This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hornberger, J. Articles by Verhulst, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hornberger, J. Articles by Verhulst, E. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

A Systematic Review of Cost-Utility Analyses in HIV/AIDS: Implications for Public Policy

The SPHERE Institute/Acumen, LLC, Burlingame, California, Department of Veterans Affairs, Palo Alto, California, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, jhornberger{at}cedarecon.com

Mark Holodniy, MD, FACP

AIDS Research Center, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California, Division of Infectious Diseases & Geographic Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, Veterans Health Administration, Public Health Strategic Health Care Group, Washington, DC

Katherine Robertus, MPH

The SPHERE Institute/Acumen, LLC, Burlingame, California

Michael Winnike, BA

The SPHERE Institute/Acumen, LLC, Burlingame, California

Erin Gibson, MA

The SPHERE Institute/Acumen, LLC, Burlingame, California

Eric Verhulst, BA

The SPHERE Institute/Acumen, LLC, Burlingame, California

Objectives . To determine whether gaps exist in published cost-utility analyses as measured by their coverage of topics addressed in current HIV guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Design. A systematic review of US-based cost-effectiveness analyses of HIV/AIDS prevention and management strategies, based on original, published research. Methods . Predefined criteria were used to identify all analyses pertaining to prevention and management of HIV/AIDS; information was collected on type of strategy, patient demographics, study perspective, quality of the study, effectiveness measures, costs, and cost-effectiveness ratios. Results . One hundred and six studies were identified; 62 described strategies for averting new HIV infections, and 44 dealt with managing persons who are HIV positive. The quality of studies was generally high, but gaps were found in all studies. Especially common were omissions in reporting data abstraction methodology and discussions of direction and magnitude of potential biases. Among the 22 most highly rated papers (score of 90 or higher), only 1 was cited in the guidelines, and 3 papers reported on interventions that were superseded by newer approaches. Using a $100,000 threshold, the guidelines usually endorsed interventions found to be cost-effective. Exceptions included recommending postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for populations in which PEP is unlikely to be cost-effective and not recommending primary resistance testing in treatment-naive persons, although the intervention was reported to have a cost-effectiveness ratio of less than $50,000. Conclusions . Despite an abundant literature on the cost-utility of HIV/AIDS-targeted strategies, guidelines cite relatively few of these papers, and gaps exist regarding assessments of some strategies and special populations.

Key Words: Key words: HIV • economics • cost and cost analyses • cost-utility • public policy.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?