Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-6pjjk Total loading time: 0.26 Render date: 2023-01-29T09:18:04.246Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Economic evaluation, human immunodeficiency virus infection and screening: A review and critical appraisal of economic studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

Onome Dibosa-Osadolor
Affiliation:
The Bridge Clinic
Tracy Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to review, systematically and critically, evidence used to derive estimates of cost-effectiveness of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted. Searched were three main electronic bibliographic databases from 1993 to 2008 using key words including HIV, mass screening, HAART, economic evaluation, cost-effectiveness analysis, modeling. We included studies of sexually transmitted HIV infection in both sexes, including studies comparing diagnostic testing protocols and partner notification. Outcomes included were cases of HIV infection detected, deterioration to the AIDS state, secondary transmission of HIV, the quality-adjusted life-years/survival, costs, and cost-effectiveness of HIV screening.

Results: Eighty-four papers were identified; ten of which were formal economic evaluations, one cost study, three effectiveness studies, and three systematic reviews of HIV prevention programs. The predominant assertion was that HIV screening is cost-effective; methodological problems, such as the preponderance of static models which are inappropriate for infectious diseases, varying perspectives from which the studies were analyzed, and arbitrary threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio levels, limited the validity of these findings, and their usefulness in informing health policy decisions.

Conclusions: The majority of published economic evaluations are based on inappropriate static models. This flaw renders the results of these studies as inconclusive and the purported cost-effectiveness of HIV screening debatable. The results of this review could form a basis for consideration of further research and analysis by health economists into the cost-effectiveness of HIV screening.

Type
ASSESSMENTS
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Ades, AE, Sculpher, MJ, Gibb, DM, Gupta, R, Ratcliffe, J. Cost effectiveness analysis of antenatal HIV screening in United Kingdom. BMJ. 1999;319:12301234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Anderson, RM, May, RM. Infectious diseases of humans: Dynamics and control. New York: Oxford University Press; 1991.Google Scholar
3. Anderson, RM, Nokes, DJ. Mathematical models of transmission and control. In: Detels, R, McEwen, J, Beaglehole, R, Tanaka, H, eds. Oxford handbook of public health. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
4. Bos, JM, Fennema, JSA, Postma, MJ. Cost-effectiveness of HIV screening of patients attending clinics for sexually transmitted diseases in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2001;15:20312036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Brennan, A, Chick, SE, Davies, RA. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technology assessment. Health Econ. 2006;15:12951310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Coco, A. The cost-effectiveness of expanded testing for primary HIV infection. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3:391399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Ekwueme, DU, Pinkerton, SD, Holtgrave, DR, Branson, BM. Cost comparison of three HIV counseling and testing technologies. Am J Prevent Med. 2003;25:112121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Fang, CT, Chang, YY, Hsu, HM, et al. Life expectancy of patients with newly-diagnosed HIV infection in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. Q J Med. 2007;100:97105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Garnett, GP. An introduction to mathematical models in sexually transmitted disease epidemiology. Sex Transm Infect. 2002;78:712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Gibb, DM, Ades, AE, Gupta, R, Sculpher, MJ, Costs and benefits to the mother of antenatal HIV testing: Estimates from simulation modelling. AIDS. 1999;13:15691576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Holtgrave, DR. Costs and consequences of the US Centers for Disease Control and prevention's recommendations for opt-out HIV testing. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e1194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Holtgrave, DR, Qualls, NL, Graham, JD. Economic evaluation of HIV prevention programs. Ann Rev Public Health. 1996;17:467488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Honiden, S, Nease, RF, Sundaram, V, Holodniy, M, Owens, DK. The effect of diagnosis with HIV infection on quality of life. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:560.Google Scholar
14. Hornberger, J, Holodniy, M, Robertus, K, Winnike, M, Gibson, E, Verhulst, E. A systematic review of cost-utility analyses in HIV/AIDS: Implications for public policy. Med Decis Making. 1999;27:789821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Marks, G, Crepaz, N, Janssen, RS. Estimating sexual transmission of HIV from persons aware and unaware that they are infected with the virus in the USA. AIDS. 2006;20:14471450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. McCarthy, BD, Wong, JB, Munoz, A, Sonnenberg, FA. Who should be screened for HIV infection? A cost-effectiveness analysis. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153:11071116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Paltiel, AD, Walensky, RP, Schackman, BR, et al. Expanded HIV screening in the United States: Effect on clinical outcomes, HIV transmission, and costs. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:797800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Paltiel, AD, Weinstein, MC, Kimmel, AD, et al. Expanded screening for HIV in the United States: An analysis of cost-effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:586595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Postma, MJ, Beck, EJ, Mandalia, S, et al. Universal HIV screening of pregnant women in England: A cost-effectiveness analysis. BMJ. 1999;318:16561660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Revicki, DA, Wu, AW, Murray, MI. Change in clinical status, health status, and health utility outcomes in HIV-infected patients. Med Care. 1995;33 (Suppl 4):AS173AS182.Google ScholarPubMed
21. Roberts, TE, Henderson, J, Mugford, M, et al. Antenatal ultrasound screening for foetal abnormalities: A systematic review of cost and cost effectiveness studies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;109:4456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Roberts, TE, Robinson, S, Barton, PM, Bryan, S, Low, N, for the Chlamydia Screening Studies (ClaSS) Group. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: A systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling. Sex Transm Infect. 2006;82:193200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Roberts, TE, Robinson, S, Barton, P, et al. The correct approach to modelling and evaluating Chlamydia screening. Sex Transm Infect. 2004;80:324325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Sanders, GD, Bayoumi, AM, Sundaram, V, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:570585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Sonnenberg, FA, Beck, JR. Markov models in medical decision making: A practical guide. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:322338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Varghese, B, Peterman, TA, Holtgrave, DR. Cost-effectiveness of counselling and testing and partner notification: A decision analysis. AIDS. 1999;13:17451751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Vickerman, P, Watts, C, Peeling, RW, Mabey, D, Alary, M. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of rapid point of care diagnostic tests for the control of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections among female sex workers. Sex Transm Infect. 2006;82:403412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Walensky, RP, Freedberg, KA, Weinstein, MC, Paltiel, AD. Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Testing and Treatment in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45 (Suppl 4):248254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Walensky, RP, Losina, E, Malatesta, L, et al. Effective HIV case identification through routine HIV screening at urgent care centers in Massachusetts. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:7173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Walensky, RP, Weinstein, MC, Kimmel, AD, et al. Routine human immunodeficiency virus testing: An economic evaluation of current guidelines. Am J Med. 2005;118:292300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Dibosa-Osadolor et al. supplementary material

Supplementary tables

Download Dibosa-Osadolor et al. supplementary material(File)
File 44 KB
7
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Economic evaluation, human immunodeficiency virus infection and screening: A review and critical appraisal of economic studies
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Economic evaluation, human immunodeficiency virus infection and screening: A review and critical appraisal of economic studies
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Economic evaluation, human immunodeficiency virus infection and screening: A review and critical appraisal of economic studies
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *