English, Article edition: Cost Effectiveness of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Postexposure Prophylaxis for Healthcare Workers Dewey C. Scheid; Robert M. Hamm; Kevin W. Stevens

User activity

Share to:
 
Bookmark: http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/118375
Physical Description
  • article
Language
  • English

Edition details

Title
  • Cost Effectiveness of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Postexposure Prophylaxis for Healthcare Workers
Author
  • Dewey C. Scheid
  • Robert M. Hamm
  • Kevin W. Stevens
Physical Description
  • article
Notes
  • Objective: The United States Public Health Service (USPHS) published recommendations for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of healthcare workers in May 1998. The aim of this study was to analyse the cost effectiveness of the USPHS PEP guidelines. Design and setting: This was a modelling study in the setting of the US healthcare system in 1998. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective; however, only HIV healthcare costs were considered and health-related losses of productivity were not included. Methods: A decision tree incorporating a Markov model was created for 4 PEP strategies: the current USPHS recommendations, triple drug therapy, zidovudine monotherapy or no prophylaxis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation was performed. Confidence intervals (CIs) around cost-effectiveness estimates were estimated by a bootstrapping method. Results: The costs (in 1997 US dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved by each strategy were as follows: monotherapy $US688 (95% CI: $US624 to $US750); USPHS recommendations $US5211 (95% CI: $US5126 to $US5293); and triple drug therapy $US8827 (95% CI: $US8715 to $US8940). The marginal cost per year of life saved was: USPHS recommendations $US81 987 (95% CI: $US80 437 to $US83 689); triple drug therapy $US970 451 (95% CI: $US924 786 to $US1 014 429). Sensitivity testing showed that estimates of the probability of seroconversion for each category of exposure were most influential, but did not change the order of strategies in the baseline analysis. With the prolonged HIV stage durations and increased costs associated with recent innovations in HIV therapy, the marginal cost effectiveness of the USPHS PEP strategy was decreased to $US62 497/​QALY saved. All 3 intervention strategies were cost effective compared with no postexposure prophylaxis. Conclusions: Current USPHS PEP recommendations are marginally cost effective compared with monotherapy, but the additional efficacy of triple drug therapy for all risk categories is rewarded by only a small reduction in HIV infections at great expense. For the foreseeable future, assuming innovations in therapy that employ expensive drug combinations earlier in the HIV disease course to extend life expectancy and the increasing prevalence of HIV drug resistance, our model supports the use of the USPHS PEP guidelines.
  • Antivirals, Cost effectiveness, Cost utility, HIV infections, Indinavir, Lamivudine, Pharmacoeconomics, Zidovudine
  • RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:18:y:2000:i:4:p:355-368
Language
  • English
Contributed by
OAIster

Get this edition

  • Set up My libraries

    How do I set up "My libraries"?

    In order to set up a list of libraries that you have access to, you must first login or sign up. Then set up a personal list of libraries from your profile page by clicking on your user name at the top right of any screen.

  • All (1)
  • Unknown (1)
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.
None of your libraries hold this item.

User activity


e.g. test cricket, Perth (WA), "Parkes, Henry"

Separate different tags with a comma. To include a comma in your tag, surround the tag with double quotes.

Be the first to add a tag for this edition

Be the first to add this to a list

Comments and reviews

What are comments? Add a comment

No user comments or reviews for this version

Add a comment