the cost-effectiveness of on-site rapid hiv testing in substance abuse treatment: results of the ctn...
TRANSCRIPT
The cost-effectiveness of on-site rapid HIV testing in substance abuse treatment: results of the CTN 0032 randomized trial
Schackman BR, Metsch LR, Colfax GN, Leff JA, Wong A,
Scott CA, Feaster DJ, Gooden L, Matheson T, Mandler RN,
Haynes LF, Paltiel AD, Walensky RP
6th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment, and
PreventionJuly 18, 2011
US National HIV/AIDS Strategy
• Target: increase proportion of people living with HIV who know their status from 79% to 90% by 2015
• Implementation: Federally-funded substance abuse and mental health treatment clinics to offer voluntary, routine HIV testing
2
HIV testing in substance abuse treatment centers
• Less than one-third of US drug treatment programs offer HIV testing and counseling
• Less than one-half of community treatment programs in the National Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network (CTN) make HIV testing available, either in the program or through referral
3
Objective
• To project the life expectancy gains, costs and cost-effectiveness of 3 HIV testing strategies in substance abuse treatment centers evaluated in the CTN Rapid Testing and Counseling Study randomized controlled trial (CTN 0032)
4
Analytic overview
• We used data on short-term outcomes from CTN 0032 (Abstract TUPE402)
• To project long-term clinical and economic outcomes, we used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC) model, a computer simulation state-transition model of HIV disease natural history, detection and treatment
5
Model outcomes
• For HIV-infected individuals:– Life expectancy, undiscounted– Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained
and cost of additional care due to early detection, discounted at 3% annually
• For HIV-uninfected individuals:– Cost of HIV testing offer
• All costs are in 2009 US dollars
6
Cost-effectiveness is about value for money
• Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio:
• US cost-effectiveness threshold: <$100,000/QALY
7
Additional Resource Use ($)Additional Health Benefits (QALYS)
Strategies examined
1) No HIV testing
2) Offer of referral to off-site HIV testing only
3) Offer of on-site rapid HIV testing with verbal information about testing only
4) Offer of on-site rapid HIV testing with risk reduction counseling
8
Cohort description
Male 61%
White 65%
Injection drug use history 49%
Prevalence of undetected HIV 0.4%
Mean CD4 cells at time of detection with intervention* 551/ul
Time between HIV tests elsewhere* 5.3 years
Eligibility for HIV test offer:Not known to be HIV+ Did not receive results of an HIV test performed in the last 12 months
9
*estimated
Input parameters by strategy
Accepted & received HIV
test result
Cost per offer
Mean number of unprotected sex acts after 6
months
Off-site referral 18.4% $10 20.5
On-site testing + information
84.8% $42 21.3
On-site testing + counseling
79.7% $78 21.3
10
Base case cost-effectiveness results
Life expectancy
HIV+ (years)
Population avg total
cost
Population avg total
HIV+ QALM
CE ratio($/QALY)
No intervention 17.1 $1,100 0.49
Off-site referral 17.9 $1,200 0.51 dominated (inefficient)
On-site testing + information
20.8 $1,560 0.59 $60,300
On-site testing + counseling
20.5 $1,570 0.58 Dominated(higher
cost, lower QALY)
11
Sensitivity analysis: cost-effectiveness of on-site testing + information vs. no intervention
12
Limitations
• Assume HIV+ individuals who receive test results will be linked to care, and consistently receive guideline-concordant care
• Potential benefit of reduced HIV transmission due to earlier detection is not included
• Additional start-up costs will be required to implement on-site HIV testing
13
Conclusions
• In substance abuse treatment centers:– Referral for off-site testing is less costly but
also less efficient than on-site testing– On-site risk reduction counseling adds cost
without either reducing sexual risk behavior or increasing acceptance of HIV testing, and is not cost-effective
• Offering rapid HIV testing on-site in substance abuse treatment programs is cost-effective using the current US threshold of <$100,000/QALY 14
Funding
• National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN): U10 DA013720, U10DA13720-09S, U10 DA020036, U10DA15815, U10DA13034, U10DA013038, U10 DA013732, U10 DA13036, U10 DA13727, U10DA015833, HHSN271200522081C, HHSN271200522071C
• National Institute on Drug Abuse: R01 DA027379, K23 DA019809
• National Institute of Mental Health: R01 MH063869
• National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: R37 A1042006
15
Special thanks to site coordinators, staff, and participants
CPCDS: Antoine Douiah, Dorothy Sandstrom, Carrie Baron-Myak
La Frontera: Pat Penn, Roger Owen, and Sue McDavitt
Daymark: Robert Werstlein, Jessica Sides
Chesterfield: Dace Svikas, Ned Snead, Laurie Safford
Glenwood: Robert Schwartz, Lil Donnard, Lynn Calvin
MCCA: Steve Martino, David Avila, Stacy Botex
Wheeler: Steve Martino, Ray Muszynksi, Brandi Welles
CODA: Todd Korthuis, Katharina Weist, Diane Lape
Lifelink: Sarah Erickson, Michael DeBernardi, Meredith Davis
LRADAC: Louise Haynes, Beverly Holmes
Morris Village: Louise Haynes, Kim Pressley
Gibson: Angela Case-Williams, Kevin Steward, Andrew Johnson
16