IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i6p789-821.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

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papers (score of 90 or higher), only 1 was cited in the guidelines, and 3 papers reported on interventions that were superseded by newer approaches.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

Suggested Citation

  • John Hornberger & Mark Holodniy & Katherine Robertus & Michael Winnike & Erin Gibson & Eric Verhulst, 2007. "A Systematic Review of Cost-Utility Analyses in HIV/AIDS: Implications for Public Policy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(6), pages 789-821, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:6:p:789-821
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07306112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07306112
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07306112?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth A. Freedberg & W. David Hardy & Robert S. Holzman & Anna N.A. Tosteson & Donald E. Craven, 1996. "Validating Literature-based Models with Direct Clinical Trial Results," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(1), pages 29-35, February.
    2. Tammy O. Tengs, 1996. "An evaluation of Oregon's Medicaid rationing algorithms," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(3), pages 171-181, May.
    3. Duggan Mark G & Evans William N, 2008. "Estimating the Impact of Medical Innovation: A Case Study of HIV Antiretroviral Treatments," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 1-39, January.
    4. Blumstein, James F., 1997. "The Oregon experiment: The role of cost-benefit analysis in the allocation of Medicaid funds," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 545-554, August.
    5. Joseph M. Mrus & Michael S. Yi & Mark H. Eckman & Joel Tsevat, 2002. "The Impact of Expected HIV Transmission Rates on the Effectiveness and Cost of Ruling Out HIV Infection in Infants," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1_suppl), pages 38-44, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daysal, N. Meltem & Trandafir, Mircea & van Ewijk, Reyn, 2019. "Low-risk isn’t no-risk: Perinatal treatments and the health of low-income newborns," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 55-67.
    2. Frank Lichtenberg, 2006. "The Effect of Using Newer Drugs on Admissions of Elderly Americans to Hospitals and Nursing Homes: State-level Evidence from 1997 to 2003," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 5-25, December.
    3. William N. Evans & Craig Garthwaite, 2012. "Estimating Heterogeneity in the Benefits of Medical Treatment Intensity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(3), pages 635-649, August.
    4. Benjamin D. Sommers, 2017. "State Medicaid Expansions and Mortality, Revisited: A Cost-Benefit Analysis," American Journal of Health Economics, MIT Press, vol. 3(3), pages 392-421, Summer.
    5. Margaret K. Kyle, 2019. "The Alignment of Innovation Policy and Social Welfare: Evidence from Pharmaceuticals," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 20, pages 95-123, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2006. "The Impact of Increased Utilization of HIV Drugs on Longevity and Medical Expenditures: An Assessment Based on Aggregate U.S. Time-Series Data," NBER Working Papers 12406, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Don Kenkel, 2006. "WTP- and QALY-Based Approaches to Valuing Health for Policy: Common Ground and Disputed Territory," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(3), pages 419-437, July.
    8. Amitabh Chandra & Jonathan S. Skinner, 2011. "Technology Growth and Expenditure Growth in Health Care," NBER Working Papers 16953, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Frank Lichtenberg, 2011. "The quality of medical care, behavioral risk factors, and longevity growth," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-34, March.
    10. Abdülkadi̇r Ci̇van & Bülent Köksal, 2010. "The effect of newer drugs on health spending: do they really increase the costs?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(5), pages 581-595, May.
    11. Douglas K. Owens, 2002. "Analytic Tools for Public Health Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1_suppl), pages 3-10, September.
    12. Rebecca M. Henderson & Richard G. Newell, 2011. "Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number hend09-1, March.
    13. Daysal, N. Meltem & Trandafir, Mircea & van Ewijk, Reyn, 2016. "Heterogeneous Effects of Medical Interventions on the Health of Low-Risk Newborns," IZA Discussion Papers 9810, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Pedro Pita Barros & Xavier Martínez-Giralt, 2009. "Technological adoption in health care," Working Papers 413, Barcelona School of Economics.
    15. Christopher J.L. Murray & David B. Evans & Arnab Acharya & Rob M.P.M. Baltussen, 2000. "Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 235-251, April.
    16. Rebecca M. Henderson & Richard G. Newell, 2011. "Introduction and Summary to "Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors"," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 1-23, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Dolan, Paul & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2005. "Health priorities and public preferences: the relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 703-714, July.
    18. Stephanie R. Earnshaw & Anke Richter & Stephen W. Sorensen & Thomas J. Hoerger & Katherine A. Hicks & Michael Engelgau & Ted Thompson & K. M. Venkat Narayan & David F. Williamson & Edward Gregg & Ping, 2002. "Optimal Allocation of Resources across Four Interventions for Type 2 Diabetes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1_suppl), pages 80-91, September.
    19. Onwujekwe, Obinna & Dike, Nkem & Chukwuka, Chinwe & Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Onyedum, Cajetan & Onoka, Chima & Ichoku, Hyacinth, 2009. "Examining catastrophic costs and benefit incidence of subsidized antiretroviral treatment (ART) programme in south-east Nigeria," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(2-3), pages 223-229, May.
    20. Williams, Iestyn P. & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and formulary decision making in England: Findings from research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(10), pages 2116-2129, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:6:p:789-821. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.