Sexually transmitted infections screening at HIV treatment centers for MSM can be cost-effective.

Autor:	Vriend HJ; aCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven bDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Center for Infection and Immunity Amsterdam (CINIMA), Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam cDepartment of Dermatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam dSTI Outpatient Clinic, Public Health Service of Amsterdam, Amsterdam eResearch Department, Cluster for Infectious Diseases, Public Health Service of Amsterdam, Amsterdam fInternal Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam gUnit of PharmacoEpidemiology and PharmacoEconomics, Department of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen hJulius Center, University Medical Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands., Lugnér AK, Xiridou M, Schim van der Loeff MF, Prins M, de Vries HJ, Geerlings SE, Prins JM, Rijnders BJ, van Veen MG, Fennema JS, Postma MJ, van der Sande MA
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	AIDS (London, England) [AIDS] 2013 Sep 10; Vol. 27 (14), pp. 2281-90.
DOI:	10.1097/QAD.0b013e32836281ee
Abstrakt:	Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of anorectal chlamydia screening among men who have sex with men (MSM) in care at HIV treatment centers. Design: Transmission model combined with economic analysis over a 20-year period. Setting and Participants: MSM in care at HIV treatment centers. Intervention: Once-yearly or twice-yearly screening for anorectal chlamydia among MSM in care at HIV treatment centers. Main Outcome Measures: Averted HIV and chlamydia infections; discounted quality-adjusted life-years and costs; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Costs will be saved by routine chlamydia screening of MSM in care at HIV treatment centers if these patients seek little or no screening elsewhere. Nonroutine screening is considerably more expensive than routine screening offered within a scheduled visit. Adding once-yearly chlamydia screening for MSM in care at HIV treatment centers is cost saving when 30% or fewer of those men seek once-yearly screening elsewhere (1.5 to 8.1 million euro saved). Twice-yearly routine screening at HIV treatment centers is cost-effective only when routine screening takes place without additional nonroutine screening (1.9 million euro saved). Conclusions: Adding annual chlamydia screening to the HIV consultation will be cost saving as long as only a limited proportion of men are nonroutinely screened. The ICER was most sensitive to the percentage of MSM that continue to be screened elsewhere.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu