 |
 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Summaries for Patients are a service provided by Annals to help patients better understand the complicated and often mystifying language of modern medicine.
SUMMARIES FOR PATIENTS
Expanded HIV Screening in the United States: Effect on Clinical Outcomes, HIV Transmission, and Costs
5 December 2006 | Volume 145 Issue 11 | Page I-30
Summaries for Patients are presented for informational purposes only. These summaries are not a substitute for advice from your own medical provider. If you have questions about this material, or need medical advice about your own health or situation, please contact your physician. The summaries may be reproduced for not-for-profit educational purposes only. Any other uses must be approved by the American College of Physicians.
The summary below is from the full report titled "Expanded HIV Screening in the United States: Effect on Clinical Outcomes, HIV Transmission, and Costs." It is in the 5 December 2006 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine (volume 145, pages 797-806). The authors are A.D. Paltiel, R.P. Walensky, B.R. Schackman, G.R. Seage III, L.M. Mercincavage, M.C. Weinstein, and K.A. Freedberg.
What is the problem and what is known about it so far?
Screening for HIV infection should identify HIV-infected persons who do not know that they are infected. Early detection is important because persons who know they have HIV can avoid doing things that put others at risk for becoming infected. Moreover, their doctors can monitor them for declining immune function and start antiviral treatment before trouble with infections occurs. Experts have long debated about who should receive HIV screening. Until recently, the most influential recommendation was to screen people who were at especially high risk for getting HIV infection.
Why did the researchers do this particular study?
To determine who should receive HIV screening. The researchers suspected that screening everyone would be valuable even when only a few people had unsuspected HIV infection.
Who was studied?
Simulated patient populations with low to moderate frequency of HIV infection. The patient samples included those seen in a typical primary care practice.
How was the study done?
The authors developed a mathematical model that simulated the events that occur in an HIV-infected person, including medical expenses, detection, treatment, transmitting the disease to other people, and death. The model calculated the additional costs because of screening and the additional length of life because of earlier detection. It also calculated the shortening of life as a result of becoming infected with HIV. With this information, the model can calculate the cost per extra year of life gained (cost-effectiveness) after screening. The researchers can then decide whether HIV screening provides good value by comparing its cost-effectiveness with the cost-effectiveness of other tests and treatments that doctors use routinely in daily practice.
What did the researchers find?
Screening for HIV is cost-effective even when the frequency of HIV infection is very low. In fact, screening is cost-effective for all adults, not just for those who are at extra high risk for HIV.
What were the limitations of the study?
A mathematical model is an imperfect substitute for real life and is only as good as the information used in it. Information was limited about some important things, such as the effect of HIV screening on the risk for transmitting HIV to a sexual partner.
What are the implications of the study?
The study supports the new recommendations to screen routinely for HIV infection in all adults in all health care settings. In fact, the people who developed the new recommendations used this study to help them decide what to recommend.
Related articles in Annals:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S P Tole, G D Sanders, A M Bayoumi, C M Galvin, T N Vinichenko, M L Brandeau, and D K Owens Cost-effectiveness of voluntary HIV screening in Russia Int J STD AIDS, January 1, 2009; 20(1): 46 - 51. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Qaseem, V. Snow, P. Shekelle, R. Hopkins Jr., D. K. Owens, and for the Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee Screening for HIV in Health Care Settings: A Guidance Statement From the American College of Physicians and HIV Medicine Association Ann Intern Med, November 30, 2008; (2008) 0000605-200901200-00300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. P. Walensky, C. Arbelaez, W. M. Reichmann, R. M. Walls, J. N. Katz, B. L. Block, M. Dooley, A. Hetland, S. Kimmel, J. D. Solomon, et al. Revising Expectations from Rapid HIV Tests in the Emergency Department Ann Intern Med, August 5, 2008; 149(3): 153 - 160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. D. Sanders, A. M. Bayoumi, M. Holodniy, and D. K. Owens Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Screening in Patients Older than 55 Years of Age Ann Intern Med, June 17, 2008; 148(12): 889 - 903. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. G. Jaar, R. Khatib, L. Plantinga, L. E. Boulware, and N. R. Powe Principles of Screening for Chronic Kidney Disease Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., March 1, 2008; 3(2): 601 - 609. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. K. Owens, V. Sundaram, L. C. Lazzeroni, L. R. Douglass, G. D. Sanders, K. Taylor, R. VanGroningen, V. M. Shadle, V. C. McWhorter, T. Agoncillo, et al. Prevalence of HIV Infection Among Inpatients and Outpatients in Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Systems: Implications for Screening Programs for HIV Am J Public Health, December 1, 2007; 97(12): 2173 - 2178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. A. Leibowitz and S. L. Taylor Distance to Public Test Sites and HIV Testing Med Care Res Rev, October 1, 2007; 64(5): 568 - 584. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. B. Krentz and M. J. Gill Impact of Expanded HIV Screening Ann Intern Med, July 17, 2007; 147(2): 146 - 146. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Lander Impact of Expanded HIV Screening Ann Intern Med, July 17, 2007; 147(2): 145 - 146. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M Hamill, K Burgoine, F Farrell, J Hemelaar, G Patel, D E Welchew, and H W Jaffe Time to move towards opt-out testing for HIV in the UK BMJ, June 30, 2007; 334(7608): 1352 - 1354. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Supports Expanded HIV Screening Journal Watch (General), January 16, 2007; 2007(116): 5 - 5. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Routine HIV screening can be cost effective BMJ, December 16, 2006; 333(7581): 1265 - 1265. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Cost-Effectiveness of Expanded HIV Testing Journal Watch Infectious Diseases, December 13, 2006; 2006(1213): 4 - 4. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Making HIV Testing Cost-Effective AIDS Clinical Care, December 11, 2006; 2006(1211): 1 - 1. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. M. Branson To Screen or Not to Screen: Is That Really the Question? Ann Intern Med, December 5, 2006; 145(11): 857 - 859. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
Read all Rapid Responses
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article
