4.0 Article

Cost-effectiveness of voluntary HIV screening in Russia

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STD & AIDS
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 46-51

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1258/ijsa.2008.008128

关键词

Russia; HIV; AIDS; screening; prevention; cost-effectiveness

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [2-R01-DA15612-016]
  2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [HS000028]
  3. Department of Veterans Affairs
  4. AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY [T32HS000028, F32HS000028] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R37DA015612, R01DA015612] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Russia has one of the world's fastest growing HIV epidemics, and HIV screening has been widespread. Whether such screening is an effective use of resources is unclear. We used epidemiologic and economic data from Russia to develop a Markov model to estimate costs, quality of life and survival associated with a voluntary HIV screening programme compared with no screening in Russia. We measured discounted lifetime health-care costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. We varied our inputs in sensitivity analysis. Early identification of HIV through screening provided a substantial benefit to persons with HIV, increasing life expectancy by 2.1 years and 1.7 QALYs. At a base-case prevalence of 1.2%, once-per-lifetime screening cost $13,396 per QALY gained, exclusive of benefit from reduced transmission. Cost-effectiveness of screening remained favourable until prevalence dropped below 0.04%. When HIV-transmission-related costs and benefits were included, once-per-lifetime screening cost $6910 per QALY gained and screening every two years cost $27,696 per QALY gained. An important determinant of the cost-effectiveness of screening was effectiveness of counselling about risk reduction. Early identification of HIV infection through screening in Russia is effective and cost-effective in all but the lowest prevalence groups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据