Epidemiology, Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Global Public Health, New York University, 708 Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Harm Reduct J. 2021 Dec 7;18(1):126. doi: 10.1186/s12954-021-00575-4.
While there is a general acceptance among public health officials and policy-makers that syringe services programs can be effective in reducing HIV transmission among persons who inject drugs, local syringe services programs are often asked to provide economic justifications for their activities. A cost-effectiveness study, estimating the cost of preventing one HIV infection, would be the preferred methods for addressing this economic question, but few local syringe services programs have the needed data, staff and epidemiologic modeling resources needed for a cost-effectiveness study. We present a method for estimating a threshold value for the number of HIV infections prevented above which the program will be cost-saving to society. An intervention is considered "cost-saving" when it leads to a desirable health outcome a lower cost than the alternative.
The research literature on the effectiveness of syringe services programs in controlling HIV transmission among persons who inject drugs and guidelines for syringe services program that are "functioning very well" were used to estimate the cost-saving threshold at which a syringe services program becomes cost-saving through preventing HIV infections versus lifetime treatment of HIV. Three steps are involved: (1) determining if HIV transmission in the local persons who inject drugs (PWID) population is being controlled, (2) determining if the local syringe services program is functioning very well, and then (3) dividing the annual budget of the syringe services program by the lifetime cost of treating a single HIV infection.
A syringe services program in an area with controlled HIV transmission (with HIV incidence of 1/100 person-years or less), functioning very well (with high syringe coverage, linkages to other services, and monitoring the local drug use situation), and an annual budget of $500,000 would need to prevent only 3 new HIV infections per year to be cost-saving.
Given the high costs of treating HIV infections, syringe services programs that are operating according to very good practices ("functioning very well") and in communities in which HIV transmission is being controlled among persons who inject drugs, will almost certainly be cost-saving to society.
虽然公共卫生官员和政策制定者普遍认为,注射器服务项目可以有效地减少注射毒品者中 HIV 的传播,但当地的注射器服务项目经常被要求为其活动提供经济上的理由。对于解决这个经济问题,估计预防一次 HIV 感染的成本的成本效益研究将是首选方法,但很少有当地的注射器服务项目拥有进行成本效益研究所需的数据、人员和流行病学建模资源。我们提出了一种估计可以预防的 HIV 感染数量的阈值的方法,超过这个阈值,该项目将对社会具有成本效益。当一项干预措施导致理想的健康结果(成本低于替代方案)时,它被认为是“具有成本效益的”。
利用关于注射器服务项目在控制注射毒品者中 HIV 传播方面的有效性的研究文献和“运作良好”的注射器服务项目指南,估计了成本效益阈值,即通过预防 HIV 感染而不是终身治疗 HIV,注射器服务项目变得具有成本效益。涉及三个步骤:(1)确定当地注射毒品者(PWID)人群中的 HIV 传播是否得到控制;(2)确定当地注射器服务项目是否运作良好;然后(3)将注射器服务项目的年度预算除以治疗单个 HIV 感染的终身成本。
在 HIV 传播得到控制(HIV 发病率为每 100 人年 1 例或更低)、运作良好(具有高注射器覆盖率、与其他服务的联系以及监测当地毒品使用情况)且年度预算为 50 万美元的地区,注射器服务项目每年仅需预防 3 例新的 HIV 感染即可具有成本效益。
鉴于治疗 HIV 感染的高昂成本,在根据良好实践(“运作良好”)运作的注射器服务项目以及在 HIV 传播得到控制的社区中,为社会提供成本效益几乎是肯定的。