BACKGROUND: The President's National HIV/AIDS Strategy calls for coupling HIV screening and prevention services with substance abuse treatment programs. Fewer than half of US community-based substance abuse treatment programs make HIV testing available on-site or through referral. METHODS: We measured the cost-effectiveness of three HIV testing strategies evaluated in a randomized trial conducted in 12 community-based substance abuse treatment programs in 2009: off-site testing referral, on-site rapid testing with information only, on-site rapid testing with risk-reduction counseling. Data from the trial included patient demographics, prior testing history, test acceptance and receipt of results, undiagnosed HIV prevalence (0.4%) and program costs. The Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC) computer simulation model was used to project life expectancy, lifetime costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for HIV-infected individuals. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2009 US $/QALY) were calculated after adding costs of testing HIV-uninfected individuals; costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: Referral for off-site testing is less efficient (dominated) compared to offering on-site testing with information only. The cost-effectiveness ratio for on-site testing with information is $60,300/QALY in the base case, or $76,300/QALY with 0.1% undiagnosed HIV prevalence. HIV risk-reduction counseling costs $36 per person more without additional benefit. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of on-site rapid HIV testing offer with information only in substance abuse treatment programs increases life expectancy at a cost-effectiveness ratio <$100,000/QALY. Policymakers and substance abuse treatment leaders should seek funding to implement on-site rapid HIV testing in substance abuse treatment programs for those not recently tested.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The President's National HIV/AIDS Strategy calls for coupling HIV screening and prevention services with substance abuse treatment programs. Fewer than half of US community-based substance abuse treatment programs make HIV testing available on-site or through referral. METHODS: We measured the cost-effectiveness of three HIV testing strategies evaluated in a randomized trial conducted in 12 community-based substance abuse treatment programs in 2009: off-site testing referral, on-site rapid testing with information only, on-site rapid testing with risk-reduction counseling. Data from the trial included patient demographics, prior testing history, test acceptance and receipt of results, undiagnosed HIV prevalence (0.4%) and program costs. The Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC) computer simulation model was used to project life expectancy, lifetime costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for HIV-infected individuals. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2009 US $/QALY) were calculated after adding costs of testing HIV-uninfected individuals; costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: Referral for off-site testing is less efficient (dominated) compared to offering on-site testing with information only. The cost-effectiveness ratio for on-site testing with information is $60,300/QALY in the base case, or $76,300/QALY with 0.1% undiagnosed HIV prevalence. HIV risk-reduction counseling costs $36 per person more without additional benefit. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of on-site rapid HIV testing offer with information only in substance abuse treatment programs increases life expectancy at a cost-effectiveness ratio <$100,000/QALY. Policymakers and substance abuse treatment leaders should seek funding to implement on-site rapid HIV testing in substance abuse treatment programs for those not recently tested.
Authors: K A Freedberg; E Losina; M C Weinstein; A D Paltiel; C J Cohen; G R Seage; D E Craven; H Zhang; A D Kimmel; S J Goldie Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bruce R Schackman; Sue J Goldie; Kenneth A Freedberg; Elena Losina; John Brazier; Milton C Weinstein Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2002 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Bruce R Schackman; Callie A Scott; Rochelle P Walensky; Elena Losina; Kenneth A Freedberg; Paul E Sax Journal: AIDS Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Elena Losina; Bruce R Schackman; Sara N Sadownik; Kelly A Gebo; Rochelle P Walensky; John J Chiosi; Milton C Weinstein; Perrin L Hicks; Wendy H Aaronson; Richard D Moore; A David Paltiel; Kenneth A Freedberg Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2009-11-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: John G Bartlett; Bernard M Branson; Kevin Fenton; Benjamin C Hauschild; Veronica Miller; Kenneth H Mayer Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-08-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Bruce R Schackman; Ashley A Eggman; Jared A Leff; Megan Braunlin; Uriel R Felsen; Lisa Fitzpatrick; Edward E Telzak; Wafaa El-Sadr; Bernard M Branson Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Ashley A Eggman; Daniel J Feaster; Jared A Leff; Matthew R Golden; Pedro C Castellon; Lauren Gooden; Tim Matheson; Grant N Colfax; Lisa R Metsch; Bruce R Schackman Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Carrigan L Parish; Karolynn Siegel; Terri Liguori; Stephen N Abel; Harold A Pollack; Margaret R Pereyra; Lisa R Metsch Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2017-08-18
Authors: Parastu Kasaie; W David Kelton; Rachel M Ancona; Michael J Ward; Craig M Froehle; Michael S Lyons Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2017-11-11 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: David C Perlman; Ashly E Jordan; Anneli Uuskula; Duong Thi Huong; Carmen L Masson; Bruce R Schackman; Don C Des Jarlais Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2015-04-27
Authors: Ali Jalali; Danielle A Ryan; Kathryn E McCollister; Lisa A Marsch; Bruce R Schackman; Sean M Murphy Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2020-03
Authors: Randy Seewald; R Douglas Bruce; Rashiah Elam; Ruy Tio; Sara Lorenz; Patricia Friedmann; David Rabin; Yana B Garger; Valentin Bonilla; David C Perlman Journal: Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.829