Olanrewaju Medu1, Adegboyega Lawal2, Doug Coyle3, Kevin Pottie4. 1. Saskatchewan Health Authority , Regina, SK, Canada. omedu032@uottawa.ca. 2. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. 3. University of Ottawa School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Ottawa, Canada. 4. Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study reviewed the economic evidence of rapid HIV testing versus conventional HIV testing in low-prevalence high-income countries; evaluated the methodological quality of existing economic evaluations of HIV testing studies; and made recommendations on future economic evaluation directions of HIV testing approaches. METHODS: A systematic search of selected databases for relevant English language studies published between Jan 1, 2001, and Jan 30, 2019, was conducted. The methodological design quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Drummond tool. We reported the systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Five economic evaluations met the eligibility criteria but varied in comparators, evaluation type, perspective, and design. The methodologic quality of the included studies ranged from medium to high. We found evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of rapid HIV testing approaches in low-prevalence high-income countries. Rapid HIV testing was associated with cost per adjusted life year (QALY), ranging from $42,768 to $90,498. Additionally, regardless of HIV prevalence, rapid HIV testing approaches were the most cost-effective option. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence for the cost-effectiveness of rapid HIV testing, including the use of saliva-based testing compared to usual care or hospital-based serum testing. Further studies are needed to draw evidence on the relative cost-effectiveness of the distinct options and contexts of rapid HIV testing.
INTRODUCTION: This study reviewed the economic evidence of rapid HIV testing versus conventional HIV testing in low-prevalence high-income countries; evaluated the methodological quality of existing economic evaluations of HIV testing studies; and made recommendations on future economic evaluation directions of HIV testing approaches. METHODS: A systematic search of selected databases for relevant English language studies published between Jan 1, 2001, and Jan 30, 2019, was conducted. The methodological design quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Drummond tool. We reported the systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Five economic evaluations met the eligibility criteria but varied in comparators, evaluation type, perspective, and design. The methodologic quality of the included studies ranged from medium to high. We found evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of rapid HIV testing approaches in low-prevalence high-income countries. Rapid HIV testing was associated with cost per adjusted life year (QALY), ranging from $42,768 to $90,498. Additionally, regardless of HIV prevalence, rapid HIV testing approaches were the most cost-effective option. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence for the cost-effectiveness of rapid HIV testing, including the use of saliva-based testing compared to usual care or hospital-based serum testing. Further studies are needed to draw evidence on the relative cost-effectiveness of the distinct options and contexts of rapid HIV testing.
Entities:
Keywords:
Economic evaluation; HIV testing; High-income countries
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Bohdan Nosyk; Julio S G Montaner; Guillaume Colley; Viviane D Lima; Keith Chan; Katherine Heath; Benita Yip; Hasina Samji; Mark Gilbert; Rolando Barrios; Réka Gustafson; Robert S Hogg Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Rochelle P Walensky; Milton C Weinstein; April D Kimmel; George R Seage; Elena Losina; Paul E Sax; Hong Zhang; Heather E Smith; Kenneth A Freedberg; A David Paltiel Journal: Am J Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Sheri A Lippman; André R S Périssé; Valdiléa G Veloso; Patrick S Sullivan; Susan Buchbinder; R Craig Sineath; Beatriz Grinsztejn Journal: Cad Saude Publica Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 1.632
Authors: Elliot Marseille; Bruce Larson; Dhruv S Kazi; James G Kahn; Sydney Rosen Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 9.408