Key result
CAD screening in HIV-positive men yields up to ~19 quality-adjusted life days per patient.
Why the study?
Is CAD screening with stress testing or CCTA cost-effective compared to no screening in HIV-positive men at intermediate or greater CAD risk?
Is CAD screening with stress testing or CCTA cost-effective compared to no screening in HIV-positive men at intermediate or greater CAD risk?
Screening HIV-positive men at intermediate or greater CAD risk with CCTA or stress testing is clinically beneficial and cost-effective at standard willingness-to-pay thresholds.
CAD screening may be cost-effective in at-risk HIV men; modeling leaves open real-world adoption pending prospective trials.
BACKGROUND: HIV-infected patients are at increased risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of cardiac screening for HIV-positive men at intermediate or greater CAD risk. DESIGN: We developed a lifetime microsimulation model of CAD incidence and progression in HIV-infected men. METHODS: Input parameters were derived from two HIV cohort studies and the literature. We compared no CAD screening with stress testing and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-based strategies. Patients with test results indicating 3-vessel/left main CAD underwent invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and received coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In the stress testing + medication and CCTA + medication strategies, patients with 1-2-vessel CAD results received lifetime medical treatment without further diagnostics whereas in the stress testing + intervention and CCTA + intervention strategies, patients with these results underwent ICA and received percutaneous coronary intervention. RESULTS: Compared to no screening, the stress testing + medication, stress testing + intervention, CCTA + medication, and CCTA + intervention strategies resulted in 14, 11, 19, and 14 quality-adjusted life days per patient and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 49,261, 57,817, 34,887 and 56,518 Euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively. Screening only at higher CAD risk thresholds was more cost-effective. Repeated screening was clinically beneficial compared to one-time screening, but only stress testing + medication every 5 years remained cost-effective. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 83,000 €/QALY (∼ 100,000 US$/QALY), implementing any CAD screening was cost-effective with a probability of 75-95%. CONCLUSIONS: Screening HIV-positive men for CAD would be clinically beneficial and comes at a cost-effectiveness ratio comparable to other accepted interventions in HIV care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nolte et al. (2013) studied Coronary artery disease in HIV-infected men. CAD screening (stress testing or CCTA) vs. No CAD screening was evaluated on Quality-adjusted life days and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. CAD screening strategies in HIV-positive men yielded 11 to 19 quality-adjusted life days per patient with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 34,887 to 57,817 Euros per QALY.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: