Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Monitoring Strategies in Resource-Limited Settings

Background: Although the number of infected people receiving highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART) in low- and middle- income countries increased dramatically, optimal disease management is not well defined.

Methods: We developed a model to compare the costs and benefits of three types of Human Immunodeficiency Virus monitoring strategies: symptom-based strategies, CD4-based strategies, and CD4 plus viral load strategies for starting, switching, and stopping HAART. We used clinical and cost data from southern Africa and performed a cost-effectiveness analysis. All assumptions were tested in sensitivity analyses.

Results: Compared to the symptom-based approaches, monitoring CD4 every 6 months and starting treatment at a threshold of 200 cells/μl was associated with a life expectancy gain of 6.5 months (61.9 vs. 68.4) and a discounted lifetime cost savings of $464 per person (4,069 vs. 3,605 discounted 2007 USD). CD4-based strategies where treatment was started at the higher threshold of 350 cells/μl provided an additional life expectancy gain of 5.3 months at a cost effectiveness of $107 per life-year gained compared to a threshold of 200 cells/μl. Monitoring viral load with CD4 was more expensive than monitoring CD4 alone, added 2.0 months of life, and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5,414/life-year gained relative to monitoring CD4 counts. In sensitivity analyses, the cost-savings from CD4 monitoring compared to symptom-based approaches was sensitive to cost of inpatient care, and the cost-effectiveness of viral load monitoring was influenced by the per-test costs and rates of virologic failure.

Conclusions: Use of CD4 monitoring and early HAART initiation in southern Africa provides large health benefits relative to symptom-based approaches for HAART management. In southern African countries with relatively high costs of hospitalization, CD4 monitoring would likely reduce total health care expenditures. The cost-effectiveness of viral load monitoring depends on test prices and rates of virologic failure.