Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Prevention Interventions. In: Holtgrave DR, editor. Handbook of Economic Evaluation of HIV Prevention Programs. Boston: Springer US; 1998. pp. 33-43. [DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-1878-9_3]

Exploring the role of an unsanctioned, supervised peer driven injection facility in reducing HIV and hepatitis C infections in people that require assistance during injection

Background

Supervised consumption rooms or supervised injection facilities (SIFs) are venues that have reduced the risk of needle sharing and deaths caused by drug overdose among people who inject drugs (PWID). As a result of such a decline in the mortality rate, numerous studies have been able to illustrate its cost-effectiveness. However, studies have neglected to examine the same phenomena for unsanctioned SIFs that are run by peer drug users and provide assisted injections.

Methods

The current study will determine whether the former unsanctioned SIF, that provided assisted injection and was operated by the grass root organization called Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU), cost less than the health care consequences of not having such a program in Vancouver, Canada. By analyzing data gathered in 2013, this paper relies on two mathematical models to estimate the number of new HIV and HCV infections prevented by the former unsanctioned facility in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

Results

A conservative estimate indicates that the SIF location that provided assisted injections has a benefit-cost ratio of 33.1:1 due to its low operational cost. At the baseline sharing rate, the facility, on an average, reduced 81 HCV and 30 HIV cases among PWID each year. Such reductions in blood borne infections among PWID resulted in annual savings worth CAN$4.3 million dollars in health care expenditure. In addition to this, the current paper relies on a sensitivity analysis based on different needle sharing rate scenarios.

Conclusions

The sensitivity analysis and the baseline rates indicate that funding SIF facilities operated by peer drug users that facilitate assisted injection appear to be an efficient and effective use of financial resources in the public health domain since they lead to a significant decline in the rate of mortality within a vulnerable population.

A cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness analysis of proposed supervised injection facilities in Montreal, Canada

Background

This paper will determine whether expanding Insite (North America’s first and only supervised injection facility) to more locations in Canada such as Montreal, cost less than the health care consequences of not having such expanded programs for injection drug users.

Methods

By analyzing secondary data gathered in 2012, this paper relies on mathematical models to estimate the number of new HIV and Hepatitis C (HCV) infections prevented as a result of additional SIF locations in Montreal.

Results

With very conservative estimates, it is predicted that the addition of each supervised injection facility (up-to a maximum of three) in Montreal will on average prevent 11 cases of HIV and 65 cases of HCV each year. As a result, there is a net cost saving of CDN$0.686 million (HIV) and CDN$0.8 million (HCV) for each additional supervised injection site each year. This translates into a net average benefit-cost ratio of 1.21: 1 for both HIV and HCV.

Conclusions

Funding supervised injection facilities in Montreal appears to be an efficient and effective use of financial resources in the public health domain.

Adapting efficacious interventions: advancing translational research in HIV prevention

The Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) has infected approximately 1.5 million people in the United States. Type 1 translation research (basic research, methods development, and efficacy trials) has yielded multiple efficacious behavioral HIV prevention programs. Type 2 translation research (dissemination and effectiveness studies) has been less prevalent or successful. Adaptation of efficacious interventions for culturally diverse populations has received increasing researcher attention, and empirical validation of adaptation procedures promises to help bridge the gap between Type 1 and Type 2 studies. In this article, the authors briefly discuss the development, testing, and dissemination of efficacious HIV prevention programs and then focus on research-based principles and processes that can guide researchers'adaptation efforts and steps that researchers can take to help empower practitioners to conduct science-based adaptation. Greater collaboration between researchers and service providers to test adaptation frameworks promises to benefit both research and practice.

Probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis of HIV prevention. Comparing a Bayesian approach with traditional deterministic sensitivity analysis

In cost-effectiveness analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is used to measure economic efficiency of a new intervention, relative to an existing one. However, costs and effects are seldom known with certainty. Uncertainty arises from two main sources: uncertainty regarding correct values of intervention-related parameters and uncertainty associated with sampling variation. Recently, attention has focused on Bayesian techniques for quantifying uncertainty. We computed the Bayesian-based 95% credible interval estimates of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of several related HIV prevention interventions and compared these results with univariate sensitivity analyses. The conclusions were comparable, even though the probabilistic technique provided additional information.

When is an HIV infection prevented and when is it merely delayed?

HIV prevention programs are typically evaluated using behavioral outcomes. Mathematical models of HIV transmission can be used to translate these behavioral outcomes into estimates of the number of HIV infections averted. Usually, intervention effectiveness is evaluated over a brief assessment period and an infection is considered to be prevented if it does not occur during this period. This approach may overestimate intervention effectiveness if participants continue to engage in risk behaviors. Conversely, this strategy underestimates the true impact of interventions by assuming that behavioral changes persist only until the end of the intervention assessment period. In this article, the authors (a) suggest a simple framework for distinguishing between HIV infections that are truly prevented and those that are merely delayed, (b) illustrate how these outcomes can be estimated, (c) discuss strategies for extrapolating intervention effects beyond the assessment period, and (d) highlight the implications of these findings for HIV prevention decision making.