IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0119299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Cost-Effectiveness of Monitoring Strategies for Antiretroviral Therapy of HIV Infected Patients in Resource-Limited Settings: Software Tool

Author

Listed:
  • Janne Estill
  • Luisa Salazar-Vizcaya
  • Nello Blaser
  • Matthias Egger
  • Olivia Keiser

Abstract

Background: The cost-effectiveness of routine viral load (VL) monitoring of HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART) depends on various factors that differ between settings and across time. Low-cost point-of-care (POC) tests for VL are in development and may make routine VL monitoring affordable in resource-limited settings. We developed a software tool to study the cost-effectiveness of switching to second-line ART with different monitoring strategies, and focused on POC-VL monitoring. Methods: We used a mathematical model to simulate cohorts of patients from start of ART until death. We modeled 13 strategies (no 2nd-line, clinical, CD4 (with or without targeted VL), POC-VL, and laboratory-based VL monitoring, with different frequencies). We included a scenario with identical failure rates across strategies, and one in which routine VL monitoring reduces the risk of failure. We compared lifetime costs and averted disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). We developed an Excel tool to update the results of the model for varying unit costs and cohort characteristics, and conducted several sensitivity analyses varying the input costs. Results: Introducing 2nd-line ART had an ICER of US$1651-1766/DALY averted. Compared with clinical monitoring, the ICER of CD4 monitoring was US$1896-US$5488/DALY averted and VL monitoring US$951-US$5813/DALY averted. We found no difference between POC- and laboratory-based VL monitoring, except for the highest measurement frequency (every 6 months), where laboratory-based testing was more effective. Targeted VL monitoring was on the cost-effectiveness frontier only if the difference between 1st- and 2nd-line costs remained large, and if we assumed that routine VL monitoring does not prevent failure. Conclusion: Compared with the less expensive strategies, the cost-effectiveness of routine VL monitoring essentially depends on the cost of 2nd-line ART. Our Excel tool is useful for determining optimal monitoring strategies for specific settings, with specific sex-and age-distributions and unit costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Janne Estill & Luisa Salazar-Vizcaya & Nello Blaser & Matthias Egger & Olivia Keiser, 2015. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Monitoring Strategies for Antiretroviral Therapy of HIV Infected Patients in Resource-Limited Settings: Software Tool," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0119299
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119299
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119299
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119299&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0119299?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hannock Tweya & Caryl Feldacker & Janne Estill & Andreas Jahn & Wingston Ng’ambi & Anne Ben-Smith & Olivia Keiser & Mphatso Bokosi & Matthias Egger & Colin Speight & Joe Gumulira & Sam Phiri, 2013. "Are They Really Lost? “True” Status and Reasons for Treatment Discontinuation among HIV Infected Patients on Antiretroviral Therapy Considered Lost to Follow Up in Urban Malawi," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-1, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0119299. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.