Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in primary care: a health economics modelling analysis

BACKGROUND: Early HIV diagnosis reduces morbidity, mortality, the probability of onward transmission, and their associated costs, but might increase cost because of earlier initiation of antiretroviral treatment (ART). We investigated this trade-off by estimating the cost-effectiveness of HIV screen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baggaley, Rebecca F, Irvine, Michael A, Leber, Werner, Cambiano, Valentina, Figueroa, Jose, McMullen, Heather, Anderson, Jane, Santos, Andreia C, Terris-Prestholt, Fern, Miners, Alec, Hollingsworth, T Déirdre, Griffiths, Chris J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier B.V 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28768604
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3018(17)30123-6
_version_ 1783266461472522240
author Baggaley, Rebecca F
Irvine, Michael A
Leber, Werner
Cambiano, Valentina
Figueroa, Jose
McMullen, Heather
Anderson, Jane
Santos, Andreia C
Terris-Prestholt, Fern
Miners, Alec
Hollingsworth, T Déirdre
Griffiths, Chris J
author_facet Baggaley, Rebecca F
Irvine, Michael A
Leber, Werner
Cambiano, Valentina
Figueroa, Jose
McMullen, Heather
Anderson, Jane
Santos, Andreia C
Terris-Prestholt, Fern
Miners, Alec
Hollingsworth, T Déirdre
Griffiths, Chris J
author_sort Baggaley, Rebecca F
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Early HIV diagnosis reduces morbidity, mortality, the probability of onward transmission, and their associated costs, but might increase cost because of earlier initiation of antiretroviral treatment (ART). We investigated this trade-off by estimating the cost-effectiveness of HIV screening in primary care. METHODS: We modelled the effect of the four-times higher diagnosis rate observed in the intervention arm of the RHIVA2 randomised controlled trial done in Hackney, London (UK), a borough with high HIV prevalence (≥0·2% adult prevalence). We constructed a dynamic, compartmental model representing incidence of infection and the effect of screening for HIV in general practices in Hackney. We assessed cost-effectiveness of the RHIVA2 trial by fitting model diagnosis rates to the trial data, parameterising with epidemiological and behavioural data from the literature when required, using trial testing costs and projecting future costs of treatment. FINDINGS: Over a 40 year time horizon, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £22 201 (95% credible interval 12 662–132 452) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, £372 207 (268 162–1 903 385) per death averted, and £628 874 (434 902–4 740 724) per HIV transmission averted. Under this model scenario, with UK cost data, RHIVA2 would reach the upper National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold (about £30 000 per QALY gained) after 33 years. Scenarios using cost data from Canada (which indicate prolonged and even higher health-care costs for patients diagnosed late) suggest this threshold could be reached in as little as 13 years. INTERPRETATION: Screening for HIV in primary care has important public health benefits as well as clinical benefits. We predict it to be cost-effective in the UK in the medium term. However, this intervention might be cost-effective far sooner, and even cost-saving, in settings where long-term health-care costs of late-diagnosed patients in high-prevalence regions are much higher (≥60%) than those of patients diagnosed earlier. Screening for HIV in primary care is cost-effective and should be promoted. FUNDING: NHS City and Hackney, UK Department of Health, National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5614770
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Elsevier B.V
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56147702017-10-05 Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in primary care: a health economics modelling analysis Baggaley, Rebecca F Irvine, Michael A Leber, Werner Cambiano, Valentina Figueroa, Jose McMullen, Heather Anderson, Jane Santos, Andreia C Terris-Prestholt, Fern Miners, Alec Hollingsworth, T Déirdre Griffiths, Chris J Lancet HIV Articles BACKGROUND: Early HIV diagnosis reduces morbidity, mortality, the probability of onward transmission, and their associated costs, but might increase cost because of earlier initiation of antiretroviral treatment (ART). We investigated this trade-off by estimating the cost-effectiveness of HIV screening in primary care. METHODS: We modelled the effect of the four-times higher diagnosis rate observed in the intervention arm of the RHIVA2 randomised controlled trial done in Hackney, London (UK), a borough with high HIV prevalence (≥0·2% adult prevalence). We constructed a dynamic, compartmental model representing incidence of infection and the effect of screening for HIV in general practices in Hackney. We assessed cost-effectiveness of the RHIVA2 trial by fitting model diagnosis rates to the trial data, parameterising with epidemiological and behavioural data from the literature when required, using trial testing costs and projecting future costs of treatment. FINDINGS: Over a 40 year time horizon, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £22 201 (95% credible interval 12 662–132 452) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, £372 207 (268 162–1 903 385) per death averted, and £628 874 (434 902–4 740 724) per HIV transmission averted. Under this model scenario, with UK cost data, RHIVA2 would reach the upper National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold (about £30 000 per QALY gained) after 33 years. Scenarios using cost data from Canada (which indicate prolonged and even higher health-care costs for patients diagnosed late) suggest this threshold could be reached in as little as 13 years. INTERPRETATION: Screening for HIV in primary care has important public health benefits as well as clinical benefits. We predict it to be cost-effective in the UK in the medium term. However, this intervention might be cost-effective far sooner, and even cost-saving, in settings where long-term health-care costs of late-diagnosed patients in high-prevalence regions are much higher (≥60%) than those of patients diagnosed earlier. Screening for HIV in primary care is cost-effective and should be promoted. FUNDING: NHS City and Hackney, UK Department of Health, National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care. Elsevier B.V 2017-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5614770/ /pubmed/28768604 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3018(17)30123-6 Text en © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Articles
Baggaley, Rebecca F
Irvine, Michael A
Leber, Werner
Cambiano, Valentina
Figueroa, Jose
McMullen, Heather
Anderson, Jane
Santos, Andreia C
Terris-Prestholt, Fern
Miners, Alec
Hollingsworth, T Déirdre
Griffiths, Chris J
Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in primary care: a health economics modelling analysis
title Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in primary care: a health economics modelling analysis
title_full Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in primary care: a health economics modelling analysis
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in primary care: a health economics modelling analysis
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in primary care: a health economics modelling analysis
title_short Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in primary care: a health economics modelling analysis
title_sort cost-effectiveness of screening for hiv in primary care: a health economics modelling analysis
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28768604
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3018(17)30123-6
work_keys_str_mv AT baggaleyrebeccaf costeffectivenessofscreeningforhivinprimarycareahealtheconomicsmodellinganalysis
AT irvinemichaela costeffectivenessofscreeningforhivinprimarycareahealtheconomicsmodellinganalysis
AT leberwerner costeffectivenessofscreeningforhivinprimarycareahealtheconomicsmodellinganalysis
AT cambianovalentina costeffectivenessofscreeningforhivinprimarycareahealtheconomicsmodellinganalysis
AT figueroajose costeffectivenessofscreeningforhivinprimarycareahealtheconomicsmodellinganalysis
AT mcmullenheather costeffectivenessofscreeningforhivinprimarycareahealtheconomicsmodellinganalysis
AT andersonjane costeffectivenessofscreeningforhivinprimarycareahealtheconomicsmodellinganalysis
AT santosandreiac costeffectivenessofscreeningforhivinprimarycareahealtheconomicsmodellinganalysis
AT terrisprestholtfern costeffectivenessofscreeningforhivinprimarycareahealtheconomicsmodellinganalysis
AT minersalec costeffectivenessofscreeningforhivinprimarycareahealtheconomicsmodellinganalysis
AT hollingsworthtdeirdre costeffectivenessofscreeningforhivinprimarycareahealtheconomicsmodellinganalysis
AT griffithschrisj costeffectivenessofscreeningforhivinprimarycareahealtheconomicsmodellinganalysis