Abstract
Typical studies of HIV behavioral interventions measure relative risk reduction for HIV transmission. Here, we also consider the health benefits of such interventions on secondary transmission. In addition, a sensitivity analysis explores the potential additional benefits that may accrue if partners of those in the intervention group also adopt the risk reducing behavior. To do this, we developed an ordinary differential equation (ODE) model to analyze the cost and utility (measured in quality-adjusted life years, or QALYs) of a published behavioral HIV intervention that aims to reduce the risk of transmission from HIV-infected persons to their sexual partners. The ODE model maps measurements of behavioral risk reduction parameters, estimated from sampling, into costs and QALYs. Monte Carlo sampling was used to perform a probabilistic sensitivity analysis to quantify uncertainty in costs and QALYs due to parameter estimation error for the behavioral HIV intervention. The results suggest that the behavioral intervention is most likely to be cost-saving or, at least, cost-effective. The analysis highlights the step of converting uncertainty about estimates of mean values of parameters that are commonly reported in the literature to uncertainty about the costs and health benefits of an intervention. It also shows the potential importance of considering secondary transmission of HIV and the partial adoption of behavior change by partners of the individuals who undergo the intervention.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
CDC (2010) Projecting possible future courses of the HIV epidemic in the United States. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us-epi-future-courses.htm. Accessed 13 Nov 2011
Janssen R, Onorato I, Valdiserri R et al. (2003) Advancing HIV prevention: new strategies for a changing epidemic—United States. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 52:329–332
Johnson B, Carey M, Chaudoir S et al. (2006) Sexual risk reduction for persons living with HIV: research synthesis of randomized controlled trials, 1993 to 2004. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 41:642–650
Herbst J, Sherba R, Crepaz N et al. (2005) A meta-analytic review of HIV behavioral interventions for reducing sexual risk behavior of men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 39:228–241
Lyles C, Kay L, Crepaz N et al. (2007) Best-evidence interventions: findings from a systematic review of HIV behavioral interventions for US populations at high risk, 2000–2004. Am J Public Health 97:133–143
Kalichman S, Rompa D, Cage M et al. (2001) Effectiveness of an intervention to reduce HIV transmission risks in HIV-positive people. Am J Prev Med 21:84–92
Soorapanth S, Chick SE (2010) Cost-utility analysis of behavioral interventions for HIV-infected persons to reduce HIV transmission in the USA. In: Johansson B, Jain S, Montoya-Torres J, Hugan J, Yücesan E (eds) Proc Winter Sim Conf. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp 2433–2443
Ekstrand ML, Coates TJ (1990) Maintenance of safer sexual behavior and predictors of risky sex: the San Francisco Men’s Health Study. Am J Public Health 80:973–977
Stall R, Ekstrand ML, Pollack L et al. (1990) Relapse from safer sex: the next challenge for AIDS prevention efforts. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 3:1181–1187
Adib SM, Joseph JG, Ostrow DG et al. (1991) Relapse in sexual behavior among homosexual men: a 2-year follow-up from the Chicago MACS/CCS. AIDS 5:757–760
Brandeau ML, Owens K (1994) When women return to risk: costs and benefits of HIV screening in the presence of relapse. In: Kaplan EH, Brandeau ML (eds) Modeling the AIDS epidemic: planning, policy and prediction. Raven, New York
Diekmann O, Heesterbeek JAP (2000) Mathematical epidemiology of infectious diseases: model building, analysis and interpretation. Wiley, Chichester, England
Brennan A, Chick SE, Davies R (2006) A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ 15:1295–1310
US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009) Consumer price index databases. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi_dr.htm. Accessed 6 Apr 2010
CDC (2001) Revised guidelines for HIV counseling, testing, and referral. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 50(RR19):1–58. www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5019a1.htm. Accessed 15 Nov 2011
European study group on heterosexual transmission of HIV (1992) Comparison of female to male and male to female transmission of HIV in 563 stable couples. BMJ 304(6830):809–813. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6830.809. PMC 1881672. PMID 1392708
Varghese B, Maher JE, Peterman TA et al. (2002) Reducing the risk of sexual HIV transmission: quantifying the per-act risk for HIV on the basis of choice of partner, sex act, and condom use. Sex Transm Dis 29(1):38–43. doi: 10.1097/00007435-200201000-00007. PMID 11773877
Boily MC, Baggaley RF, Wang L et al. (2009) Heterosexual risk of HIV-1 infection per sexual act: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Lancet Infect Dis 9(2):118–129. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70021-0. PMID 19179227
Sanders G, Bayoumi A, Sundaram V et al. (2005) Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med 352:570–585
National Center for Health Statistics (2009) Health, United States, 2008, With Cartbook, Hyattville, MD. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus08.pdf#026. Accessed 16 Sept 2009
Cohen D, Wu SY, Farley T (2004) Comparing the cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention interventions. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 37:1404–1414
Pinkerton S, Holtgrave D, DiFranceisco W et al. (2000) Cost-threshold analyses of the National AIDS demonstration research HIV prevention interventions. AIDS 14:1257–1268
Schackman B, Gebo K, Walensky R et al. (2006) The lifetime cost of current human immunodeficiency virus care in the United States. Med Care 44:990–997
Kelly J, Kalichman S (2002) Behavioral research in HIV/AIDS primary and secondary prevention: recent advances and future directions. J Consult Clin Psychol 70:626–639
Crepaz N, Lyles C, Wolitski R (2006) Do prevention interventions reduce HIV risk behaviours among people living with HIV? A meta-analytic review of controlled trials. AIDS 20:143–157
Wolitsky R, Gomez C, Parson J et al. (2005) Effects of a peer-led behavioral intervention to reduce HIV transmission and promote serostatus disclosure among HIV-seropositive gay and bisexual men. AIDS 19:S99–S109
Richardson J, Milam J, McCutchan A (2004) Effect of brief safer-sex counseling by medical providers to HIV-1 seropositive patients: a multi-clinic assessment. AIDS 18:1179–1186
Patterson T, Shaw W, Semple S (2003) Reducing the sexual risk behaviors of HIV + individuals: outcome of a randomized controlled trial. Ann Behav Med 25:137–145
Rotheram-Borus M, Swendeman D, Comulada W et al. (2004) Prevention for substance-using HIV-positive young people telephone and in-person delivery. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 37(Suppl 2):S68–S77
US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009) National occupational employment and wage estimates United States. http://www.bls.gov/oes/2009/may/oes_nat.htm. Accessed 25 Oct 2011
Garland W, Wohl A, Valencia R et al. (2007) The acceptability of a directly-administered antiretroviral therapy (DAART) intervention among patients in public HIV clinics in Los Angeles, California. AIDS Care 19:159–167
Tuli K, Sansom S, Purcell D et al. (2005) Economic evaluation of an HIV prevention intervention for seropositive injection drug users. J Public Health Manag Pract 11:508–515
Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C et al. (2005) Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 14(4):339–347
Owens DK (1998) Interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses. J Gen Intern Med 13(10):716–717
Grosse SD (2008) Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 8(2):165–178
Macroeconomics and health (2001) Investing in health for economic development. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (CMH) of the World Health Organization, S.J. D, Editor, World Health Organization, Geneva
Ng SH, Chick SE (2006) Reducing parameter uncertainty for stochastic systems. ACM TOMACS 15(1):26–51
Koopman J, Jacquez J, Welch G et al. (1997) The role of early HIV infection in the spread of HIV through populations. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 14:249–258
Vimalanand P, Farnham P, Hutchinson A et al. (2011) Cost-effectiveness of HIV screening in STD clinics, emergency departments, and inpatient units: a model-based analysis. PLoS One 6(5):e19936. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019936
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
The ODE for S(t) in (8.1) and the discounted cost and QALY equations in (8.4) and (8.5) drive the analysis. The term S(t) is readily solvable in closed form when the time-varying parameters are assumed to be piecewise constant on a sequence of intervals in (8.1). For the behavioral interventions that we modeled, we assumed that these parameters were indeed piecewise constant on intervals. In particular, the functional form of (8.1) for the studies that we analyzed is
where τ 0 = 0, τ 1 is the time of initiation of the behavioral intervention, τ 2 − τ 1 is the duration of the intervention, τ 3 is the time through which infections are counted for the purpose of the endpoint of the study, and τ 4 = ∞ allows S(t) to be defined for all t ≥ 0. We assumed that τ i  ≤ τ i + 1 for i = 0, 1, 2, 3, meaning that a i  = λ S (t) and b i = −[μ S (t) + γ(t) + β(t) + α S (t)] were constant for t in [τ i , τ i+1). The constants may differ depending on the intervention for each i.
The solution is straightforward by a quick change of variables for each interval [τ i , τ i+1). If we set T(t) = a i  + b i S(t), we obtain dT(t)/dt = b i T(t), which has solution T(t) = c i exp[b i t] for some constant c i . Solving for S(t) we get
The value of c i is determined by the preceding equation, which implies c i  = b i s i  + a i , and the initial condition S(τ 0) = s 0. We evaluate this first for i = 0 to obtain
This determines s i+1 = S(τ i+1) = s i exp[b i (τ i+1 − τ i )] − a i /b i (exp[b i (τ i+1 − τ i )] − 1), which we sequentially evaluate for i = 0, 1, 2, 3. Thus, a closed-form expression for S(t) is found by iterating over each time interval, with the parameters of the intervention set to constants in each interval. A similar analysis can be used obtain an iterated closed-form solution for the number of individuals infected up to a given time t.
This analysis was used to debug the spreadsheet code, which implements a forward Euler finite difference approximation to the ODE. The spreadsheet code additionally can be modified to have more flexibility than allowed by the piecewise linear assumption for the parameters.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Soorapanth, S., Chick, S.E. (2013). Assessing Prevention for Positives: Cost-Utility Assessment of Behavioral Interventions for Reducing HIV Transmission. In: Zaric, G. (eds) Operations Research and Health Care Policy. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 190. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6507-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6507-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6506-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6507-2
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)