of-care (POC) assays or investing in strengthened systems for sample transport and result return. SETTING: We used the CEPAC-Pediatric model to examine clinical benefits and costs of 3 EID strategies in Zimbabwe for infants 6 weeks of age. METHODS: We examined (1) laboratory-based EID (LAB), (2) strengthened laboratory-based EID (S-LAB), and (3) POC EID (POC). LAB/S-LAB and POC assays differed in sensitivity (LAB/S-LAB 100%, POC 96.9%) and specificity (LAB/S-LAB 99.6%, POC 99.9%). LAB/S-LAB/POC algorithms also differed in: probability of result return (79%/91%/98%), time until result return (61/53/1 days), probability of initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) after positive result (52%/71%/86%), and total cost/test ($18.10/$30.47/$30.71). We projected life expectancy (LE) and average lifetime per-person cost for all HIV-exposed infants. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from discounted (3%/year) LE and costs in $/year-of-life saved (YLS), defining cost effective as an ICER <$580/YLS (reflecting programs providing 2 vs. 1 ART regimens). In sensitivity analyses, we varied differences between S-LAB and POC in result return probability, result return time, ART initiation probability, and cost. RESULTS: For infants who acquired HIV, LAB/S-LAB/POC led to projected one-year survival of 67.3%/69.9%/75.6% and undiscounted LE of 21.74/22.71/24.49 years. For all HIV-exposed infants, undiscounted LE was 63.35/63.38/63.43 years, at discounted lifetime costs of $200/220/240 per infant. In cost-effectiveness analysis, S-LAB was an inefficient use of resources; the ICER of POC vs. LAB was $830/YLS. CONCLUSIONS: Current EID programs will attain greater benefit from investing in POC EID rather than strengthening laboratory-based systems.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections/diagnosis , HIV Testing/methods , Point-of-Care Testing/economics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Early Diagnosis , HIV Infections/economics , HIV Testing/economics , Health Care Costs , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Models, Economic , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Oral chemotherapy is increasingly used in place of traditional intravenous chemotherapy to treat patients with cancer. While oral chemotherapy includes benefits such as ease of administration, convenience, and minimization of invasive infusions, patients receive less oversight, support, and symptom monitoring from clinicians. Additionally, adherence is a well-documented challenge for patients with cancer prescribed oral chemotherapy regimens. With the ever-growing presence of smartphones and potential for efficacious behavioral intervention technology, we created a mobile health intervention for medication and symptom management. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate the usability and acceptability of a smartphone app to support adherence to oral chemotherapy and symptom management in patients with cancer. METHODS: We used a 5-step development model to create a comprehensive mobile app with theoretically informed content. The research and technical development team worked together to develop and iteratively test the app. In addition to the research team, key stakeholders including patients and family members, oncology clinicians, health care representatives, and practice administrators contributed to the content refinement of the intervention. Patient and family members also participated in alpha and beta testing of the final prototype to assess usability and acceptability before we began the randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: We incorporated app components based on the stakeholder feedback we received in focus groups and alpha and beta testing. App components included medication reminders, self-reporting of medication adherence and symptoms, an education library including nutritional information, Fitbit integration, social networking resources, and individually tailored symptom management feedback. We are conducting a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of the app in improving adherence to oral chemotherapy, quality of life, and burden of symptoms and side effects. At every stage in this trial, we are engaging stakeholders to solicit feedback on our progress and next steps. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, we are the first to describe the development of an app designed for people taking oral chemotherapy. The app addresses many concerns with oral chemotherapy, such as medication adherence and symptom management. Soliciting feedback from stakeholders with broad perspectives and expertise ensured that the app was acceptable and potentially beneficial for patients, caregivers, and clinicians. In our development process, we instantiated 7 of the 8 best practices proposed in a recent review of mobile health app development. Our process demonstrated the importance of effective communication between research groups and technical teams, as well as meticulous planning of technical specifications before development begins. Future efforts should consider incorporating other proven strategies in software, such as gamification, to bolster the impact of mobile health apps. Forthcoming results from our randomized controlled trial will provide key data on the effectiveness of this app in improving medication adherence and symptom management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02157519; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02157519 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6prj3xfKA).
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The widespread and increasing use of oral anti-cancer medications has been ushered in by a rapidly increasing understanding of cancer pathophysiology. Furthermore, their popular ease of administration and potential cost savings has highlighted their central position in the health care system as a whole. These facts have heightened appreciation of the unique challenges associated with the use of oral anti-cancer medications; especially in the long-term use of these medications and the associated side effects that may impede optimal adherence to their use. Therefore, we developed ChemOtheRapy Assistant, CORA, a personalized mobile phone-based self-management application to help cancer patients on oral anti-cancer medications. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to evaluate the effect of CORA on adherence to oral anti-cancer medications and other clinically relevant outcomes in the management of patients with renal and prostate cancer. METHODS: The study will be implemented as a 2-parallel group randomized controlled trial in 104 patients with renal or prostate cancer on oral anti-cancer medications over a 3-month study period. The intervention group will use CORA in addition to usual care for self-management while the control group will continue care as usual. Medication adherence will be measured objectively by a Medication Event Monitoring System device and is defined as the percentage of prescribed doses taken. We will also assess the effect of the intervention on cancer-related symptoms measured by the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory and unplanned hospital utilizations. Other outcomes that will be measured at study start, midpoint, and endpoint are health-related quality of life, cancer-related fatigue, and anxiety. Group differences in medication adherence will be examined by t tests or by non-parametric Mann-Whitney tests if the data are not normally distributed. Logistic regression will be used to identify potential predictors of adherence. RESULTS: We expect to have results for this study before the end of 2016. CONCLUSIONS: This novel mobile phone-enabled, multimodal self-management and educational intervention could lead to improvements in clinical outcomes and serve as a foundation for future mHealth research in improving outcomes for patients on oral anti-cancer medications.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of effective medications and clinical guidelines for pain management, pain control is suboptimal in a sizeable proportion of patients with cancer pain. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend a comprehensive and multimodal approach for management of cancer pain. We developed a mobile phone application, ePAL, based on clinical guidelines to empower patients for cancer pain management by prompting regular pain assessments and coaching for self-management. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of a multidimensional mobile phone-based pain management application, ePAL, on controlling cancer pain and improving quality of life in patients with cancer pain being treated at an academic palliative care clinic. METHODS: The study will be implemented as a 2-arm randomized controlled trial with 110 adult patients with CP who own a mobile phone over a follow-up period of two months. Participants will be randomized to either the intervention group receiving ePAL and usual care or to a control group receiving only usual care. The brief pain inventory will be used to assess our primary outcome which is pain intensity. We will also evaluate the effect of the intervention on secondary outcomes which include the effect of the intervention on hospital utilization for pain crisis, quality of life, adherence to analgesic medications, barriers to pain control, anxiety and patient engagement. Instruments that will be used in evaluating secondary outcomes include the Brief Pain Inventory, Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, Barriers Questionnaire-II, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale, and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue. The intention-to-treat approach will be used to evaluate outcomes. Our primary outcome, pain intensity, measured longitudinally over eight weeks, will be assessed by mixed model repeated analysis. Effect sizes will be calculated as mean group differences with standard deviations. RESULTS: The study is still in progress. We hope to have results by the end of 2015. CONCLUSIONS: The multidimensional approach to pain management implemented on a mobile phone application could lead to significant improvements in patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02069743; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02069743 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6Qb65XGGA).