Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24763373›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Expanded HIV testing in low-prevalence, high-income countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis for the United Kingdom.

Elisa F Long, Roshni Mandalia, Sundhiya Mandalia, Sabina S Alistar, Eduard J Beck, Margaret L Brandeau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Evidence for optimal HIV screening and testing intervals in HIV-negative individuals from various risk groups: A systematic review.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2018
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Elisa F LongUCLA Anderson School of Management, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Roshni MandaliaCo-ordinating and Analytic Centre, National Prospective Monitoring System - HIV Health-economics Collaboration (NPMS-HHC CIC), London, United Kingdom.
Sundhiya MandaliaCo-ordinating and Analytic Centre, National Prospective Monitoring System - HIV Health-economics Collaboration (NPMS-HHC CIC), London, United Kingdom.
Sabina S AlistarDepartment of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Eduard J BeckCo-ordinating and Analytic Centre, National Prospective Monitoring System - HIV Health-economics Collaboration (NPMS-HHC CIC), London, United Kingdom; Health Services Research and Policy Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Margaret L BrandeauDepartment of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.

Funding

Making Better Decisions: Policy Modeling for AIDS and Drug AbuseR01DA015612 · NIDA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI OWENS, DOUGLAS K · 2002 to 2017
$9.4M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA015612NIDA NIH HHS R01-DA15612
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn many high-income countries with low HIV prevalence, significant numbers of persons living with HIV (PLHIV) remain undiagnosed. Identification of PLHIV via HIV testing offers timely access to lifesaving antiretroviral therapy (ART) and decreases HIV transmission. We estimated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HIV testing in the United Kingdom (UK), where 25% of PLHIV are estimated to be undiagnosed.

designWe developed a dynamic compartmental model to analyze strategies to expand HIV testing and treatment in the UK, with particular focus on men who have sex with men (MSM), people who inject drugs (PWID), and individuals from HIV-endemic countries.

methodsWe estimated HIV prevalence, incidence, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and health care costs over 10 years, and cost-effectiveness.

resultsAnnual HIV testing of all adults could avert 5% of new infections, even with no behavior change following HIV diagnosis because of earlier ART initiation, or up to 18% if risky behavior is halved. This strategy costs £67,000-£106,000/QALY gained. Providing annual testing only to MSM, PWID, and people from HIV-endemic countries, and one-time testing for all other adults, prevents 4-15% of infections, requires one-fourth as many tests to diagnose each PLHIV, and costs £17,500/QALY gained. Augmenting this program with increased ART access could add 145,000 QALYs to the population over 10 years, at £26,800/QALY gained.

conclusionsAnnual HIV testing of key populations in the UK is very cost-effective. Additional one-time testing of all other adults could identify the majority of undiagnosed PLHIV. These findings are potentially relevant to other low-prevalence, high-income countries.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnti-HIV AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisDeveloped CountriesFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHealth Care CostsHIV InfectionsHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPrevalenceQuality-Adjusted Life YearsAnti-HIV Agents

Identifiers

PMID24763373
PMCPMC3998955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.