INTRODUCTION: We used a computer simulation of HIV progression and transmission to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a scale-up of 3 strategies to seek out and test individuals with undiagnosed HIV in New York City (NYC). SETTING: Hypothetical NYC population. METHODS: We incorporated the observed effects and costs of the 3 "seek and test" strategies in a computer simulation of HIV in NYC, comparing a scenario in which the strategies were scaled up with a 1-year implementation or a long-term implementation with a counterfactual scenario with no scale-up. The simulation combined a deterministic compartmental model of HIV transmission with a stochastic microsimulation of HIV progression, calibrated to NYC epidemiological data from 2003 to 2015. The 3 approaches were respondent-driven sampling (RDS) with anonymous HIV testing ("RDS-A"), RDS with a 2-session confidential HIV testing approach ("RDS-C"), and venue-based sampling ("VBS"). RESULTS: RDS-A was the most cost-effective strategy tested. When implemented for only 1 year and then stopped thereafter, using a societal perspective, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus no intervention was $812/QALY, $18,110/QALY, and $20,362/QALY for RDS-A, RDS-C, and VBS, respectively. When interventions were implemented long term, the cost per QALY gained versus no intervention was cost-saving, $31,773/QALY, and $35,148/QALY for RDS-A, RDS-C, and VBS, respectively. When compared with RDS-A, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for both VBS and RDS-C were dominated. CONCLUSIONS: The expansion of the RDS-A strategy would substantially reduce HIV-related deaths and new HIV infections in NYC, and would be either cost-saving or have favorable cost-effectiveness.
INTRODUCTION: We used a computer simulation of HIV progression and transmission to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a scale-up of 3 strategies to seek out and test individuals with undiagnosed HIV in New York City (NYC). SETTING: Hypothetical NYC population. METHODS: We incorporated the observed effects and costs of the 3 "seek and test" strategies in a computer simulation of HIV in NYC, comparing a scenario in which the strategies were scaled up with a 1-year implementation or a long-term implementation with a counterfactual scenario with no scale-up. The simulation combined a deterministic compartmental model of HIV transmission with a stochastic microsimulation of HIV progression, calibrated to NYC epidemiological data from 2003 to 2015. The 3 approaches were respondent-driven sampling (RDS) with anonymous HIV testing ("RDS-A"), RDS with a 2-session confidential HIV testing approach ("RDS-C"), and venue-based sampling ("VBS"). RESULTS: RDS-A was the most cost-effective strategy tested. When implemented for only 1 year and then stopped thereafter, using a societal perspective, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus no intervention was $812/QALY, $18,110/QALY, and $20,362/QALY for RDS-A, RDS-C, and VBS, respectively. When interventions were implemented long term, the cost per QALY gained versus no intervention was cost-saving, $31,773/QALY, and $35,148/QALY for RDS-A, RDS-C, and VBS, respectively. When compared with RDS-A, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for both VBS and RDS-C were dominated. CONCLUSIONS: The expansion of the RDS-A strategy would substantially reduce HIV-related deaths and new HIV infections in NYC, and would be either cost-saving or have favorable cost-effectiveness.
Authors: R Mehrian-Shai; C D Chen; T Shi; S Horvath; S F Nelson; J K V Reichardt; C L Sawyers Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-03-19 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Michael M Lederman; Leonard Calabrese; Nicholas T Funderburg; Brian Clagett; Kathy Medvik; Hector Bonilla; Barbara Gripshover; Robert A Salata; Alan Taege; Michelle Lisgaris; Grace A McComsey; Elizabeth Kirchner; Jane Baum; Carey Shive; Robert Asaad; Robert C Kalayjian; Scott F Sieg; Benigno Rodriguez Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2011-10-15 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Sulggi A Lee; Elizabeth Sinclair; Vivek Jain; Yong Huang; Lorrie Epling; Mark Van Natta; Curtis L Meinert; Jeffrey N Martin; Joseph M McCune; Steven G Deeks; Michael M Lederman; Frederick M Hecht; Peter W Hunt Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Matthew S Freiberg; Chung-Chou H Chang; Lewis H Kuller; Melissa Skanderson; Elliott Lowy; Kevin L Kraemer; Adeel A Butt; Matthew Bidwell Goetz; David Leaf; Kris Ann Oursler; David Rimland; Maria Rodriguez Barradas; Sheldon Brown; Cynthia Gibert; Kathy McGinnis; Kristina Crothers; Jason Sico; Heidi Crane; Alberta Warner; Stephen Gottlieb; John Gottdiener; Russell P Tracy; Matthew Budoff; Courtney Watson; Kaku A Armah; Donna Doebler; Kendall Bryant; Amy C Justice Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jason V Baker; Grace Peng; Joshua Rapkin; Donald I Abrams; Michael J Silverberg; Rodger D MacArthur; Winston P Cavert; W Keith Henry; James D Neaton Journal: AIDS Date: 2008-04-23 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Benoît Vingert; Daniela Benati; Olivier Lambotte; Pierre de Truchis; Laurence Slama; Patricia Jeannin; Moran Galperin; Santiago Perez-Patrigeon; Faroudy Boufassa; William W Kwok; Fabrice Lemaître; Jean-François Delfraissy; Jacques Thèze; Lisa A Chakrabarti Journal: J Virol Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Michael R Betts; Martha C Nason; Sadie M West; Stephen C De Rosa; Stephen A Migueles; Jonathan Abraham; Michael M Lederman; Jose M Benito; Paul A Goepfert; Mark Connors; Mario Roederer; Richard A Koup Journal: Blood Date: 2006-02-07 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Marya Gwadz; Noelle R Leonard; Sylvie Honig; Robert Freeman; Alexandra Kutnick; Amanda S Ritchie Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2018-04-20
Authors: Amy B Mullens; Josh Duyker; Charlotte Brownlow; Jime Lemoire; Kirstie Daken; Jeff Gow Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-02-02 Impact factor: 2.655