Suchergebnisse
Filter
4 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
Cost‐effectiveness of screening for anal cancer using regular digital ano‐rectal examinations in men who have sex with men living with HIV
In: Journal of the International AIDS Society, Band 19, Heft 1
ISSN: 1758-2652
IntroductionAnal cancer in men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV is an important issue but there are no consistent guidelines for how to screen for this cancer. In settings where screening with anal cytology is unavailable, regular anal examinations have been proposed in some guidelines but their cost‐effectiveness is unknown.MethodsOur objective was to estimate the cost‐effectiveness of regular anal examinations to screen for anal cancer in HIV‐positive MSM living in Australia using a probabilistic Markov model. Data sources were based on the medical literature and a clinical trial of HIV‐positive MSM receiving an annual anal examination in Australia. The main outcome measures for calculating effectiveness were undiscounted and discounted (at 3%) lifetime costs, life years gained, quality‐adjusted life years (QALY) gained and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsBase‐case analysis estimated the average cost of screening for and management of anal cancer ranged from $195 for no screening to $1,915 for lifetime annual screening of men aged ≥ 50. Screening of men aged ≥ 50 generated ICERs of $29,760 per QALY gained (for screening every four years), $32,222 (every three years) and $45,484 (every two years). Uncertainty for ICERs was mostly influenced by the cost (financially and decrease in quality of life) from a false‐positive result, progression rate of anal cancer, specificity of the anal examination, the probability of detection outside a screening program and the discount rate.ConclusionsScreening for anal cancer by incorporating regular anal examinations into routine HIV care for MSM aged ≥ 50 is most likely to be cost‐effective by conventional standards. Given that anal pap smears are not widely available yet in many clinical settings, regular anal exams for MSM living with HIV to detect anal cancer earlier should be implemented.
Incorporating digital anorectal examinations for anal cancer screening into routine HIV care for men who have sex with men living with HIV: a prospective cohort study
In: Journal of the International AIDS Society, Band 21, Heft 12
ISSN: 1758-2652
AbstractIntroductionMen who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV have a high risk of anal cancer, which is often detected at late stages, when morbidity and mortality are high. The objective of this study was to describe the feasibility and challenges to incorporating regular digital anorectal examination (DARE) into routine HIV care for MSM living with HIV, from the perspective of patients, physicians and the health service.MethodsIn 2014, we recruited 327 MSM living with HIV, aged 35 and above from one major sexual health centre (n = 187), two high HIV caseload general practices (n = 118) and one tertiary hospital (n = 22) in Melbourne, Australia. Men were followed up for two years and DARE was recommended at baseline, year 1 and year 2. Data were collected regarding patient and physician experience, and health service use. An ordered logit model was used to assess the relationship between sociodemographic factors and the number of DAREs performed.ResultsMean age of men was 51 (SD ± 9) years, 69% were Australian born, 32% current smokers, and mean CD4 was 630 (SD ± 265) cells per mm3, with no significant differences between clinical sites. Overall, 232 (71%) men received all three DAREs, 71 (22%) received two DAREs, and 24 (7%) had one DARE. Adverse outcomes were rarely reported: anal pain (1.2% of total DAREs), bleeding (0.8%) and not feeling in control of their body during the examination (1.6%). Of 862 DAREs performed, 33 (3.8%) examinations resulted in a referral to a colorectal surgeon. One Stage 1 anal cancer was detected.ConclusionIncorporation of an early anal cancer detection programme into routine HIV clinical care for MSM living with HIV showed high patient acceptability, uncommon adverse outcomes and specialist referral patterns similar to other cancer screening programmes.