BACKGROUND: Although recent guidelines call for expanded routine screening for HIV, resources for antiretroviral therapy (ART) are limited, and all eligible persons are not currently receiving treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects on the U.S. HIV epidemic of expanded ART, HIV screening, or interventions to reduce risk behavior. DESIGN: Dynamic mathematical model of HIV transmission and disease progression and cost-effectiveness analysis. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: High-risk (injection drug users and men who have sex with men) and low-risk persons aged 15 to 64 years in the United States. TIME HORIZON: Twenty years and lifetime (costs and quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]). PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: Expanded HIV screening and counseling, treatment with ART, or both. OUTCOME MEASURES: New HIV infections, discounted costs and QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: One-time HIV screening of low-risk persons coupled with annual screening of high-risk persons could prevent 6.7% of a projected 1.23 million new infections and cost $22,382 per QALY gained, assuming a 20% reduction in sexual activity after screening. Expanding ART utilization to 75% of eligible persons prevents 10.3% of infections and costs $20,300 per QALY gained. A combination strategy prevents 17.3% of infections and costs $21,580 per QALY gained. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: With no reduction in sexual activity, expanded screening prevents 3.7% of infections. Earlier ART initiation when a CD4 count is greater than 0.350 × 10(9) cells/L prevents 20% to 28% of infections. Additional efforts to halve high-risk behavior could reduce infections by 65%. LIMITATION: The model of disease progression and treatment was simplified, and acute HIV screening was excluded. CONCLUSION: Expanding HIV screening and treatment simultaneously offers the greatest health benefit and is cost-effective. However, even substantial expansion of HIV screening and treatment programs is not sufficient to markedly reduce the U.S. HIV epidemic without substantial reductions in risk behavior. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Veterans Affairs.
BACKGROUND: Although recent guidelines call for expanded routine screening for HIV, resources for antiretroviral therapy (ART) are limited, and all eligible persons are not currently receiving treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects on the U.S. HIV epidemic of expanded ART, HIV screening, or interventions to reduce risk behavior. DESIGN: Dynamic mathematical model of HIV transmission and disease progression and cost-effectiveness analysis. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: High-risk (injection drug users and men who have sex with men) and low-risk persons aged 15 to 64 years in the United States. TIME HORIZON: Twenty years and lifetime (costs and quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]). PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: Expanded HIV screening and counseling, treatment with ART, or both. OUTCOME MEASURES: New HIV infections, discounted costs and QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: One-time HIV screening of low-risk persons coupled with annual screening of high-risk persons could prevent 6.7% of a projected 1.23 million new infections and cost $22,382 per QALY gained, assuming a 20% reduction in sexual activity after screening. Expanding ART utilization to 75% of eligible persons prevents 10.3% of infections and costs $20,300 per QALY gained. A combination strategy prevents 17.3% of infections and costs $21,580 per QALY gained. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: With no reduction in sexual activity, expanded screening prevents 3.7% of infections. Earlier ART initiation when a CD4 count is greater than 0.350 × 10(9) cells/L prevents 20% to 28% of infections. Additional efforts to halve high-risk behavior could reduce infections by 65%. LIMITATION: The model of disease progression and treatment was simplified, and acute HIV screening was excluded. CONCLUSION: Expanding HIV screening and treatment simultaneously offers the greatest health benefit and is cost-effective. However, even substantial expansion of HIV screening and treatment programs is not sufficient to markedly reduce the U.S. HIV epidemic without substantial reductions in risk behavior. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Veterans Affairs.
Authors: Maria J Wawer; Ronald H Gray; Nelson K Sewankambo; David Serwadda; Xianbin Li; Oliver Laeyendecker; Noah Kiwanuka; Godfrey Kigozi; Mohammed Kiddugavu; Thomas Lutalo; Fred Nalugoda; Fred Wabwire-Mangen; Mary P Meehan; Thomas C Quinn Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2005-03-30 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Vilija R Joyce; Paul G Barnett; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Susan C Griffin; Tassos C Kyriakides; Wei Yu; Vandana Sundaram; Mark Holodniy; Sheldon T Brown; William Cameron; Mike Youle; Mark Sculpher; Aslam H Anis; Douglas K Owens Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2009-01-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Douglas K Owens; Vandana Sundaram; Laura C Lazzeroni; Lena R Douglass; Gillian D Sanders; Kathie Taylor; Ronald VanGroningen; Vera M Shadle; Valerie C McWhorter; Teodora Agoncillo; Noreen Haren; Jill Nyland; Patricia Tempio; Walid Khayr; Dennis J Dietzen; Peter Jensen; Michael S Simberkoff; Samuel A Bozzette; Mark Holodniy Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-10-30 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: M L Kamb; M Fishbein; J M Douglas; F Rhodes; J Rogers; G Bolan; J Zenilman; T Hoxworth; C K Malotte; M Iatesta; C Kent; A Lentz; S Graziano; R H Byers; T A Peterman Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-10-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nicola M Zetola; Kyle Bernstein; Katherine Ahrens; Julia L Marcus; Susan Philip; Giuliano Nieri; Diane Jones; C Bradley Hare; Ling Hsu; Susan Scheer; Jeffrey D Klausner Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-01-14 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Michelle VanHandel; John F Beltrami; Robin J MacGowan; Craig B Borkowf; Andrew D Margolis Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Xiao Zang; Emanuel Krebs; Linwei Wang; Brandon D L Marshall; Reuben Granich; Bruce R Schackman; Julio S G Montaner; Bohdan Nosyk Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Elizabeth A DiNenno; Joseph Prejean; Kevin P Delaney; Kristina Bowles; Tricia Martin; Amrita Tailor; Gema Dumitru; Mary M Mullins; Angela Hutchinson; Amy Lansky Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Narat Punyacharoensin; William John Edmunds; Daniela De Angelis; Richard Guy White Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 8.082