Person:

Losina, Elena

Background: Indian guidelines recommend routine referral for HIV testing of all tuberculosis (TB) patients in the nine states with the highest HIV prevalence, and selective referral for testing elsewhere. We assessed the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of alternative HIV testing referral strategies among TB patients in India. Methods and Findings: We utilized a computer model of HIV and TB disease to project outcomes for patients with active TB in India. We compared life expectancy, cost, and cost-effectiveness for three HIV testing referral strategies: 1) selective referral for HIV testing of those with increased HIV risk, 2) routine referral of patients in the nine highest HIV prevalence states with selective referral elsewhere (current standard), and 3) routine referral of all patients for HIV testing. TB-related data were from the World Health Organization. HIV prevalence among TB patients was 9.0% in the highest prevalence states, 2.9% in the other states, and 4.9% overall. The selective referral strategy, beginning from age 33.50 years, had a projected discounted life expectancy of 16.88 years and a mean lifetime HIV/TB treatment cost of US$100. The current standard increased mean life expectancy to 16.90 years with additional per-person cost of US$10; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$650/year of life saved (YLS) compared to selective referral. Routine referral of all patients for HIV testing increased life expectancy to 16.91 years, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$730/YLS compared to the current standard. For HIV-infected patients cured of TB, receiving antiretroviral therapy increased survival from 4.71 to 13.87 years. Results were most sensitive to the HIV prevalence and the cost of second-line antiretroviral therapy. Conclusions: Referral of all patients with active TB in India for HIV testing will be both effective and cost-effective. While effective implementation of this strategy would require investment, routine, voluntary HIV testing of TB patients in India should be recommended.

Background: In France, roughly 40,000 HIV-infected persons are unaware of their HIV infection. Although previous studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of routine HIV screening in the United States, differences in both the epidemiology of infection and HIV testing behaviors warrant a setting-specific analysis for France. Methods/Principal Findings: We estimated the life expectancy (LE), cost and cost-effectiveness of alternative HIV screening strategies in the French general population and high-risk sub-populations using a computer model of HIV detection and treatment, coupled with French national clinical and economic data. We compared risk-factor-based HIV testing (“current practice”) to universal routine, voluntary HIV screening in adults aged 18–69. Screening frequencies ranged from once to annually. Input data included mean age (42 years), undiagnosed HIV prevalence (0.10%), annual HIV incidence (0.01%), test acceptance (79%), linkage to care (75%) and cost/test (€43). We performed sensitivity analyses on HIV prevalence and incidence, cost estimates, and the transmission benefits of ART. “Current practice” produced LEs of 242.82 quality-adjusted life months (QALM) among HIV-infected persons and 268.77 QALM in the general population. Adding a one-time HIV screen increased LE by 0.01 QALM in the general population and increased costs by €50/person, for a cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of €57,400 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). More frequent screening in the general population increased survival, costs and CERs. Among injection drug users (prevalence 6.17%; incidence 0.17%/year) and in French Guyana (prevalence 0.41%; incidence 0.35%/year), annual screening compared to every five years produced CERs of €51,200 and €46,500/QALY. Conclusions/Significance: One-time routine HIV screening in France improves survival compared to “current practice” and compares favorably to other screening interventions recommended in Western Europe. In higher-risk groups, more frequent screening is economically justifiable.

Background: Data from HIV treatment programs in resource-limited settings show extensive rates of loss to follow-up (LTFU) ranging from 5% to 40% within 6 mo of antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation. Our objective was to project the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent LTFU from HIV care in West Africa. Methods and Findings: We used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEPAC) International model to project the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of LTFU-prevention programs from a payer perspective. These programs include components such as eliminating ART co-payments, eliminating charges to patients for opportunistic infectionrelated drugs, improving personnel training, and providing meals and reimbursing for transportation for participants. The efficacies and costs of these interventions were extensively varied in sensitivity analyses. We used World Health Organization criteria of ,36 gross domestic product per capita (36 GDP per capita = US$2,823 for Coˆ te d’Ivoire) as a plausible threshold for ‘‘cost-effectiveness.’’ The main results are based on a reported 18% 1-y LTFU rate. With full retention in care, projected per-person discounted life expectancy starting from age 37 y was 144.7 mo (12.1 y). Survival losses from LTFU within 1 y of ART initiation ranged from 73.9 to 80.7 mo. The intervention costing US$22/person/year (e.g., eliminating ART co-payment) would be cost-effective with an efficacy of at least 12%. An intervention costing US$77/person/year (inclusive of all the components described above) would be cost-effective with an efficacy of at least 41%. Conclusions: Interventions that prevent LTFU in resource-limited settings would substantially improve survival and would be cost-effective by international criteria with efficacy of at least 12%–41%, depending on the cost of intervention, based on a reported 18% cumulative incidence of LTFU at 1 y after ART initiation. The commitment to start ART and treat HIV in these settings should include interventions to prevent LTFU.

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) and describe the resistance patterns in patients commencing antiretroviral therapy (ART) in an HIV clinic in Durban, South Africa. Design Cross-sectional cohort study. Methods Consecutive HIV-infected adults (≥18y/o) initiating HIV care were enrolled from May 2007–May 2008, regardless of signs or symptoms of active TB. Prior TB history and current TB treatment status were self-reported. Subjects expectorated sputum for culture (MGIT liquid and 7H11 solid medium). Positive cultures were tested for susceptibility to first- and second-line anti-tuberculous drugs. The prevalence of drug-resistant TB, stratified by prior TB history and current TB treatment status, was assessed. Results: 1,035 subjects had complete culture results. Median CD4 count was 92/µl (IQR 42–150/µl). 267 subjects (26%) reported a prior history of TB and 210 (20%) were receiving TB treatment at enrollment; 191 (18%) subjects had positive sputum cultures, among whom the estimated prevalence of resistance to any antituberculous drug was 7.4% (95% CI 4.0–12.4). Among those with prior TB, the prevalence of resistance was 15.4% (95% CI 5.9–30.5) compared to 5.2% (95% CI 2.1–8.9) among those with no prior TB. 5.1% (95% CI 2.4–9.5) had rifampin or rifampin plus INH resistance. Conclusions: The prevalence of TB resistance to at least one drug was 7.4% among adults with positive TB cultures initiating ART in Durban, South Africa, with 5.1% having rifampin or rifampin plus INH resistance. Improved tools for diagnosing TB and drug resistance are urgently needed in areas of high HIV/TB prevalence.

Objectives: Although youth (12–24 years) in Sub-Saharan Africa have a high HIV risk, many have poor access to HIV testing services and are unaware of their status. Our objective was to evaluate the proportion of adolescents (12–17 years) and young adults (18–24 years) who underwent HIV testing and the prevalence among those tested in an urban adult outpatient clinic with a routine HIV testing program in Durban, South Africa. Design: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of adolescent and young adult outpatient records between February 2008 and December 2009. Methods: We determined the number of unique outpatient visitors, HIV tests, and positive rapid tests among those tested. Results: During the study period, 956 adolescents registered in the outpatient clinic, of which 527 (55%) were female. Among adolescents, 260/527 (49%, 95% CI 45–54%) females underwent HIV testing compared to 129/429 (30%, 95% CI 26–35%) males (p<0.01). The HIV prevalence among the 389 (41%, 95% CI 38–44%) adolescents who underwent testing was 16% (95% CI 13–20%) and did not vary by gender (p = 0.99). During this period, there were 2,351 young adult registrations, and of these 1,492 (63%) were female. The proportion consenting for HIV testing was similar among females 980/1,492 (66%, 95% CI 63–68%) and males 543/859 (63%, 95% CI 60–66%, p = 0.25). Among the 1,523 (65%, 95% CI 63–67%) young adults who underwent testing, the HIV prevalence was 22% (95% CI 19–24%) in females versus 14% in males (95% CI 11–17%, p<0.01). Conclusions: Although the HIV prevalence is high among youth participating in an adult outpatient clinic routine HIV program, the uptake of testing is low, especially among 12–17 year old males. There is an urgent need to offer targeted, age-appropriate routine HIV testing to youth presenting to outpatient clinics in epidemic settings.

Background: Routine screening for HIV infection leads to early detection and treatment. We examined patient characteristics associated with repeated screening in a high prevalence country. Methods: We analyzed data from a cohort of 5,229 adults presenting for rapid HIV testing in the outpatient departments of 2 South African hospitals from November 2006 to August 2010. Patients were eligible if they were ≥18 years, reported no previous diagnosis with HIV infection, and not pregnant. Before testing, participants completed a questionnaire including gender, age, HIV testing history, health status, and knowledge about HIV and acquaintances with HIV. Enrollment HIV test results and CD4 counts were abstracted from the medical record. We present prevalence of HIV infection and median CD4 counts by HIV testing history (first-time vs. repeat). We estimated adjusted relative risks (ARR’s) for repeat testing by demographics, health status, and knowledge of HIV and others with HIV in a generalized linear model. Results: Of 4,877 participants with HIV test results available, 26% (N = 1258) were repeat testers. Repeat testers were less likely than first-time testers to be HIV-infected (34% vs. 54%, p<0.001). Median CD4 count was higher among repeat than first-time testers (201/uL vs. 147/uL, p<0.001). Among those HIV negative at enrollment (N = 2,499), repeat testing was more common among those with family or friends living with HIV (ARR 1.50, 95% CI: 1.33–1.68), women (ARR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.11–1.40), and those self-reporting very good health (ARR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.12–1.45). Conclusions: In this high prevalence setting, repeat testing was common among those undergoing HIV screening, and was associated with female sex, lower prevalence of HIV infection, and higher CD4 counts at diagnosis.

Background: Regimens for isoniazid-based preventive therapy (IPT) for tuberculosis (TB) in HIV-infected individuals have not been widely adopted given concerns regarding efficacy, adherence and drug resistance. Further, the cost-effectiveness of IPT has not been studied in India. Methods We used an HIV/TB model to project TB incidence, life expectancy, cost and incremental cost-effectiveness of six months of isoniazid plus ethambutol (6EH), thirty-six months of isoniazid (36H) and no IPT for HIV-infected patients in India. Model input parameters included a median CD4 count of 324 cells/mm(^3), and a rate ratio of developing TB of 0.35 for 6EH and 0.22 for 36H at three years as compared to no IPT. Results of 6EH and 36H were also compared to six months of isoniazid (6H), three months of isoniazid plus rifampin (3RH) and three months of isoniazid plus rifapentine (3RPTH). Results: Projected TB incidence decreased in the 6EH and 36H regimens by 51% and 62% respectively at three-year follow-up compared to no IPT. Without IPT, projected life expectancy was 136.1 months at a lifetime per person cost of $5,630. 6EH increased life expectancy by 0.8 months at an additional per person cost of $100 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1,490/year of life saved (YLS)). 36H further increased life expectancy by 0.2 months with an additional per person cost of $55 (ICER of $3,120/YLS). The projected clinical impact of 6EH was comparable to 6H and 3RH; however when compared to these other options, 6EH was no longer cost-effective given the high cost of ethambutol. Results were sensitive to baseline CD4 count and adherence. Conclusions: Three, six and thirty-six-month regimens of isoniazid-based therapy are effective in preventing TB. Three months of isoniazid plus rifampin and six-months of isoniazid are similarly cost-effective in India, and should be considered part of HIV care.

Background: Despite increases in HIV testing, only a fraction of people newly diagnosed with HIV infection enter the care system and initiate antiretroviral therapy (ART) in South Africa. We report on the design and initial enrollment of a randomized trial of a health system navigator intervention to improve linkage to HIV care and TB treatment completion in Durban, South Africa. Methods/Design We employed a multi-site randomized controlled trial design. Patients at 4 outpatient sites were enrolled prior to HIV testing. For all HIV-infected participants, routine TB screening with sputum for mycobacterial smear and culture were collected. HIV-infected participants were randomized to receive the health system navigator intervention or usual care. Participants in the navigator arm underwent a baseline interview using a strengths-based case management approach to assist in identifying barriers to entering care and devising solutions to best cope with perceived barriers. Over 4 months, participants in the navigator arm received scheduled phone and text messages. The primary outcome of the study is linkage and retention in care, assessed 9 months after enrollment. For ART-eligible participants without TB, the primary outcome is 3 months on ART as documented in the medical record; participants co-infected with TB are also eligible to meet the primary outcome of completion of 6 months of TB treatment, as documented by the TB clinic. Secondary outcomes include mortality, receipt of CD4 count and TB test results, and repeat CD4 counts for those not ART-eligible at baseline. We hypothesize that a health system navigator can help identify and positively affect modifiable patient factors, including self-efficacy and social support, that in turn can improve linkage to and retention in HIV and TB care. Discussion We are currently evaluating the clinical impact of a novel health system navigator intervention to promote entry to and retention in HIV and TB care for people newly diagnosed with HIV. The details of this study protocol will inform clinicians, investigators, and policy makers of strategies to best support HIV-infected patients in resource-limited settings. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov. unique identifier: NCT01188941.

Background: Point-of-care CD4 tests at HIV diagnosis could improve linkage to care in resource-limited settings. Our objective is to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of point-of-care CD4 tests compared to laboratory-based tests in Mozambique. Methods and Findings: We use a validated model of HIV testing, linkage, and treatment (CEPAC-International) to examine two strategies of immunological staging in Mozambique: (1) laboratory-based CD4 testing (LAB-CD4) and (2) point-of-care CD4 testing (POC-CD4). Model outcomes include 5-y survival, life expectancy, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Input parameters include linkage to care (LAB-CD4, 34%; POC-CD4, 61%), probability of correctly detecting antiretroviral therapy (ART) eligibility (sensitivity: LAB-CD4, 100%; POC-CD4, 90%) or ART ineligibility (specificity: LAB-CD4, 100%; POC-CD4, 85%), and test cost (LAB-CD4, US$10; POC-CD4, US$24). In sensitivity analyses, we vary POC-CD4-specific parameters, as well as cohort and setting parameters to reflect a range of scenarios in sub-Saharan Africa. We consider ICERs less than three times the per capita gross domestic product in Mozambique (US$570) to be cost-effective, and ICERs less than one times the per capita gross domestic product in Mozambique to be very cost-effective. Projected 5-y survival in HIV-infected persons with LAB-CD4 is 60.9% (95% CI, 60.9%–61.0%), increasing to 65.0% (95% CI, 64.9%–65.1%) with POC-CD4. Discounted life expectancy and per person lifetime costs with LAB-CD4 are 9.6 y (95% CI, 9.6–9.6 y) and US$2,440 (95% CI, US$2,440–US$2,450) and increase with POC-CD4 to 10.3 y (95% CI, 10.3–10.3 y) and US$2,800 (95% CI, US$2,790–US$2,800); the ICER of POC-CD4 compared to LAB-CD4 is US$500/year of life saved (YLS) (95% CI, US$480–US$520/YLS). POC-CD4 improves clinical outcomes and remains near the very cost-effective threshold in sensitivity analyses, even if point-of-care CD4 tests have lower sensitivity/specificity and higher cost than published values. In other resource-limited settings with fewer opportunities to access care, POC-CD4 has a greater impact on clinical outcomes and remains cost-effective compared to LAB-CD4. Limitations of the analysis include the uncertainty around input parameters, which is examined in sensitivity analyses. The potential added benefits due to decreased transmission are excluded; their inclusion would likely further increase the value of POC-CD4 compared to LAB-CD4. Conclusions: POC-CD4 at the time of HIV diagnosis could improve survival and be cost-effective compared to LAB-CD4 in Mozambique, if it improves linkage to care. POC-CD4 could have the greatest impact on mortality in settings where resources for HIV testing and linkage are most limited. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Background: We examined efficacy, toxicity, relapse, cost, and quality-of-life thresholds of hypothetical HIV cure interventions that would make them cost-effective compared to life-long antiretroviral therapy (ART). Methods: We used a computer simulation model to assess three HIV cure strategies: Gene Therapy, Chemotherapy, and Stem Cell Transplantation (SCT), each compared to ART. Efficacy and cost parameters were varied widely in sensitivity analysis. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life expectancy, lifetime cost, and cost-effectiveness in dollars/quality-adjusted life year ($/QALY) gained. Strategies were deemed cost-effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios <$100,000/QALY. Results: For patients on ART, discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy was 16.4 years and lifetime costs were $591,400. Gene Therapy was cost-effective with efficacy of 10%, relapse rate 0.5%/month, and cost $54,000. Chemotherapy was cost-effective with efficacy of 88%, relapse rate 0.5%/month, and cost $12,400/month for 24 months. At $150,000/procedure, SCT was cost-effective with efficacy of 79% and relapse rate 0.5%/month. Moderate efficacy increases and cost reductions made Gene Therapy cost-saving, but substantial efficacy/cost changes were needed to make Chemotherapy or SCT cost-saving. Conclusions: Depending on efficacy, relapse rate, and cost, cure strategies could be cost-effective compared to current ART and potentially cost-saving. These results may help provide performance targets for developing cure strategies for HIV.