Advertisement
Journal Home
Search for

Volume 118, Issue 3, Pages 292-300 (March 2005)


View previous. 11 of 23 View next.

Routine human immunodeficiency virus testing: An economic evaluation of current guidelines

Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPHabCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Milton C. Weinstein, PhDd, April D. Kimmela, George R. Seage III, ScD, MPHc, Elena Losina, PhDe, Paul E. Sax, MDb, Hong Zhang, SMa, Heather E. Smitha, Kenneth A. Freedberg, MD, MSca, A. David Paltiel, PhDf

Received 24 November 2003; accepted 11 July 2004.

Background

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines recommend human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) counseling, testing, and referral for all patients in hospitals with an HIV prevalence of ≥1%. The 1% screening threshold has not been critically examined since HIV became effectively treatable in 1995. Our objective was to evaluate the clinical effect and cost-effectiveness of current guidelines and of alternate HIV prevalence thresholds.

Methods

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a computer simulation model of HIV screening and disease as applied to inpatients in U.S. hospitals.

Results

At an undiagnosed inpatient HIV prevalence of 1% and an overall participation rate of 33%, HIV screening increased mean quality-adjusted life expectancy by 6.13 years per 1000 inpatients, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $35 400 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Expansion of screening to settings with a prevalence as low as 0.1% increased the ratio to $64 500 per QALY gained. Increasing counseling and testing costs from $53 to $103 per person still yielded a cost-effectiveness ratio below $100 000 per QALY gained at a prevalence of undiagnosed infection of 0.1%.

Conclusion

Routine inpatient HIV screening programs are not only cost-effective but would likely remain so at a prevalence of undiagnosed HIV infection 10 times lower than recommended thresholds. The current HIV counseling, testing, and referral guidelines should now be implemented nationwide as a way of linking infected patients to life-sustaining care.

a Divisions of Infectious Disease and General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Partners AIDS Research Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

b Division of Infectious Disease, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

c Department of Health Policy and Management, Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts

d Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts

e Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts

f Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Corresponding Author InformationRequests for reprints should be addressed to Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, Division of General Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, 50 Staniford Street, 9th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02114.

 This research was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (K23AI01794, K24AI062476, K25AI50436, R01AI42006, Center for AIDS Research P30AI42851), the National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH65869), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA015612), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (S1396-20/21).

PII: S0002-9343(04)00746-6

doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.07.055


View previous. 11 of 23 View next.

Advertisement