Estill Janne, Salazar-Vizcaya Luisa, Blaser Nello, Egger Matthias, Keiser Olivia
Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 20;10(3):e0119299. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119299. eCollection 2015.
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.
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.
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.
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.
对接受抗逆转录病毒治疗(ART)的HIV感染患者进行常规病毒载量(VL)监测的成本效益取决于不同环境和不同时间的各种因素。用于VL的低成本即时检测(POC)正在研发中,可能会使资源有限环境中的常规VL监测变得经济可行。我们开发了一种软件工具,以研究采用不同监测策略转换至二线ART的成本效益,并重点关注POC-VL监测。
我们使用数学模型模拟从开始ART直至死亡的患者队列。我们对13种策略(无二线治疗、临床监测、CD4监测(有或无靶向VL监测)、POC-VL监测以及基于实验室的VL监测,监测频率不同)进行了建模。我们纳入了一种各策略失败率相同的情况,以及一种常规VL监测可降低失败风险的情况。我们比较了终生成本和避免的残疾调整生命年(DALY)。我们计算了增量成本效益比(ICER)。我们开发了一个Excel工具,用于根据不同的单位成本和队列特征更新模型结果,并进行了多项改变输入成本的敏感性分析。
引入二线ART的ICER为每避免一个DALY 1651 - 1766美元。与临床监测相比,CD4监测的ICER为每避免一个DALY 1896 - 5488美元,VL监测为每避免一个DALY 951 - 5813美元。我们发现POC-VL监测与基于实验室的VL监测之间没有差异,除了最高测量频率(每6个月一次),此时基于实验室的检测更有效。仅当一线和二线治疗成本差异仍然很大,且我们假设常规VL监测不能预防失败时,靶向VL监测才处于成本效益前沿。
与成本较低的策略相比,常规VL监测的成本效益主要取决于二线ART的成本。我们的Excel工具对于确定具有特定性别和年龄分布以及单位成本的特定环境中的最佳监测策略很有用。