Abstract
BackgroundCryptococcal infection is a frequent cause of mortality in Cambodian HIV-infected patients with CD4+ count ≤100 cells/µl. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of three strategies for cryptococcosis prevention in HIV-infected patients.MethodsA Markov decision tree was used to compare the following strategies at the time of HIV diagnosis: no intervention, one time systematic serum cryptococcal antigen (CRAG) screening and treatment of positive patients, and systematic primary prophylaxis with fluconazole. The trajectory of a hypothetical cohort of HIV-infected patients with CD4+ count ≤100 cells/µl initiating care was simulated over a 1-year period (cotrimoxazole initiation at enrollment; antiretroviral therapy within 3 months). Natural history and cost data (US$ 2009) were from Cambodia. Efficacy data were from international literature.ResultsIn a population in which 81% of patients had a CD4+ count ≤50 cells/ µl and 19% a CD4+ count between 51–100 cells/µl, the proportion alive 1 year after enrolment was 61% (cost $ 472) with no intervention, 70% (cost $ 483) with screening, and 72% (cost $ 492) with prophylaxis. After one year of follow-up, the cost-effectiveness of screening vs. no intervention was US$ 180/life year gained (LYG). The cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis vs. screening was $ 511/LYG. The cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis vs. screening was estimated at $1538/LYG if the proportion of patients with CD4+ count ≤50 cells/µl decreased by 75%.ConclusionIn a high endemic area of cryptococcosis and HIV infection, serum CRAG screening and prophylaxis are two cost effective strategies to prevent AIDS associated cryptococcosis in patients with CD4+ count ≤100 cells/µl, at a short-term horizon, screening being more cost-effective but less effective than prophylaxis. Systematic primary prophylaxis may be preferred in patients with CD4+ below 50 cells/µl while systematic serum CRAG screening for early targeted treatment may be preferred in patients with CD4+ between 51–100 cells/µl.
Highlights
In industrialized countries, fluconazole prophylaxis is not costeffective to prevent primary systemic fungal infections in AIDS patients because of the low incidence of these infections [1,2,3]
The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of systematic primary prophylaxis with fluconazole (200 mg/day) or systematic serum cryptococcal antigen (CRAG) screening and targeted treatment of positive cases compared to no intervention in HIV-infected patients with CD4+ count #100 cells/ml in Cambodia
Compared to ‘‘no intervention’’ strategy, to prevent 1 death, 10.8 persons needed to undergo CRAG screening and treatment of positive cases, and 8.9 persons needed to be treated by fluconazole prophylaxis, respectively
Summary
Fluconazole prophylaxis is not costeffective to prevent primary systemic fungal infections in AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) patients because of the low incidence of these infections [1,2,3]. In four recent studies involving severely immunosuppressed patients with CD4+ count ,100 cells/ml initiating combination antiretroviral therapy (cART), the prevalence of positive serum cryptococcal antigen (CRAG) was 20.2% (57/282) in Cambodia in 2004, 13.0% (42/336) in South Africa from 2002 to 2005, 8.8% (26/ 295) in Uganda during 2004–2006 period, and 12.9% (11/85) in Thailand [11,12,13,14]. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of systematic primary prophylaxis with fluconazole (200 mg/day) or systematic serum CRAG screening and targeted treatment of positive cases compared to no intervention in HIV-infected patients with CD4+ count #100 cells/ml in Cambodia. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of three strategies for cryptococcosis prevention in HIV-infected patients
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.