Abstract
Objective: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the Edmonton Streetworks needle exchange program, in terms of the additional cost per HIV infection averted. The main outcome measures were needle use with and without Streetworks, HIV cases averted, and program costs.
Method: We conducted interviews and HIV saliva tests on a sample of street-involved intravenous drug users (IDU) who are regular Streetworks’ clients. Outcomes were used in a cost-effectiveness model.
Results: It is projected that the program has a cost-effectiveness of $9,500 (Canadian) per HIV infection delayed for one year.
Conclusions: The discounted cost per case averted is less than the cost of a case of AIDS. Continuing the program is a dominant strategy.
Résumé
Objectif: effectuer une analyse coût-efficacité du programme d’échange de seringues Edmonton Streetworks pour déterminer le coût supplémentaire pour chaque infection à VIH évitée. Les principales mesures des résultats ont été l’utilisation des seringues avec et sans Streetworks, les cas d’infection par le VIH évités, et les coûts du programme.
Méthode: on a mené des entrevues et réalisé des tests de dépistage du VIH dans la salive auprès d’un échantillon d’usagers de drogues injectables (UDI) de la rue qui sont des clients réguliers de Streetwork. Les résultats ont ensuite servis à un modèle d’analyse coût-efficacité.
Résultats: l’analyse coût-efficacité situe à 9 500 $ (CAN) le coût par cas d’infection à VIH différée d’un an.
Conclusions: le coût actualisé de chaque cas évité est inférieur au coût global d’un cas de sida. Le maintien du programme constitue une stratégie essentielle.
References
- 1.Streetworks Program. Report of evaluation consultation for the period October 1995 to June 1996. Edmonton: Streetworks Program; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Health Canada. Inventory of HIV Incidence/Prevalence Studies in Canada. Ottawa: Division of HIV Epidemiology Research, Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, Health Protection Branch, Health Canada; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Alberta Health. HIV Serological Testing–Alberta (January 1986 to 31 December, 1996) Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Health, Provincial AIDS Program; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Albert T, Williams G. The Economic Burden of HIV/AIDS in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Holtgrave DR, Quails NL, Graham JD. Economic evaluation of HIV prevention programs. Annu Rev Public Health. 1996;17:467–88. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pu.17.050196.002343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Gold M, Gafni A, Nelligan P, Millson P. Needle exchange programs: An economic evaluation of a local experience. Can Med Assoc J. 1997;157:255–62. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kahn JG T c-e o H p t H m m b f t b. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:1709–12. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.86.12.1709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kaplan EH. Needles that kill: Modeling human immunodeficiency virus transmission via shared drug injection equipment in shooting galleries. Rev Infect Dis. 1989;11:289–98. doi: 10.1093/clinids/11.2.289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kaplan EH, O’Keefe E. Let the needles do the talking! Evaluating the New Haven needle exchange. Interfaces. 1993;23:7–26. doi: 10.1287/inte.23.1.7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kaplan EH. Economic analysis of needle exchange. AIDS. 1995;9:1113–19. doi: 10.1097/00002030-199510000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Lurie P, Reingold A, Bowser B. The public health impact of needle exchange programs in the United States and abroad. Atlanda, Georgia: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1993. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Weinstein MC, Graham JD, Siegel JE, Fineberg HV. Cost-effectiveness analysis of AIDS prevention programs: Concepts, complications, and illustrations. In: Turner CF, Miller HG, Moses LE, editors. AIDS: Sexual Behavior and Intravenous Drug Use. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1989. pp. 471–99. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kerlinger F. Foundations of Behavioral Research. 3rd edition. New York: Holt, Reinhart, Winston; 1986. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Isaac S, Michael WN. Handbook in Research and Evaluation. 2nd edition. San Diego, CA: EdITS Publishers; 1981. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Wright-De Aguero LK, Gorsky RD, Seeman GM. Cost of outreach for HIV prevention among drug users and youth at risk. Drugs and Society. 1996;9:185–97. doi: 10.1300/J023v09n01_11. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Laufer FN, Chiarello LA. Application of cost effectiveness methodology to the consideration of needlestick prevention technology. Am J Infect Control. 1995;22:75–82. doi: 10.1016/0196-6553(94)90117-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Alcabes P, Friedland G. Injection drug use and human immunodeficiency virus infection. Clin Infect Dis. 1995;20:1467–79. doi: 10.1093/clinids/20.6.1467. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Friedland GH, Klein RS. Transmission of HIV. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1125–35. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198710293171806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Kaplan EH, Heiner R. HIV incidence among New Haven needle exchange participants: Updated estimates from syringe tracking and testing data. J Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 1995;10:175–76. doi: 10.1097/00042560-199510020-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Caslyn DA, Saxon AJ, Freeman G, Whittaker S. Needle-use practices among intravenous drug users in an area where needle purchase is legal. AIDS. 1991;5:187–93. doi: 10.1097/00002030-199102000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Harrell AV. Valuation of self-report: The research record. In: Rouse BA, Kozel NJ, Richards LG, editors. Self-report Methods of Estimating Drug Use: Meeting Current Challenges to Validity. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1985. pp. 12–21. [Google Scholar]