Person:

Mayer, Kenneth

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 expanding access to antiretroviral therapy (ART), most of the estimated 2.3 to 2.5 million HIV-infected individuals in India remain undiagnosed. The questions of whom to test for HIV and at what frequency remain unclear. Methods: We used a simulation model of HIV testing and treatment to examine alternative HIV screening strategies: 1) current practice, 2) one-time, 3) every five years, and 4) annually; and we applied these strategies to three population scenarios: 1) the general Indian population (“national population”), i.e. base case (HIV prevalence 0.29%; incidence 0.032/100 person-years [PY]); 2) high-prevalence districts (HIV prevalence 0.8%; incidence 0.088/100 PY), and 3) high-risk groups (HIV prevalence 5.0%; incidence 0.552/100 PY). Cohort characteristics reflected Indians reporting for HIV testing, with a median age of 35 years, 66% men, and a mean CD4 count of 305 cells/µl. The cost of a rapid HIV test was $3.33. Outcomes included life expectancy, HIV-related direct medical costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and secondary transmission benefits. The threshold for “cost-effective” was defined as 3x the annual per capita GDP of India ($3,900/year of life saved [YLS]), or for “very cost-effective” was <1x the annual per capita GDP ($1,300/YLS). Results: Compared to current practice, one-time screening was very cost-effective in the national population (ICER: $1,100/YLS), high-prevalence districts (ICER: $800/YLS), and high-risk groups (ICER: $800/YLS). Screening every five years in the national population (ICER: $1,900/YLS) and annual screening in high-prevalence districts (ICER: $1,900/YLS) and high-risk groups (ICER: $1,800/YLS) were also cost-effective. Results were most sensitive to costs of care and linkage-to-care. Conclusions: In India, voluntary HIV screening of the national population every five years offers substantial clinical benefit and is cost-effective. Annual screening is cost-effective among high-risk groups and in high-prevalence districts nationally. Routine HIV screening in India should be implemented.