 |
|
Who Should Be Screened for HIV Infection?A Cost-effectiveness Analysis
Bruce D. McCarthy, MD, MPH;
John B. Wong, MD;
Alvaro Muñoz, PhD;
Frank A. Sonnenberg, MD
Arch Intern Med. 1993;153(9):1107-1116.
Abstract
Background
The advent of effective prophylactic treatments for asymptomatic persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus has led to interest in widespread screening programs. However, the costs of screening programs and therapy are high, and the prevalence of infection above which screening becomes an appropriate use of scarce health care dollars remains undetermined.
Methods
To examine the cost-effectiveness of screening in populations with differing prevalences of infection, we developed a Markov model to compare costs and life expectancy for two strategies: (1) screening and prophylactic treatment for infected persons who have or who develop low CD4+ (T4) cell counts, and (2) no screening. Based on studies in the literature, we estimated the prevalence of HIV infection, the rate of T4-cell loss, the rates of developing the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and Pneumocytis pneumonia stratified by T4 cell counts, the life expectancy with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the efficacy of prophylactic therapies, and costs.
Results
In populations with a prevalence of infection more than 5%, which includes known risk groups, screening costs less than $ 11 000 per life-year gained. In populations with a prevalence as low as 0.15%, screening costs only $29 000 per life-year gained. Even when the efficacy of zidovudine is assumed to be limited to 3 years, screening still costs less than $40 000 per life-year gained in populations with a prevalence of 0.5% or greater. However, in populations with a very low prevalence of infection (two to 10/100 000), such as members of the general population without reported risk factors, screening costs rise to between $290 000 and $1 277 400 per life-year gained.
Conclusions
When considering only direct medical benefits, screening for asymptomatic human immunodeficiency virus infection in the general population, without regard to reported risk factors or seroprevalence data, would be expensive. In populations with a prevalence of infection of 0.5% or greater, however, the cost-effectiveness of screening falls within the range of currently accepted medical practices. These results suggest that screening be offered routinely to all persons in defined populations, such as persons receiving care at hospitals or clinics, or residing in geographic areas, where the seroprevalence is 0.5% or more, and underscore the need to conduct seroprevalence studies to identify such populations.
(Arch Intern Med. 1993;153:1107-1116)
Author Affiliations
From the Center for Clinical Effectiveness, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Mich (Dr McCarthy); Division of Clinical Decision Making, New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass (Dr Wong); Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University, School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Md (Dr Muñoz); and Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey—Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, (Dr Sonnenberg).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Delicious  Digg  Facebook  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
A Systematic Review of Cost-Utility Analyses in HIV/AIDS: Implications for Public Policy
Hornberger et al.
Med Decis Making 2007;27:789-821.
ABSTRACT
Model-Based Drug Evaluation in Chronic Disease: Promise, Pitfalls, and Positioning
Paltiel
Drug Information Journal 2001;35:131-139.
ABSTRACT
Think HIV: Why Physicians Should Lower Their Threshold for HIV Testing
Freedberg and Samet
Arch Intern Med 1999;159:1994-2000.
FULL TEXT
Preventive Therapy for Tuberculosis in HIV-Infected Persons: Analysis of Policy Options Based on Tuberculin Status and CD4+Cell Count
Sawert et al.
Arch Intern Med 1998;158:2112-2121.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
OR Modeling and AIDS Policy: From Theory to Practice
Kahn et al.
Interfaces 1998;28:3-22.
ABSTRACT
A Monte Carlo Simulation of Advanced HIV Disease: Application to Prevention of CMV Infection
Paltiel et al.
Med Decis Making 1998;18:S93-S105.
ABSTRACT
The Cost-Effectiveness of Fluconazole Prophylaxis against Primary Systemic Fungal Infections in AIDS Patients
Scharfstein et al.
Med Decis Making 1997;17:373-381.
ABSTRACT
The Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Testing: Accounting for Differential Participation Rates
Paltiel and Kaplan
Med Decis Making 1997;17:490-495.
ABSTRACT
Economic Impact of Treatment of HIV-Positive Pregnant Women and Their Newborns With Zidovudine: Implications for HIV Screening
Mauskopf et al.
JAMA 1996;276:132-138.
ABSTRACT
Cost-effectiveness of HIV Screening in Acute Care Settings
Owens et al.
Arch Intern Med 1996;156:394-404.
ABSTRACT
|
