INTRODUCTION: Over 2 million people in high-income countries live with HIV. Early diagnosis and treatment present benefits for infected subjects and reduce secondary transmissions. Cost-effectiveness analyses are important to effectively inform policy makers and consequently implement the most cost-effective programmes. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review regarding the cost-effectiveness of HIV screening in high-income countries. METHODS: We followed PRISMA statements and included all papers evaluating the cost-effectiveness of HIV screening in the general population or in specific subgroups. RESULTS: Thirteen studies considered routine HIV testing in the general population. The most cost-effective option appeared to be associating one-time testing of the general population with annual screening of high-risk groups, such as injecting-drug users. Thirteen studies assessed the cost-effectiveness of HIV screening in specific settings, outlining the attractiveness of similar programmes in emergency departments, primary care, sexually transmitted disease clinics and substance abuse treatment programmes. DISCUSSION: Evidence regarding the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of HIV screening is growing, even in low-prevalence countries. One-time screenings offered to the adult population appear to be a valuable choice, associated with repeated testing in high-risk populations. The evidence regarding the benefits of using a rapid test, even in terms of cost-effectiveness, is growing. Finally, HIV screening seems useful in specific settings, such as emergency departments and STD clinics.
INTRODUCTION: Over 2 million people in high-income countries live with HIV. Early diagnosis and treatment present benefits for infected subjects and reduce secondary transmissions. Cost-effectiveness analyses are important to effectively inform policy makers and consequently implement the most cost-effective programmes. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review regarding the cost-effectiveness of HIV screening in high-income countries. METHODS: We followed PRISMA statements and included all papers evaluating the cost-effectiveness of HIV screening in the general population or in specific subgroups. RESULTS: Thirteen studies considered routine HIV testing in the general population. The most cost-effective option appeared to be associating one-time testing of the general population with annual screening of high-risk groups, such as injecting-drug users. Thirteen studies assessed the cost-effectiveness of HIV screening in specific settings, outlining the attractiveness of similar programmes in emergency departments, primary care, sexually transmitted disease clinics and substance abuse treatment programmes. DISCUSSION: Evidence regarding the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of HIV screening is growing, even in low-prevalence countries. One-time screenings offered to the adult population appear to be a valuable choice, associated with repeated testing in high-risk populations. The evidence regarding the benefits of using a rapid test, even in terms of cost-effectiveness, is growing. Finally, HIV screening seems useful in specific settings, such as emergency departments and STD clinics.
Authors: Amy C Justice; Matthew B Goetz; Cameron N Stewart; Brenna C Hogan; Elizabeth Humes; Paula M Luz; Jessica L Castilho; Denis Nash; Ellen Brazier; Beverly Musick; Constantin Yiannoutsos; Karen Malateste; Antoine Jaquet; Morna Cornell; Tinei Shamu; Reena Rajasuriar; Awachana Jiamsakul; Keri N Althoff Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 16.070
Authors: Francesca Licata; Silvia Angelillo; Carmelo Giuseppe Angelo Nobile; Gianfranco Di Gennaro; Aida Bianco Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-04-19
Authors: Eric N Ouattara; Rachel L MacLean; Christine Danel; Ethan D Borre; Delphine Gabillard; Mingshu Huang; Raoul Moh; A David Paltiel; Serge P Eholié; Rochelle P Walensky; Xavier Anglaret; Kenneth A Freedberg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Dorthe Raben; Ann Kathleen Sullivan; Amanda Mocroft; Galyna Kutsyna; Vesna Hadžiosmanović; Anna Vassilenko; Nikoloz Chkhartisvili; Viktar Mitsura; Court Pedersen; Jane Anderson; Josip Begovac; Ulrik Bak Dragsted; Barbara Bertisch; Anna Grzeszczuk; Jane Minton; Valentina Coca Necsoi; Maria Kitchen; Faiza Ajana; Anton Sokhan; Laura Comi; Paymaneh Farazmand; Dragica Pesut; Stephane De Wit; José Maria Gatell; Brian Gazzard; Antonella d'Arminio Monforte; Jürgen Kurt Rockstroh; Yazdan Yazdanpanah; Karen Champenois; Marie Louise Jakobsen; Jens Dilling Lundgren Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nav Persaud; Hannah Woods; Aine Workentin; Itunu Adekoya; James R Dunn; Stephen W Hwang; Jonathon Maguire; Andrew D Pinto; Patricia O'Campo; Sean B Rourke; Daniel Werb Journal: CMAJ Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Saskia J Bogers; Maarten F Schim van der Loeff; Udi Davidovich; Anders Boyd; Marc van der Valk; Kees Brinkman; Godelieve J de Bree; Peter Reiss; Jan E A M van Bergen; Suzanne E Geerlings Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Rakkoo Chung; Shu-Yin John Leung; Stephen N Abel; Michael N Hatton; Yanfang Ren; Jeffrey Seiver; Carol Sloane; Howard Lavigne; Travis O'Donnell; Laura O'Shea Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 3.240