Publication:
Mobile HIV Screening in Cape Town, South Africa: Clinical Impact, Cost and Cost-Effectiveness

Thumbnail Image

Date

2014

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Public Library of Science
The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Bassett, I. V., D. Govindasamy, A. S. Erlwanger, E. P. Hyle, K. Kranzer, N. van Schaik, F. Noubary, et al. 2014. “Mobile HIV Screening in Cape Town, South Africa: Clinical Impact, Cost and Cost-Effectiveness.” PLoS ONE 9 (1): e85197. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085197.

Research Data

Abstract

Background: Mobile HIV screening may facilitate early HIV diagnosis. Our objective was to examine the cost-effectiveness of adding a mobile screening unit to current medical facility-based HIV testing in Cape Town, South Africa. Methods and Findings: We used the Cost Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications International (CEPAC-I) computer simulation model to evaluate two HIV screening strategies in Cape Town: 1) medical facility-based testing (the current standard of care) and 2) addition of a mobile HIV-testing unit intervention in the same community. Baseline input parameters were derived from a Cape Town-based mobile unit that tested 18,870 individuals over 2 years: prevalence of previously undiagnosed HIV (6.6%), mean CD4 count at diagnosis (males 423/µL, females 516/µL), CD4 count-dependent linkage to care rates (males 31%–58%, females 49%–58%), mobile unit intervention cost (includes acquisition, operation and HIV test costs, $29.30 per negative result and $31.30 per positive result). We conducted extensive sensitivity analyses to evaluate input uncertainty. Model outcomes included site of HIV diagnosis, life expectancy, medical costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention compared to medical facility-based testing. We considered the intervention to be “very cost-effective” when the ICER was less than South Africa's annual per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ($8,200 in 2012). We projected that, with medical facility-based testing, the discounted (undiscounted) HIV-infected population life expectancy was 132.2 (197.7) months; this increased to 140.7 (211.7) months with the addition of the mobile unit. The ICER for the mobile unit was $2,400/year of life saved (YLS). Results were most sensitive to the previously undiagnosed HIV prevalence, linkage to care rates, and frequency of HIV testing at medical facilities. Conclusion: The addition of mobile HIV screening to current testing programs can improve survival and be very cost-effective in South Africa and other resource-limited settings, and should be a priority.

Description

Keywords

Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, AIDS, Viral Diseases, HIV, HIV diagnosis and management, Non-Clinical Medicine, Health Economics, Cost Effectiveness, Public Health, Health Screening, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Economics, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By

Related Stories