Table 2.
Annual costs in international dollars ($Int),* infections averted, DALYs averted, and average cost effectiveness for various single interventions to control HIV/AIDS in Sear-D region, compared with no intervention†
| Intervention | Coverage level | Yearly costs ($Int, millions) | Yearly infections averted (millions)† | Average cost effectiveness ratio ($Int/infection averted) | Yearly DALYs averted (millions)† | Average cost effectiveness ratio ($Int/DALY averted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mass media | 100% | 33 | 0.11 | 309 | 1.8 | 18 |
| Peer education for sex workers | 50%
|
78
|
1.49
|
53
|
24.6
|
3
|
| 80%
|
115
|
2.20
|
52
|
36.1
|
3
|
|
| 95% | 133 | 2.49 | 53 | 40.9 | 3 | |
| Peer education and treatment of sexually transmitted infections for sex workers
|
50%
|
83
|
1.82
|
45
|
29.9
|
3
|
| 80%
|
122
|
2.57
|
47
|
42.1
|
3
|
|
| 95%
|
141
|
2.85
|
50
|
46.6
|
3
|
|
| School based education | 50%
|
174
|
0.01
|
13 326
|
0.2
|
790
|
| 80%
|
175
|
0.02
|
8544
|
0.3
|
506
|
|
| 95% | 176 | 0.02 | 7288 | 0.4 | 432 | |
| Voluntary counselling and testing | 95% | 207 | 0.32 | 642 | 5.2 | 40 |
| Prevention of mother to child transmission | ANC | 268 | 0.04 | 7191 | 0.9 | 310 |
| Treatment of sexually transmitted infections | Current | 177 | 0.34 | 522 | 5.6 | 32 |
| ANC
|
297
|
0.66
|
448
|
10.9
|
27
|
|
| 95% | 356 | 1.08 | 330 | 17.7 | 20 | |
| Antiretroviral therapy: | ||||||
| No intensive monitoring, first line drugs only | ANC | 550 | 0.03 | 18 884 | 1.0 | 542 |
| Intensive monitoring, first line drugs only | ANC | 588 | 0.03 | 21 788 | 1.0 | 570 |
| No intensive monitoring, first and second line drugs | ANC | 1671 | 0.03 | 56 718 | 1.3 | 1319 |
| Intensive monitoring, first and second line drugs | ANC | 1774 | 0.03 | 55 188 | 1.4 | 1280 |
ANC=antenatal care coverage level.
International dollars are a hypothetical unit of currency that has the same purchasing power that the US$ has in the United States at a given point in time. Details of this approach are discussed elsewhere.12
Intervention benefits are not comparable with current epidemiological estimates because results in this analysis are computed in relation to a “no intervention” comparator, which subtracts current levels of condom use, treatment of sexually transmitted infections, and antiretroviral treatment.