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

John Hornberger, Mark Holodniy, Katherine Robertus, Michael Winnike, Erin Gibson and Eric Verhulst
Additional contact information
John Hornberger: 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@cedarecon.com
Mark Holodniy: 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: The SPHERE Institute/Acumen, LLC, Burlingame, California
Michael Winnike: The SPHERE Institute/Acumen, LLC, Burlingame, California
Erin Gibson: The SPHERE Institute/Acumen, LLC, Burlingame, California
Eric Verhulst: The SPHERE Institute/Acumen, LLC, Burlingame, California

Medical Decision Making, 2007, vol. 27, issue 6, 789-821

Abstract: 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papers (score of 90 or higher), only 1 was cited in the guidelines, and 3 papers reported on interventions that were superseded by newer approaches.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.

Keywords: Key words: HIV; economics; cost and cost analyses; cost-utility; public policy. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2007
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07306112 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:6:p:789-821

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07306112

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().