OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the cost effectiveness of targeted interventions for female sex workers (FSW) under the National AIDS Control Programme in India. METHODS: A compartmental mathematical Markov state model was used over a 20-year time horizon (1995-2015) to estimate the cost effectiveness of FSW targeted interventions, with a health system perspective. The incremental costs and effects of FSW targeted interventions were compared against a baseline scenario of mass media for the general population alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was computed at a 3% discount rate using HIV infections averted and disability-adjusted life-years (DALY) as benefit measures. It was assumed that the transmission of the HIV virus moves from a high-risk group (FSW) to the client population and finally to the general population (partners of clients). RESULT: Targeted interventions for FSW result in a reduction of 47% (1.6 million) prevalent and 36% (2.7 million) cumulative HIV cases, respectively, in 2015. Adult HIV prevalence in India, with and without (mass media only) FSW interventions, would be 0.25% and 0.48% in 2015. Indian government and development partners spend an average US $104 (INR4680) per HIV infection averted and US $10.7 (INR483) per DALY averted. Discounting at 3%, FSW targeted interventions cost US $105.5 (INR4748) and US $10.9 (INR490) per HIV case and DALY averted, respectively. CONCLUSION: At the current gross domestic product in India, targeted intervention is a cost-effective strategy for HIV prevention in India.
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the cost effectiveness of targeted interventions for female sex workers (FSW) under the National AIDS Control Programme in India. METHODS: A compartmental mathematical Markov state model was used over a 20-year time horizon (1995-2015) to estimate the cost effectiveness of FSW targeted interventions, with a health system perspective. The incremental costs and effects of FSW targeted interventions were compared against a baseline scenario of mass media for the general population alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was computed at a 3% discount rate using HIV infections averted and disability-adjusted life-years (DALY) as benefit measures. It was assumed that the transmission of the HIV virus moves from a high-risk group (FSW) to the client population and finally to the general population (partners of clients). RESULT: Targeted interventions for FSW result in a reduction of 47% (1.6 million) prevalent and 36% (2.7 million) cumulative HIV cases, respectively, in 2015. Adult HIV prevalence in India, with and without (mass media only) FSW interventions, would be 0.25% and 0.48% in 2015. Indian government and development partners spend an average US $104 (INR4680) per HIV infection averted and US $10.7 (INR483) per DALY averted. Discounting at 3%, FSW targeted interventions cost US $105.5 (INR4748) and US $10.9 (INR490) per HIV case and DALY averted, respectively. CONCLUSION: At the current gross domestic product in India, targeted intervention is a cost-effective strategy for HIV prevention in India.
Authors: Quang Duy Pham; David P Wilson; Cliff C Kerr; Andrew J Shattock; Hoa Mai Do; Anh Thuy Duong; Long Thanh Nguyen; Lei Zhang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Fiona Cianci; Sedona Sweeney; Issouf Konate; Nicolas Nagot; Andrea Low; Philippe Mayaud; Peter Vickerman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-06-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anna Vassall; Sudhashree Chandrashekar; Michael Pickles; Tara S Beattie; Govindraj Shetty; Parinita Bhattacharjee; Marie-Claude Boily; Peter Vickerman; Janet Bradley; Michel Alary; Stephen Moses; Charlotte Watts Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Annette Prüss-Ustün; Jennyfer Wolf; Tim Driscoll; Louisa Degenhardt; Maria Neira; Jesus Maria Garcia Calleja Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andrew P Craig; Hla-Hla Thein; Lei Zhang; Richard T Gray; Klara Henderson; David Wilson; Marelize Gorgens; David P Wilson Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Sudhashree Chandrashekar; Lorna Guinness; Michael Pickles; Govindraj Y Shetty; Michel Alary; Peter Vickerman; Anna Vassall Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jose L Burgos; Thomas L Patterson; Joshua S Graff-Zivin; James G Kahn; M Gudelia Rangel; M Remedios Lozada; Hugo Staines; Steffanie A Strathdee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 3.752