Browsing by Author "Estill, Janne"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cost-effectiveness of different strategies to monitor adults on antiretroviral treatment : a combined analysis of three mathematical models
    (Elsevier, 2014-01) Keebler, Daniel; Revill, Paul; Braithwaite, Scott; Phillips, Andrew; Blaser, Nello; Borquez, Annick; Cambiano, Valentina; Ciaranello, Andrea; Estill, Janne; Gray, Richard; Hill, Andrew; Keiser, Olivia; Kessler, Jason; Menzies, Nicolas A.; Nucifora, Kimberly A.; Vizcaya, Luisa Salazar; Walker, Simon; Welte, Alex; Easterbrook, Philippa; Doherty, Meg; Hirnschall, Gottfried; Hallett, Timothy B.
    Background WHO's 2013 revisions to its Consolidated Guidelines on antiretroviral drugs recommend routine viral load monitoring, rather than clinical or immunological monitoring, as the preferred monitoring approach on the basis of clinical evidence. However, HIV programmes in resource-limited settings require guidance on the most cost-effective use of resources in view of other competing priorities such as expansion of antiretroviral therapy coverage. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of alternative patient monitoring strategies. Methods We evaluated a range of monitoring strategies, including clinical, CD4 cell count, and viral load monitoring, alone and together, at different frequencies and with different criteria for switching to second-line therapies. We used three independently constructed and validated models simultaneously. We estimated costs on the basis of resource use projected in the models and associated unit costs; we quantified impact as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. We compared alternatives using incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. Findings All models show that clinical monitoring delivers significant benefit compared with a hypothetical baseline scenario with no monitoring or switching. Regular CD4 cell count monitoring confers a benefit over clinical monitoring alone, at an incremental cost that makes it affordable in more settings than viral load monitoring, which is currently more expensive. Viral load monitoring without CD4 cell count every 6–12 months provides the greatest reductions in morbidity and mortality, but incurs a high cost per DALY averted, resulting in lost opportunities to generate health gains if implemented instead of increasing antiretroviral therapy coverage or expanding antiretroviral therapy eligibility. Interpretation The priority for HIV programmes should be to expand antiretroviral therapy coverage, firstly at CD4 cell count lower than 350 cells per μL, and then at a CD4 cell count lower than 500 cells per μL, using lower-cost clinical or CD4 monitoring. At current costs, viral load monitoring should be considered only after high antiretroviral therapy coverage has been achieved. Point-of-care technologies and other factors reducing costs might make viral load monitoring more affordable in future.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cost-per-diagnosis as a metric for monitoring cost-effectiveness of HIV testing programmes in low-income settings in southern Africa : health economic and modelling analysis
    (International AIDS Society, 2019) Phillips, Andrew N.; Cambiano, Valentina; Nakagawa, Fumiyo; Bansi-Matharu, Loveleen; Wilson, David; Jani, Ilesh; Apollo, Tsitsi; Sculpher, Mark; Hallett, Timothy; Kerr, Cliff; Van Oosterhout, J.; Eaton, Jeffrey W.; Estill, Janne; Williams, Brian; Doi, Naoko; Cowan, Frances; Keiser, Olivia; Ford, Deborah; Hatzold, Karin; Barnabas, Ruanne; Ayles, Helen; Meyer-Rath, Gesine; Nelson, Lisa; Johnson, Cheryl; Baggaley, Rachel; Fakoya, Ade; Jahn, Andreas; Revill, Paul
    Introduction: As prevalence of undiagnosed HIV declines, it is unclear whether testing programmes will be cost-effective. To guide their HIV testing programmes, countries require appropriate metrics that can be measured. The cost-per-diagnosis is potentially a useful metric. Methods: We simulated a series of setting-scenarios for adult HIV epidemics and ART programmes typical of settings in southern Africa using an individual-based model and projected forward from 2018 under two policies: (i) a minimum package of “core” testing (i.e. testing in pregnant women, for diagnosis of symptoms, in sex workers, and in men coming forward for circumcision) is conducted, and (ii) core-testing as above plus additional testing beyond this (“additionaltesting”), for which we specify different rates of testing and various degrees to which those with HIV are more likely to test than those without HIV. We also considered a plausible range of unit test costs. The aim was to assess the relationship between cost-per-diagnosis and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the additional-testing policy. The discount rate used in the base case was 3% per annum (costs in 2018 U.S. dollars). Results: There was a strong graded relationship between the cost-per-diagnosis and the ICER. Overall, the ICER was below $500 per-DALY-averted (the cost-effectiveness threshold used in primary analysis) so long as the cost-per-diagnosis was below $315. This threshold cost-per-diagnosis was similar according to epidemic and programmatic features including the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV, the HIV incidence and a measure of HIV programme quality (the proportion of HIV diagnosed people having a viral load <1000 copies/mL). However, restricting to women, additional-testing did not appear cost-effective even at a cost-per-diagnosis of below $50, while restricting to men additional-testing was cost-effective up to a cost-per-diagnosis of $585. The threshold cost per diagnosis for testing in men to be cost-effective fell to $256 when the cost-effectiveness threshold was $300 instead of $500, and to $81 when considering a discount rate of 10% per annum. Conclusions: For testing programmes in low-income settings in southern African there is an extremely strong relationship between the cost-per-diagnosis and the cost-per-DALY averted, indicating that the cost-per-diagnosis can be used to monitor the cost-effectiveness of testing programmes.